system 2000

coalcracker

There are many that are torn out. Bells and whistles work nice....when they work.

radmix

I would like to here the pros and cons of some of you professionals about the system 200 boiler. I normally install Buderus for my oil boilers but the contractor involved in the project requested the system 2000.

Paul Fredricks_3

Oh boy

Way to open a can of worms. Try this thread:

http://forums.invision.net/Thread.cfm?CFApp=2&&Message_ID=342489&_#Message342489

lchmb

just curious

Coalcracker, just curious if you actually like anything??

Radmix, I've installed and serviced close to 50 of the system 2000. I have replaced 4 in the last few year's due to leaks (I do believe 3 of them were excess make up water issue's due to leaks). All were covered under warranty. I would recommend that you sign up for one of their courses as they will go over system set up and service. The system is incredibly quiet and efficient...

J.C.A._3

I'm glad....

I waited to say anything.

You also might want to check the Brookhaven National Labs site...and see what THEY said.

As long as you attain the necessary training...and get the system strategy down well...they are one of the best in the field effeciencywise. Chris

Scott Larabee

As one who used to dread working on the system 2000, I can tell you that they are a very reliable and efficient boiler! As others have said, you have to know the system to work on it. I used to dread them because I had no info. on the control. After getting the tech guide, which is provided just for the asking, it is no longer a mystery!

The few customers that I have with this boiler love it. Some of them have asked me if I can install the same boiler when the time comes to replace the present one. I have signed up as a dealer, but in every case I had to tell the customer that it didn't look like I would have the honor of replacing thier system for a good many years, because the unit was in like new condition!

Scott

Scott Larabee

Coalcracker,

Just to get my thinking straight here, just what do you consider "bells and whistles"? Outdoor reset? Cleancut pumps? Pre and post purge? 15 second saftey timing?

Scott

Robert O'Brien

It's

a much simpler control and easier to troubleshoot than any ODR.Every one I've installed has provided very substantial fuel savings in line with the claims.They topped the BNL/NORA study.I think Scott nailed it,people are uncomfortable with something they don't understand.I wasn't fond of Riello in 1985.

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

radmix

heat exchanger

the only thing that I that have seen that was a problem was how they generate hot water. I have never installed the boiler but have replaced 2 separate DHW heat exchangers. I have also seen an install where the primary pump, a secondary pump, the pump for the boiler side of the exchanger and the domestic side pump. "4" pumps had to run to generate hot water?

Howard Emerson

Our EK-1 after a year plus.........

Hi Radmix,
Rob O'Brien installed our EK-1 in Sept.2006 and we went from 1230 & 1228 gallons the prior 2 years to 790 gallons this past 12 month period.

We're very pleased with that, of course, especially given the current oil pricing situation.

The quietness is also a wonderful thing.

Robert came by at about the 1 year mark and met with our oil company repairman so that he could be shown the finer points of working on the unit.

Aside from the fact that our oil guy didn't carry the secondary oil filter cartridge and the correct nozzle size, he was okay with it.

It seems to me that water quality is a big consideration when it comes to the flat plate heat exchanger. If it's really mineral laden, it's going to be a problem down the line. I assume that can be addressed with the proper water filter application.

After all that's been said, pro and con, here and on other forums, it's very clear that John Marran followed his own path in developing this boiler.

While getting the estimate from Rob, the old boiler beneath us turned on a couple of times just keeping itself warm.........Now I see where a whole lot of our oil used to go........

I've come to understand that seasonal efficiency is ultimately the number that is important in deciding on a boiler. This is certainly what Brookhaven labs is focusing on now.

Just a consumer's opinion, of course, for what it's worth.

Best regards,
Howard

Dave_4

Radmix,

I can assure you of this. They have among the best vertical marketing schemes of any manufacturer on earth.

The product however, is far less efficient than similarly priced condensing oil boilers. With oil approaching $100 a barrel, I'd think twice before buying 20-year old technology - despite the fantastic job they do selling the under-performing product.

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

Dave_4

Curious,

Did they also pay for the labor to replace the four leakers?

Think about your comment. You state you have installed and serviced close to 50 S-2000; of which you also state you "only" replaced four of these.

Last time I did math, that suggests you have a total, unrepairable, failure rate of roughly one in every 12 units.

Hardly something I'd consider endearing.

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

lchmb

read it all

as I stated, 3 of those boiler's were in my opinion, leaking due to excessive make up water due to poor piping. I will not blame that on the system. Of those 3, 2 recieved some money to off set the cost of replacement. In the case of the 4th, it was rotted through and was replaced completely under warranty to include labor.
Do I think it's a perfect system, no. Does it save my customer's in every case I have installed one...Yes..and each and every one of those 4 requested I reinstall a system 2000.

I do also install a number of other system's Ken. I can find fault with each in one way or another. But I do have a wide selection for my customer's to choose from..

Darrell

The only real problem I have with the EK is that it seems that the local installers believe that it must be installed under the stairs, with a water tank in front of it, facing away from the poor service man. I swear that they actually study how to make it as inconvienient as possible to work on. Oh, and you have to pipe all the hot lines across the front so they burn my bald head! And the wiring must be spaghetti.

The owners do report good efficiency. Product knowledge and control strategy is important.

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

Dave_4

efficiency-wise, is a system 2000 better/worse/same than a high efficiency (86% afue) oil boiler w/ controls for ODR and boiler purge?

Robert O'Brien

I've

found the EK to yield about 7-10% greater results on average than a triple pass w/ODR.The controls I used on the CI boilers really didn't purge the boiler to ambient temp.You could use a low mass CI boiler,AQ2000 ODR and a BF or NX burner with outside air and I believe come very close to EK performance.The cost would also be very close and I'm not convinced you'd have a better system.

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

Norm Harvey

I would bet money that the S2k would beat out just about anything in gallons burned per year.

Alfred J. Kauth

17 yrs without a problem

I worked for a local oil dealer in the late 80's and have enjoyed the comforts of the first version EK-1 for the past 17 yrs.
Raised 3 girls and a lot of long showers have been generated by the bronze plate exchanger in this home.
Never a failure or a problem at all ever.......
The unit is direct vent and has always performed flawless.

Joe Brix

It all depends

When I priced one out, I was able to get my chimney lined, a stainless steel Phase III indirect, a Tekmar 260, and Riello BF5 on a Burnham LE for the same price. Having those higher end options were more important to me then S2K's claims and I wanted to stay in my planned budget.

Dave_4

Some confusion...

You seem to be justifying the S-2000 (or any boiler you choose for that matter) based on how much improvement in efficiency you witness.

This praise also comes from ANY replacement boiler chosen. You fail to note that, prefering to (as do all the other pro S-2000 posters here); as if it was the S-2000 that made the difference, not the mere fact that ANY replacement boiler would do much the same. Therein lies my ****!

The proper comparison should read more like this:

1) Knowing ANY boiler will improve efficiency - the question is not how much improvement did boiler X over the former one produce. But rather:

2) Of the possible choices in replacement boilers, how does replacement boiler "X" compare to replacement boiler "Y".

The S-2000 bandwagon cannot make those distinctions, because their product falls woefully short. The basic measure of all boilers is their AFUE. Oh sure, those who fare poorly in this standardized test method always suggest their boiler's efficiency with certain proprietary controls can exceed other higher AFUE rated units. However, were those same proprietary control strategies applied to the already-higher AFUE rated boilers, they would continue to maintain over 10% better fuel economy.

It is precisely because the S-2000 play the "falsified numbers game" that I find their self-praise so phony.

The fact that they (EK)donated an S-2000 to BNL (which I saw both times I was there) and that they test out well as shipped, modified and run in the lab; no one has bothered to send a competing and obviously superior efficiency boiler to BNL because they know BNL is NOT a boiler test facility per se; but rather a federally funded lab doing basic research on fuels, burners, and fundamental designs involing a few projects involving cutting edge technology.

They (BNL) never said they have compared the efficiency of the S-2000 against other similar and/or condensing boilers. The reason? They never have and that is NOT theior purpose or function. To take the data of one sample unit from BNL as testimony of superiority is akin to stating Bud is better than Pabst Blue Ribbon - when Guinness or Heineken was never even in the room.

All S-2000 "evidence" of superiority is anectdotal. This alone should have eyebrows raised. As written time and time again, those who post positively about the S-2000 are not independent contractors that chose the boiler over others. They are either customers, dealers and factory personell, hardly independent contractors or unbiased commenters. They have an agenda.

The agenda compromises credible comment.

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

Dave_4

Norm?

Put your $$$ where your mouth is.

I can provide documents from my oil company showing I live in northern VT; experience ~7,000 degree day-years and burn ~ 300 gallons a year which heats all my house, and provides all D/H/W for a family of 2.5 people for an entire year as well.

If you ever find a comparable economy with an S-2000 please let me know.

What's your degree day count and how much fuel did you burn during the last 12 months?

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

lchmb

ok

Ken, what system do you recommend? And since you mention your system, what is it?

btw, I use an American made boiler (no not the system 2000) heat a house in Central NH and provide domestic hot water for a family of 4. I do not have outdoor reset or any other bell's and whistle's and use 450 gallon's a year.

Just in case your curious, I do not own a company, I work for one. I am not employed by Energy Kinetics and do not recieve anything from them. I just offer their product when the customer request's.

Dave_4

Robert:

What is EK doing differently than a standard 3-pass w/ ODR to gain 7-10%? Is it all about mass? This isn't rocket science and EK has been around for years. Why isn't this standard across the board?

Robert O'Brien

jd

I just started using the AQ2000 ODR which has a max of 30 minutes of boiler purge,the controls I was using prior to that would only purge a few minutes.Not enough to eliminate standby loss.That along with the EK's use of outside air and low mass and no draft regulator would account for the difference.This is my opinion based on field observation but I believe this to be accurate.I just installed a B10-3 Biasi w/an AQ2000 and it purges the boiler to room temp in less than 10 minutes.That setup w/outside air would probably come closest to EK performance

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

Norm Harvey

Theres too many variables in your claim Ken
What temperature do you keep your house at, whats the heat loss, etc,...

I have a warm air system in my 800sq ft, 80 year old house and I burn approximately 400 gallons per year.


Regardless,.. we cant compare apples to oranges, and Since you ignore science and get lippy like miserable old man, and since you feel as though BNL is either incompetant, or in on the system 2000 conspiracy,...

You tell me what independent testing facility IS credible to you and when they come out with a credible study comparing system 2000 to other heating systems and if System 2000 is found to be out performed by your oil condensing boiler that youve had so many technical problems with that Ive seen you write about on firedragons sight, I'll gladly send you $100

Constantin

Hmm...

... Ken, not trying to be confrontational here but are you sure that BNL never compared the 2000 to other systems out there? I attended a meeting with some other Mass oil folk where Tom Butcher described the various projects he was working on, among them comparing the seasonal efficiency of various hydronic boiler systems.

He did compare the 2000 to many other systems, ranging from simple gas atmospherics to condensing oil boilers. On a seasonal basis, the 2000 beat out all of them, IIRC, even though its AFUE is lower than that of condensing boilers, etc. At the time, Tom was struggling with how to create a tool to explain seasonal boiler performance for homeowners and installers alike.

Tom did not identify the competitors to the 2000, nor is it clear to me how the seasonal variation was measured. However, there were at least six or seven different system types in his presentation that the 2000 was compared against. IIRC, the only thing left out of the competition was a condensing gas system.

Perhaps you can get in touch with Tom and see if he has since refined the research and/or presentation tool? Cheers!

Dave_4

Connie,

Cheers back atchya,

You state, "He did compare the 2000 to many other systems, ranging from simple gas atmospherics to condensing oil boilers." Not true. The two times I was there at BNL and the conversations I had with Yusef and Tom during our joint trip to ISH-Frankfurt suggested they wanted more donations and had little to compare anything to in the lab - inlcuding anything resembling a competitor to the very much "tweaked" S-2000.

You were there for one meeting weren't you? In the entire lab, how many boilers did you see? A few burner test chambers were setup, a few hybrids they created to test certain controlled fuel data experiements were there and a very small staff on an even smaller budget.

Test data generated by the S-2000 was compared only to what they have in the lab, not every boiler maker that would be on my short list of "much better designed and much better efficiency potential than the S-2000 could ever come close to.

I think you may be reading what the S-2000 crowd wants you to read, not what BNL is really about.

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

Dave_4

Norm,

You missed the point completely - again.

You're the one claiming such wonderful fuel savings based on the S-2000 installed in your home. Yet your refuse to acknowledge that whatever savings the S-2000 has provided are NOT from the S-2000, but rather how BAD the old system was.

My point is now and always has been, you could have done EVEN BETTER had you installed a better and more efficient boiler, D/H/W indirect and controls to match!

I will tell you about the testing facility that is independent - AND as scientific as it gets. That would be the D.O.E./GAMA They test each and every boiler made and sold in the U.S., determine the annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) and publish same twice a year. That data shows the S-2000 as about 10% less efficient than either oil or gas fired boilers that condense.

The S-2000 is "average" for non-condensing oil-fired boilers.

Don't suggest it is I who compares apples to oranges. It is you who have nothing to compare your S-2000 to - (other than the old broken pile of rust you once had) and can only report to us how wonderful the S-2000 is compared to the old beast you once had!

I know, you know, your claims of how wonderful the S-2000 is purely anectdotal, based on the hype you so gullibly bought into.

No one blames you for buying the S-2000. However, claiming to justify that choice by comparing old crap with a mediocre replacement is like saying MacDonald's is better tha White Castle - yet knowing a nearby pub that grills each burger to order and from fresh patties not frozen was around the corner.

If you think Mickey's is the best - compared to White Castle, you will love the S-2000 forever. My **** is, for the same money you could have gone first class - gotten a condensing unit with a 10% superior AFUE and saved a lot more.

The fact that the S-2000 boys didn't even let you see a 90+ AFUE certified boiler is troubling. You were never given a choice. You saw good and better.

Never "best."

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

Jim Hankinson

Ken

I guess you missed the point that it's been proven and accepted that AFUE is totally unreliable to determine the system efficiency of a combined heat and hot water boiler. Not every boiler replaced by a System 2000 is an old rusty piece of junk, some are only a few years old that are replaced purely to eliminate the noise factor. The homeowners are doubly pleased to find that their fuel consumption has dropped considerably.

When you suck on sour grapes long enough it tends to affect reason.

Constantin

Well,

Consider the possibility that between the time you spoke to Yusef and Tom and his presentation in Waltham that Tom did manage to score a couple of donations. I recall at least one representative of a low-temp-capable 3-pass cast iron boiler manufacturer acknowledging that they had supplied one entry.

This boiler came very close in its seasonal efficiency to that of the 2000, which was also not mentioned by name, IIRC. Then again, there are very few, "steel, low mass, oil-fired, non-condensing" boilers around, eh?

In my mind, there is no one boiler that is best for all applications. It's quite situational and the best choice for a customer is always going to be a function of the installer training and capability, available funds, the available fuels, the emitter system, the local maintenance network, etc., etc. In other words, there are far more factors than just seasonal efficiency to consider. So, while Toms work is definitely worthwhile, cracking the nut of "what is the best boiler for a particular customer?" remains a multi-dimensional problem.

A for Toms setup, in addition to the units you mentioned, I also saw a couple of microturbines, tweaked furnaces, and other paraphenalia that would fall into the "unusual" category. His lab may not be as well funded as the nuclear center next door but his teams research is reputable. So far, their research showed that a non-condensing oil boiler of a certain make could perform very well on a seasonal basis.

Since you seem to know which units the 2000 competed against, would you mind sharing that data? Tom hasn't disclosed all the units he used in his testing, AFAIK.

Unknown

I distinctly remember

seeing a Monitor FCX in the lab at the first BNL gathering .

They were , at that time , testing new types of oil burning technology ( 4 years ago ? ) .

Are you going on the assumption that since you didn't see many boilers in the lab , then not many boilers were tested ? Did Yusef and Tom tell you how many boilers they had to test when you had that conversation ?

Robert O'Brien

Ron

I saw it there in May 2006(Thanks,Constantin) with a quite fouled secondary heat exchanger

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

Unknown

Yes , it was

semi-disassmebled when we were there the first year they had the tour . Was that the unit they tested for the comparison paper they published ?

Jim Hankinson

BNL testing

To read the BNL report describing the test methods used and the equipment tested (no brand names mentioned) do a Yahoo search at www.bnl.gov./est/files/pdf/butcheraachenpaper.pdf

Read the report for yourself and decide if other equipment was used in the comparison. NORA and NYSERDA both endorse the study as another tool is trying to change the way heating systems are rated and also in the way governments determine eligibility for efficiency rebates

Dave_4

And of course...

You do have a better way to measure fuel efficiency?

The only people who complain about how innaccurate AFUE is are those who cannot come up with good numbers.

The added 10% one obtains when condensing, as opposed to the 10% you lose when not condensing is not a matter of testing methods. It is a fundamental principal of combustion physics. Either you condense or you don't.

No one suggests AFUE has many shortcomings. Nor does anyone suggest those who complain most, are those who cannot post the better number(s).

Virtually all who complain about AFUE methodology, also have no idea how the AFUE numbers testing is done. If you read the entire methodology, you will see how and why a 94% AFUE number is very superior to an 84% AFUE number - REGARDLESS of minor elements of variations that AFUE does not address.

For now, there is AFUE. Should some manufacturer sue the DOE for publishing unscientific measuring standards that unfarely make their product look "bad," I might be more sympathetic to your cause.

So far, not one lawyer has suggested the AFUE data is "doing harm" to any boiler manufacturer. Given the way lawyers are, this fact alone makes the notion of how unfare the AFUE numbers are moot.

I rest my case.(;-o)



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

Robert O'Brien

Ken

If AFUE is a valid yardstick,why is your Monitor so much more efficient than a 87% AFUE pin type boiler?Based on AFUE alone a Monitor should only use 9% less oil,when in fact it's 25% or more.Why does ODR work? AFUE says it doesn't matter.AFUE is fatally flawed and is not a reasonable way to compare performance.Unfortunately there's nothing else right now,but hopefully a fair and useful standard can be adopted someday.But until then I can only go on what my eyes tell me

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

Paul Fredricks_3

And what about a 60 year old, way under fired Smith? Great efficiency, but not really efficient.

Unknown

Here, here Paul,

that`s all we gotta do is cut the nozzle-down LOL!

Dave

Tony_23

BNL report

Argue with this. Not anecdotal evidence