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.
Indirects or Turbomax - Any Experiences?
Jed_2
Member Posts: 781
Give Pierre-Yves Cloutier a call? He can show you how the Turbomax works residentially. He told me these tanks have been in use in Canada for 40 years, and are just now needing to be replaced. I have spec'd a few of these tanks commercially, and the results are astounding. I am doing one now. I also am considering adding these tanks to inventory for residental application. I need to talk with Pierre more about that. He can show numbers that make sense. Cal him at 1-819-826-5613.
Jed
Jed
0
Comments
-
I have been reading a multitude of info regarding indirect hot water heaters installed in conjunction with oil fired boilers.
i have the same type of questions as to which indirects are good options but additionally, to add to the mix of products, i ran across a tank made by thermo 2000 called turbomax. it is suppose to be an indirect tank that works kind of like a tankless coil, only bigger. they claim better performance and faster recovery than indirect storage tanks while allowing the use of a smaller tank size.
i like the numbers and the rep i spoke to has a good technical background with real world calculations being done to figure out the correct application.
i wondered if anyone had any actual experience with these units and what their opinions might be. longevity is always something to consider but without first hand knowledge, it's hard to get info.
Additionally, i have gotten info on indirects such as peerless partner, phase 3, crown mega store and the superstor. all viable options.
thanks for any help.
Incidentally, i am looking to pair the tank with a new yorker boiler, circa 1980 which will no longer use the built in tankless coil.0 -
Exchange Rates & Surface Area
All of these types of devices are exchangers - to make hot water, we need energy (btu's) and surface area. The Turbomax has a large surface area for heat exchange due to the multiple coils. It's a great product provided ....... you have the btu's to support it.
If you have a large btu boiler(s), they're great. Small btu boilers - they don't perform so well when compared to a 40,50 gallon indirect.
Turbomax / Ergomax are basically the inverse of the typical indirect. They store no domestic water other than the water that is inside the coils. The hot water they generate is primarily a function of boiler btu's and the thermal mass of the boiler water stored in the tank. The more btu's you have, the higher the continuous/first hour ratings will be.
Look at the attachment ratings. A Turbomax 23, @110F, for a 100,000 net boiler( about where you are ), the continuous ratings, is 172gph. This works out to 2.87 gpm - basically a shower - not two hot water draws at once.
If you had a 200,000 net btu boiler, we are now providing twice as much heat energy, and the coils can absorb and transfer it. Now we have twice the hot water available - 344 gallons continuous. This works out to 344/60 = 5.73 gpm. Now we can handle two typical loads at once.
If we had a conventional indirect, say a 50 gallon, with that 100,000 btu boiler, producing the same 110F, we would have approximately 200gal of water in the first hour. The key difference is, with the 50 gallons stored, and the recovery of the indirect based on this boiler, we can take 5 - 6 gpm to feed 2 showers at once for 15 minutes or more - no problems. Not possible with the Turbo-Max using the same 100,000 btu net boiler. If we had a 200,000 btu net boiler - different story, we can get 5.76 gpm continuously (515gpm / 60min/hr) from the Turbomax 23.
As homes today require smaller boilers, the btu's available become smaller, making a turbomax a marginal decision in my mind as the source for DHW in the typical multi-bath home.
On the large jobs where there are big whirlpools, or showers with a forest rain head and/or body sprays - we will mate a turbomax to 1 or 2 120 gal storage tanks so the hot water is there when the customer tries to draw out 8,12,15 gpm or more of hot water. Look at the installation pic - the turbomax is in the corner.
Look at the continuous rating for the Turbomax 23 with a 300,000 net boiler. It produces a 542 gph continuous flow - the same as the Turbomax 24 and same as the Turbomax 44 costing hundreds more. As long as the exchange surface is large enough, they will essentially have the same performance data for a given btu input. I've actually had customers want to buy the larger units thinking they would get more hot water.
I've used the Turbomax unit in apartment complexes where there a large btu source available. I would not recommend it with a small residential boiler and the potential for multiple simultaneous draws.
Hope this helped.
Glenn0 -
glen, why are you comparing the turbomax continuous draw to the the indirect's draw over 15 minutes?
Don't forget the turbomax has basically the full volume of the tank as stored 180 degree water. That water has to draw down in temperature too before the tank is incapable of producing hot enough water at the outlet. Exactly how far, I'm not sure off the top of my head, but you're not comparing apples to apples in your post.
According to their ratings, the Turbomax 23 on a 100k boiler has 198 gallons first hour rating; almost exactly the first hour rating you attribute to the standard 50 gallon indirect.0 -
i have installed boiler water storage tanks in front of a 30 gal turbo max using a biasi b10-05 and good lord i couldnt run it out through a 6 gpm whirl. pool filler. when you install it in that way it beomes a beast.0 -
We disagree Glenn...
In your assesment, you state that the unit puts out 2.8 GPM. In my experience, that is adequate for two 1.5 GPM shower heads. And there are many 1.5 shower heads out there that put out an excellent spray.
My assumptions are 1.5 GPM max flow rate, 80% hot, hence an actual hot water demand factor of 2.4 GPM with two heads running.
I have paired Turbomax's with as low as 80K output boilers (mod cons) and had no issues at all.
The interesting thing is that if you want 130 degree F water, you keep the tank at 140 degrees F, and set a max boiler temperature during production at 150 degrees F.
This keeps the boiler at or near its condensing point, even during DHW production. This results in significant reductions of energy used for heating hot water.
Most people shy away from the Turbomax/Ergomax because of first cost, and consider it a "commercial grade" appliance. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only caution I would express is using it in areas with extremely hard water. Lime scale IS a real possibility, but that can be negated in most cases with a magnetic hydrodynamic water conditoner.
I am still waiting for an American manufacturer to step up to the podium and start making a reverse indirect. Who will be the first?
If you build it, they will come....
ME0 -
Disagreement is good
It brings out different ways/perspectives to view a given issue.
"Why are you comparing the turbomax continuous draw to the the indirect's draw over 15 minutes?" Because in my mind, this is typcially a lot closer representation to how hot water is typically consumed.
"Don't forget the turbomax has basically the full volume of the tank as stored 180 degree water." Yes, this is true, and why it does work with smaller boilers and smaller loads. It is basically acting as a big heat sink / thermal battery.
In my mind, people don't usually draw water steadily over the course of an hour, so comparing this type of number between units can be mis-leading, especially to the average consumer. They see something like 200 - 300 + gallons for first hour delivery and they think - I won't be using any where near that much water. So now they tell the plumber to put in a few body sprays, and run 3/4" lines to the whirlpool faucet so they can fill the tub faster.
Hot water is usually consumed in short time periods 10 - 15 minutes such as a shower, filling up the whirlpool, or two simultaneous showers. I still feel the conventional indirect storage tank is better suited for the larger intermittent draw.
Maybe I'm wrong on the flow rates. Can't say I've measured them, but I find it difficult to accept that the typical residential shower head is using less than 2 gpm and the homeowner is ok with it.
I know out in Denver, where you are Mark, water conservation is a real serious issue. My daughter went to school there. Lots of brown lawns. I believe she told me there were severe restrictions on watering lawns and washing cars.
Here in NY, I see with increasing frequency, body sprays and a rain forest head in new homes and bathroom remodeling. I don't see a Turbomax unit handling these types of scenarios with the smaller size boilers.
Keep in mind, you are keeping this tank heated to approx 180F 24 hours a day while the actual demand for hot water probably closer to an hour a day. Not an effective use of energy in my mind. Clearly, it's more efficient to keep the indirect tank at 120 -140 than to keep the Turbomax at 160 - 180, all other things equal.
It is my understanding, that the US is the one of the last places to have wide spread use of hot water storage tanks. That is changing. This is why the wall hung instantaneous heaters have become so popular. They reduce fuel consumption by only burning fuel to fill an actual demand. Instantaneous wall hung heaters will continue to grow while the hot water tank heater market will diminish.
Just to be clear, I wasn't knocking the Turbomax, just giving an opinion regarding constraints of application. I keep a few in stock, and use them on larger jobs regularly.0 -
great discussion...
so what about those who have used the turbomax in smaller BTU applications. does it seem viable? i agree that it seems that keeping a tank full of 180 degree water is more wastefull than keeping a tank at 140 degrees but the losses are rated fairly low on the turbomax as per the "literature".
i would really love to hear from direct experience on this in order to make an educated decision.
Just some general background... 133K/156K new yorker in a 2000 SF single family home. one bathroom with shower downstairs and one bathroom with tub/shower upstairs (not sure about the flow rates just yet). Also, clothes washer and a dishwasher.0 -
my point glenn is that the first hour draw for the other indirect was enough for you to calculate for it; but you didn't then use the first hour draw number on the turbomax, you instead used the continuous draw number.
If you use the same rating on each indirect, the first hour performance is quite similar. You should use the 15 minute draw scenario for each unit (very appropriate, of course), or use the continuous draw for each unit (appropriate if applicable as well), but you can't use the continuous draw for one tank vs the first hour rating on the other, because that is not a fair comparison, and that's what you did in your original post.
If you do the apples to apples comparison, you find there is no downside on the lower end of the scale for domestic production using the turbomax.
Standby losses is another issue, but they claim the same "less than 1/2 degree an hour" claimed by other indirects, which if they insulate better is absolutely achievable. I have no idea if they do or not, but it's a believable claim at least, even with a higher storage temp.
ME's note regarding variability of storage temps is very interesting as well.0 -
Mark laid it out pretty well
I thought. You can't do much better than a testimonial from him - just keep in perspective the conditions he cited. If your draws are really that low, than the Turbomax is certainly something to consider.
I'm a bit puzzled by his comment about lime scale though. The typical/conventional indirect always has new water entering the tank. As you draw hot water out, new fresh water comes in along with all its impurities. These impurities are typically drawn to the heated surface of the coil and will react with it, coating the surface and building up a scale, thus reducing it's performance over time.
The Turbo max works differently. The tank has the same boiler water in it all the time. The water inside is essentially cooked and chemically inert. No new water enters the system. The fresh water is brought into the inner coils. The coils are manifolded together, top and bottom. As the water enters, it is split into 3 or more narrower coil pathways. Once the water enters the narrow coil, it's velocity is increased substantially. The increased speed of the water helps to reduce the potential for scaling and build up inside the coil - the water is simply moving too fast.
In terms of longevity- I would give it to the Turbomax hands down because of this design. The issue you need to decide, how much water do you really need at a peak demand - or what I like to call a dump load.
Do you have a whirlpool? Are willing to wait 15 - 20 minutes to fill it, or, do you want to dump hot water into it as fast as it can come out of the faucet?
Do you have body sprays? If you intend to use them, I think you should definitely consider the indirect tank - probably a large one. It depends on how long you want to be in the shower. I myself love hot showers. I can stay in there 15 minutes or more - full blast.
In my home, I have a product once offered by Dunkirk called the Artesian. It was similar in concept to the Turbomax. I mated this to two 50 gallon storage tanks. I close one off most of the time. On holidays when I have family visiting and staying over, I would open the valves on the 2nd tank to provide more hot water for peak demands. I have a relatively small boiler, 105,000 net btuh.
Prospective water usage is the question you have to answer for yourself. At my work, when we are faced with this type of question, we explain the relationships between btu's, recovery rates and storage. We ask questions like I posted above and ask what is the largest water draw you anticipate over what period of time?
If we can't get a straight answer, we will propose 2 or 3 alternatives, with prices,- give the continuous draw number, and a the capacity of hot water available in minutes based on the highest expect flow demand. This way the onus is on the customer, not the plumber, not us.
You could have 15 people and 6 bathrooms in the house and it could work just fine with the boiler you have, and a Turbomax 23 .... as long as everyone took showers at different times and no more than 2 were taking a shower at once using flow rates like Mark mentioned above.
On the other hand, while the jacket losses are relatively low, do you want to burn the additional fuel to keep that tank close to 180F when you are probably going to draw from it a little more than 1 hr a day? Keep in mind, its not the jacket losses that will cost you - its the piping and flue losses. That tank has piping connected to it which are very good conductors of heat energy. Your mechanical room should be nice and toasty year round.
Lots of recent seminars, particularly those from John Seigenthaler, have given me a different perspective on piping design and energy consumption. I don't see the need, in a situation like yours, to heat the tank to 180, when you can spend less money, burn less fuel, and get the same results with a conventional indirect.
I'm not totally green, but the public is aware, and even on those large jobs, with body sprays and rain forest heads - most people don't want to expend any more energy than necessary to meet their demands - no matter how extravagant they may be.
Good luck with your decision.
Glenn0 -
but glenn (hehe, sorry man), Mark also laid out that you do not have to run the tank at 180.
I'm not sure where his numbers are coming from, but regardless; are you turning down your boiler, using your regular indirect, to less than 180 for domestic hot water production?
Most people don't. That part doesn't change with the turbomax; it's just a change in storage temp, IF you choose to run the tank at 180; and I have a boiler (that I hate) in my basement right now at 160-180 degrees 24/7. The pipes leaving that boiler aren't all that hot. I don't see why the tmax's pipes would be.
But... you don't even have to run it that hot if ME is to be believed, which is making me think;
Heat exchange efficiency is a function of exchanger area, right? and the turbomax is king there, as witnessed by its high demand performance.
Well... what would allow you to run the coolest possible boiler temperature for domestic production then?
I suspect it would be, the largest possible exchanger area. Right?
So you should be able to run the boiler cooler, using a turbomax, then by using any indirect with a smaller area heat exchanger.
I don't mean to harp on you, you make good points, but then you throw in something like "spend less money, burn less fuel, and get the same results" and I just have to argue... You might get comparable results, but it's just plain wrong to act like a regular indirect would be superior under any fair comparison. Good enough, perhaps! But not superior. Not under any circumstance.0 -
T
> my point glenn is that the first hour draw for
> the other indirect was enough for you to
> calculate for it; but you didn't then use the
> first hour draw number on the turbomax, you
> instead used the continuous draw number.
>
> If
> you use the same rating on each indirect, the
> first hour performance is quite similar. You
> should use the 15 minute draw scenario for each
> unit (very appropriate, of course), or use the
> continuous draw for each unit (appropriate if
> applicable as well), but you can't use the
> continuous draw for one tank vs the first hour
> rating on the other, because that is not a fair
> comparison, and that's what you did in your
> original post.
>
> If you do the apples to
> apples comparison, you find there is no downside
> on the lower end of the scale for domestic
> production using the turbomax.
>
> Standby losses
> is another issue, but they claim the same "less
> than 1/2 degree an hour" claimed by other
> indirects, which if they insulate better is
> absolutely achievable. I have no idea if they do
> or not, but it's a believable claim at least,
> even with a higher storage temp.
>
> ME's note
> regarding variability of storage temps is very
> interesting as well.
x0 -
s0 -
180 degree mindsets and side arms...
are a throw back to LARGE tanks with SMALL heat exchangers, which are still prevalant today. Hence, if it's considered a "side arm", then it MUST require 180 degree F water to make it work, right??? WRONG...
These are REVERSE indirects. Medium sized tanks with HUMONGUOUS surface area copper coils in them.
This ain't your grandpas side arm heater :-) And it shouldn't be run like your grandpas side arm heater. Per their spec's, they are 99% efficient. It's just a big ol' frickin' heat exchanger. Just like an Ever Hot, only bigger.
As for the lime scale issue, it raises its ugly head during short duration draws in hard water conditions.
Face it, most side arms, revese indirect or otherwise RARELY see max demand flow for any reasonable time period (apartment complex applications excluded).
It's under these conditions that the lime scale monster raises its head.
The only precaution I can think of, would be applying them to a non condensing boiler and running it at too low of a temperature. You MAY end up with a condensing, non condensing appliance:-) But it will be pretty obvious due to the red rust trail running from the combustion chamber to the floor drain...
ME0 -
Mark / Bob
I understand and agree they don't need 180F water to be efficient, but its maintaining temps like that or higher, that all the indirect manufacturers use to rate the recoveries of the their products.
So in my mind, if we did use a lower temp for supply /return /stored water, it will still work, but we would have even lower ratings.
The literature says "boiler water at 180F'. Aren't they assuming a constant 180F supply? Depending on flow rates, this isn't likely to happen with a small boiler right? Thats why I opt for having a sizable quantity of DHW water stored at a usable temp.0 -
Yes Glenn, you are correct...
and that comes from not having a Gold Standard by which to compare each others performance. Obviously, as Ken would say, It's driven by MARKETING, and not engineering.
A person can read between the lines, and can ask for performance at a lower operating temperature, and most manufacturers will oblige. They've tested them at lower temps. Delta T drives the BTUH exchange, and the better their equipment looks, the more they sell.
From what I understand, even the Federal Gubbernmint acknowledges and accepts 180 degrees F as the typical entering water temperature for an indirect. In reality, they should give performance for three different operating temperatures like 180, 160 and 140, all using the same entering cold water temperature with the same flow rates.
This way, the truth would be outed. Some manufacturers probably wouldn't like the results, but that's what its all about, right. RESULTS.
But, you already knew that :-)
What this country needs are more uniform standards for water heating equipment (indirects, reverse indirects, tank, tankless and solar) so the consumer can make a more informed decision. And I'm NOT the first person to mention that need.
ME0 -
Are you just relying on MFG reports "off the record" mark, or are you actually calculating heat transfer using coil surface area, conductivity, etc?
Having a nice, plug and play calculation based on coil square footage (or better, length and diameter) would make it easier and more dynamic.
0 -
not at all.
If the exchanger area can remove all the BTUs the boiler can generate at DHW production temps (110 to 120) with a lower delta-T across the exchanger BECAUSE OF THE EXCHANGER'S MUCH LARGER AREA... that is, with a lower boiler temp... supply temp becomes irrelevant as long as flow rate is adequate.
BTUs are BTUs. If you can get them all out, you're good to go. If you store them, you are good to go. Store them on whatever side of the coil you like; it makes no difference.
It's all about BTU production, flow, and exchanger area; period.0 -
Turbomax
Two points that should be looked at,
1) The continous draw is the benefit! With any domestic water sizing you need to know the quatity,time and temerature of your peak demand. If you use a conventional storage tank type product you only have 70 to 75% of useable volume and then you need down time to recover or you will draw cold water. The difference with Turbomax assuming you have designed properly after your peak you will be able to supply a true continious flow based on the BTU available.
An example is if you used a T-33 and used 40* incoming water,110* supply temp,125000 net BTU and a 10 minute peak you would receive 60 gals of water but after the the 10 minutes you can still draw over 3 gpm. The importance is someone can jump into the shower and still have hotwater.
2) Your concern about the "effective use of energy" is missing another point. Yes you are keeping a higher temperature in the Turbomax but it only loses about 1/2* per hour. What you are picking up especially in small water content boilers is the water in Turbomax but the thermal storage eliminates condensing in the boiler and a basic law of physics is it is easier to maintain energy than to bring it from a dead stop.0 -
The ErgoMax
is made in NJ.
Laars used to make a reverse indirect, but I guess Bradford White killed it off. Dunkirk had the Artian and dropped it.0 -
My Ergomax E44
is now about 5 or 6 years old. It is in series with the primary loop to add boiler content to two Biasi boilers, about 80K each net. It has 3 coils of 50 feet each in the tank for DHW (as per spec). I use a lot of HW in the shop and it also feeds our apartment in the same building. My wife uses a very large clawfoot tub and expects to be able to fill it quickly. I use showers and we have a dishwasher and clothes washer.
I do not buy the "1/2 degree per hour" spec. The insulation is thin and even though my piping is insulated, the Ergomax tank exterior is quite warm. The quality of assembly was not the best. If I were to do another one I would disassemble the jacket and add insulation after redoing the fittings and thermo-well so they do not leak inside the insulation.
It makes hot water. We have never managed to run out of HW with both boilers running. We can outpace one boiler. I can shower with the dishwasher running etc. I have set 145* as minimum temp for the primary loop which includes the E44. In the winter when the heat is on the min is still 145* but of course it will climb as needed because the incoming water is from an iced over lake and the radiators may need hotter water. I have not done any temps/flow measurements.0 -
Ergomax
Is your tank round, or square?0 -
Ergomax/Turbomax
The original Ergomax was manufactured by Thermal 2000 Inc. out of Canada, which is the manufacturer of Turbomax. All original Ergomax tanks were round.
The newer Ergomax is square, was or is manufactured in the U.S., by a different company. The Artian was the same as the square Ergomax.
The Turbomax unit is manufactured to the original specifications, which is why it performs the way it does.
0 -
It is
a round tank in a square box. I expect the thing to develop leaks where the metal is peeling layers. Thermo-well was leaking behind the insulation.0 -
Rob...
attached please find a cut sheet from HTP. At the bottom of the first chart you will see in print, Based on DOE test method based on 90 degree temperature rise, 50/140 with 180/200 degree boiler water.
At least there IS a test standard, they just need to lower it a WHOLE bunch to accomodate the ModCon crowds :-)
Or as my friend Richard, Der HeatMeister would say, "Us modcon snobs..."
ME0 -
Getting a bit heated - don't you think?
I stated an opinion - not a fact, I tried to support my logic, right or wrong. All I said was "I would not recommend a Turbomax with a small residential boiler and the potential for multiple simultaneous draws." I still stand by that comment.
I am not being critical of the Turbomax product. I use them regularly - just not on small btu boilers. The "Buderus Engineer" simply said his boiler was from the 1980's. He gave no indication of size or DHW loads. In my mind, a small residential boiler is one with an input under 100,000 btu's.
At what point/value do you say, this boiler is too small to use with a Turbomax and support 2 simultaneous showers? Would you say its ok to hook up to a WeilMcClain CGA 3 (70,000 btuh input)? How about a Burnham 203NC (62,000 btuh input)? What about a Dunkirk PVWB-2D (37,500 btuh input)?
It's ok to hook up to all of these boilers - you just may not be able to handle two DHW draws at one time for more than a few minutes. That was the point I was trying to illustrate. The outlet temperature is going to drop steadily as the energy stored in the tank is depleted.
How many btu's was his boiler? We don't know - clearly this would affect the recommendation any of us would make. I was simply trying to err on the side of caution and customer satisfaction. Ultimately, as you said Rob, it is a function of rise, exchange area and flow rates. In this discussion - we are somewhat blind.0 -
just to clarify, the oil fired new yorker is 133K/156K. The house is a 2000SF ranch with one shower in a downstairs bath and a tub/shower in the upstairs bath. There is a dishwasher and a washing machine. 2 zone baseboard heat (upstairs/downstairs.
These are the specifics and i am looking to be able to multitask as much as the BTU's from the boiler will allow so i was looking for some guidelines.
Thanks.0 -
Ergomax
Marc,
is the leaking experienced by Maine Doug covered under warranty? Also, would it be recommended to jacket the whole unit in insulation to further limit any heat losses?0 -
No square TURBOMAX
The round tank in a square box is not manufactured by Thermo 2000. It is not a TURBOMAX and not the same! Thermo 2000 is easily contacted. Piere's phone number has already been listed on a previous post. I can't say if ERGOMAX would handle the warranty.0 -
Ergomax is not the same as TURBOMAX
The round tank in a square box is not manufactured by Thermo 2000. It is not a TURBOMAX and not the same! Thermo 2000 is easily contacted. Piere's phone number has already been listed on a previous post. I can't say if ERGOMAX would handle the warranty. You would have to ask them about additional insulation.
0 -
Glenn, I'm not getting "heated" (har har, I like that!). As I said, you make some good statements as well. But then you threw in some stuff that wasn't accurate, and I called you on it, that's it. Having more exchanger area is never a detriment, and if you compare the turbomax with another tank of the same size, and use the same ratings to compare them, you will find the turbomax will equal or beat the the other tank in all equivalent circumstances in DHW production capabilities, and should be able to generate equivalent DHW production with a lower water temperature to boot.
Now, whether that's really needed in all circumstances, whether the value can be realized with any particular boiler, etc, those are all debatable, I'm not saying everyone should use turbomax.
I'm just calling you on some of the statements you made that were erroneous (such as saying a lower water temperature necessarily means a lower DHW production, which is not necessarily true if the tank is oversized for the boiler output) or not fair (such as comparing the turbomax continuous rating to another tanks' first hour rating).
All in the name of discussion and accuracy glenn. Take care and be well!0 -
I had already
contacted Ergomax. They recommended I paint the area with some magic paint. Nah. When this one leaks it will join the Carrier AC unit that lasted 2 summers and the fax machine that just received junk faxes. We take them out to the parking lot and beat the crap out of them. The Tekmar "dual" boiler control that has only one P1 output and short cycles the second boiler may join that pile also.
I call it a lesson learned and buy a product from another manufacturer.0 -
ergomax
Hi is there any restriction on using the tank as a buffer tank. I'm using a condensing boiler w/ max output of 150k btus. House has a mixed load of high temp coils and low temp radiant.
If I have a 150k btu load on a design day and the tank only has a 1" tapping, does this reduce the output that go be forced through the tank.
Should the full heating load of the house go through the buffer tank?
Should I only pipe the radiant off the buffer tank.
How would I pipe the primary secondary loops for this.
Any help would be appreciated. thanks, Mike0 -
new thread
mike you should start a new thread.
why do you want to use a buffer on design day?0 -
ergomax
0 -
ergomax
thanks, I posted a new thread. I didn't want to use the buffer on a design day. But how would you switch from one to the other.
I want to run the radiant off the buffer tank. 5 zones of radiant. approx 30k btus of radiant in the house.
thanks for the input,
Mike0 -
I don't
recall there was a question about what it is. And Ergomax suggested I put some magic paint on it.0 -
Buffer Tank Info
The buffer tank is important to reduce boiler cycling which reduces system efficiencies. With low mass boilers and low temp design (radiant) the boilers have many short cycles. The buffer tank allows you to warehouse hot water to be mixed especially for the low temp designs. When the boiler does turn on it runs for a longer time but than is off for a longer time. (this is one reason why the old time boilers had so much mass)In these applications when using TUROMAX it is recommended to replace the factory aquastat with one that can give you an adjustable differential. There is info available when tying in with the Buderus logomatic control.
As far as the best piping John Siegenthaler had a nice article in Plumbing Mechanical back in June 2002 that I like. It is better than a constant flow through the boiler because the boiler becomes a radiator allowing heat to gravitate up the chimney.0 -
with lots of turbomax's installed..where do i begin...
negatives first:
- dont think about using it where you have hard water the domestic side coils will calcify forthwith
- if you are not using continuous hot water turn the whole system off as its lousy for storage
- provide adequate expansion a turbomax 109, has 119 gallons of boiler water that is a lot more water than usual on the boiler side seen a plumber miss that one and blew the expansion tank
- provide adequate boiler flow seen lot of people screw that one too - needs apx 10gpm per shower
POSITIVE:
- I love them
i uses them in places where I have huge bursts of hot water use, and they are great have literally no competition, are better than anything, tankless and direct water heaters included based on hard experience (screw the numbers) especially if you run them off a bank of modcons the only thing which will compete is the Lochinvar Armor directs, since they are titanium/stainless alloy, they dont waste heat keeping copper warm like other directs and tankless are wasteful if you have a recalculating loop and are way way less reliable and storage is only better if you have time and space, am doing a solar home now with 470gal of well insulated storage, expect on bright winter day to give me two days of radiant heat and hot water, but how many people have the space for that
- you can stage the boiler flow you put two pumps in, one, that runs off the main aquastat driven relay, and one, that runs in parallel, with check valves of course, off a clamp on aquastat, on the outlet pipe set 20f lower than the main one, so that if you get a lot of draw the second pump kicks in and drives more boiler water through, this way you are not wasting btus or electricity on lighter loads
-you never run out, just like a tankless if you put 90gpm of 180f boiler water through a turbomax 109, you can run 9 full tilt showers FOR-EH-VER!!!! a Laars Pennant 1000 or a pair of KNIGHT500s do nicely and actually uses less gas than a bank of rinnais doing the same thing that one was supprising
-they have such good flow that they are a perfect fit for the flow rates required for low mass boiler and they heat up instantly like a tankless but without the cold sandwich effect problem
-Only had one failure up front shipped with a bad aquastat and good old Donald Rath from Rath Associates showed up the very same day with a replacement
I even put one into a private home with 14 bathrooms!!!
0 -
Rob I feel like were in the boxing ring -
and you like sparring.
You stated Having more exchanger area is never a detriment . In the interest of accuracy, I never said nor implied anything of the kind that I could see in my post. Not sure where/how you dug that one up.
You also said, If you compare the turbomax with another tank of the same size, and use the same ratings to compare them, you will find the turbomax will equal or beat the other tank in all equivalent circumstances in DHW production capabilities.
In my opinion, you are still failing to properly consider the two components that allow you to draw hot water from the Turbomax the boiler btu input and heat energy stored in the tank. I dont think your balancing these two factors against the typical indirect heater that already has hot water stored - waiting to be drawn.
What the Turbomax does do, as Mark Bruder points out, it lets you draw a large gpm flow PROVIDED you have the btus to pump into it. Note, in the numbers he cites, he uses 125,000 net btus. Substantially higher, around 50% more than my 100,000 btu input number. My point all along was, I dont think this is a good product choice where simultaneous draws are expected and it is mated to a small btu boiler. All of my comments herein are based on a low btu boiler 100,000 input btus or less.
Think about this Assume the 26 gallon Turbomax has 180 water in it, and the boiler doesnt fire. Assume we want a 3 gpm flow out of this unit at 115F. How many minutes of flow do we have? My math, about 11/2 minutes. How did I figure that, 26gal x 8.33lbs/gal x (Ts 180 Tf 120) = 129,948 btus. We would need 97,500btus to get the 3gpm (65f rise). This means the energy in the tank is good for just over a minute and a half. If I got that right, my high school physics teacher will be proud of me
If you agree with the above, then you also recognize that the boiler btus are the other key component determining usable flow rates. What if we have that WeilMcLain Cga-4 boiler 105,000 btu input. It has a DOE rating of 88,000btus. Lets assume all these btus are available for hot water production. In theory, the boiler has the energy to produce approx 2.7 gpm based a 65 rise. My point again, after the initial energy in the Turbomax tank is drawn down, a small boiler will produce a very marginal flow not enough in my mind, for two simultaneous DHW draws.
Now look at the indirect. What ever size it is weve got that water stored, ready to go, even if the boiler doesnt fire. Im sure youll agree theoretically, as long as the exchanger capacity is larger than the boiler btus, both tanks have the ability, to utilize all of that energy to make hot water. Whether it is a 40, 50, or 100 gallons doesnt matter right?
Your statement - and if you compare the Turbomax with another tank of the same size, and use the same ratings to compare them, you will find the Turbomax will equal or beat the other tank in all equivalent circumstances in DHW production capabilities. I dont think so. I just demonstrated that is not the case with a low btu boiler and a 40 gallon indirect with hot water already stored and available. Assuming we factor out the boiler btus, since that energy is theoretically equal, no matter which tank we use, Id rather have 40 gallons of 140F to draw down against than the heat energy released by dropping the temperature in the Turbomax by approx 60F. Before you start typing, I know you won't get all the 40 gallons as usable, as hot goes out, cold goes in, but would it be fair to say 30 gallons?
You stated, I'm just calling you on some of the statements you made that were erroneous (such as saying a lower water temperature necessarily means a lower DHW production, The ratings of every indirect device Ive ever seen support that. All things equal right? for any given exchange device, the hotter the water supplied, the higher the recovery/exchange rates. As the supplied water temperature drops, so does the capacity rating of the appliance.
One last point. I will assume, based on your statements, you were defending the Turbomax as being able to perform like the 40 gallon indirect when mated to a low btu boiler. If we agree that it is equal, wouldnt you also agree that more heat energy is consumed/expended firing the boiler to maintain 180 water in the Turbomax than if we maintained a 40 gallon indirect at say 130F 140F?
I go up to Boston area and Lenox MA several times each year. I even go to Viega every once in a while. Ill buy you a beer as long as you dont swing at me. Truly enjoy the banter. I think we both learn this way.
Glenn0 -
I do enjoy discussion, and I'm having fun here too glenn, no hard feelings I hope.
Say we have two indirects. Both 40 gallons. One, turbomax, one, normal. we want 110 degrees at the fixture.
Assume the turbomax can continue to produce hot water at above 110 at, say, 130 if you like. You have 40 gallons of water that have to lose 50 degrees before you are below your ability to produce. This is where the heat exchanger helps; you continue to produce as the tank temp drops, you don't need 180 just to raise the water temp.
Now I don't know if 130 is the break point, but I'm illustrating the concept.
Your standard IDFWH starts at 140, and when it crosses 110 it's now too cold. That's 40 gallons, but only a 30 degree drop.
You know heat capacity calculation; you had MORE stored BTUs in the turbomax tank. It was just on the other side of the coil; this isn't magic. They were right there waiting.
It's all about BTUs. I don't know why you'd rather have 40 gallons to draw down 30 degrees if you could have 40 gallons draw down 50 degrees and buy that much more time.
I think you're thinking in terms of gallons with the IDFWH and forgetting to compare BTUs. We don't have to say it's fair to call it 30 gallons or 40 or 20... calculate the BTUs. I know you'll see it's quite obvious that given the same volume of water, drawing down a larger temperature means more stored BTUs, right?
As for losing more energy maintaining and firing for a 180 tank, we've covered that;
1. YOu don't have to decide to maintain the tank at 180 if you don't want to: the larger exchange area means you could instead decide to run the boiler COOLER with a turbomax than you are with a normal indirect, where with the normal indirect there isn't much chance you're going to decide to do that. See ME's post. The temperature you have to run for the same transfer rate DROPS as your exchanger area rises.
2. Lower boiler temperature does not necessarily mean less domestic production. It CAN mean that, if you cross the threshold of boiler output. But if you can transfer the entire BTU output of the boiler at a lower temperature, then attempting to turn up the temperature only helps you store more heat, it doesn't help you TRANSFER more heat. Boiler temperature is only relevant as far as being able to make sure you are, in fact, transfering the entire output of the boiler.
Look at that again: IF.. IF.. you can transfer the whole output of the boiler into the tank by running 150 degree boiler water, then what happens when you turn the boiler up to 180? Nothing. This is why more exchanger area can help IF you want to run cooler boiler temps. You can do things that no regular indirect I know of can (but could, if they too had more coil area).
3. Finally I do not agree that the tank at 180 uses any more energy IF it is better insulated than the 140 tank. If insulation is equal then absolutely, I will agree that will raise standby loss. If you choose to keep the tank at 180 for that additional storage capacity instead of capitalizing on lower boiler temps.
Head, spinning... good times tho 0
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/90337b6432fbcac4f88df08c42f6cd53/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F110616375dcdc80ec0e8b167da7095d5_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 86.3K THE MAIN WALL
- 3.1K A-C, Heat Pumps & Refrigeration
- 53 Biomass
- 422 Carbon Monoxide Awareness
- 90 Chimneys & Flues
- 2K Domestic Hot Water
- 5.4K Gas Heating
- 100 Geothermal
- 156 Indoor-Air Quality
- 3.4K Oil Heating
- 63 Pipe Deterioration
- 916 Plumbing
- 6K Radiant Heating
- 381 Solar
- 14.9K Strictly Steam
- 3.3K Thermostats and Controls
- 54 Water Quality
- 41 Industry Classes
- 47 Job Opportunities
- 17 Recall Announcements