conversion gun

upsellovoto

My gas company recently discontinued offering discount on conversion gun equipment (I want to convert from oil to gas). I just replaced my oil burner less than 2 years ago as my old oil burner had cracked in middle of the winter. I need advice as to what to do. It would be cheaper to replace the entire burner than to pay full price for the conversion gun. Could I sell my used oil burner and how would I do that? My other thought is to purchase a used conversion gun as cost for me is a factor. Please help. I can be reached at 617-301-2914.

upsellovoto

conversion gun

My gas company recently discontinued offering discount on conversion gun equipment (I want to convert from oil to gas). I just replaced my oil burner less than 2 years ago as my old oil burner had cracked in middle of the winter. I need advice as to what to do. It would be cheaper to replace the entire burner than to pay full price for the conversion gun. Could I sell my used oil burner and how would I do that? My other thought is to purchase a used conversion gun as cost for me is a factor. Please help.

Steamhead (in transit)

Have you

looked at the cost-per-BTU of gas vs. oil in your area? What you find may surprise you.........

Not sure where you're getting your pricing info, but I find it hard to believe that a completely new boiler could cost less than a conversion burner- especially when you figure in the labor involved. Maybe the gas company is essentially giving the boiler away to lock you into their network. Once that happens, you're helpless when they jack rates up again.

Where are you located? Have you tried the Find a Professional page of this site, under Resources at the top of the page?

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

Steve Whitbeck

That oil boiler will not be as efficient on nat gas then it was on oil.

I usually tell my customers to replace the entire boiler.
It will run better and be much more efficient.
OH and it will be quieter.

Steamhead (in transit)

If this boiler is that new

it will still be more efficient, with a conversion gas power burner, than an atmospheric gas boiler will ever be. The 6-7% better thermal efficiency is due to the wet-base construction (assuming the boiler is a wet-base type) offering more heat-transfer surface to the flame and reducing standby losses, and the power burner which can burn clean with less excess air.

Gas utilities love atmospheric boilers, for obvious reasons.

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

Unknown

Just about any conversion

of an oil boiler to gas will be more efficient than an atmospheric gas and also more efficient than the oil burner.

Sissy

nothing against gas, but how about cost per btu? isn't that real efficiency? no one is better at advertising than the gas utility company. it must be from all the extra revenues it's getting from 98% efficient equipment????
not to mention, i can't remember the last house heated by oil that blew up and killed its occupants. I wish i could say the same for gas.

Robert O'Brien

Tim

then why is the AFUE of every boiler OEM approved for either gas or oil lower on gas?

Steamhead (in transit)

AFUE is only part of the picture

Even if the AFUE ratings of two boilers was the same, if one needed less input to produce a similar output (better thermal efficiency) then that would be the better choice.

Atmospheric gas boilers get a break in the AFUE process because they assume that all the heat leaking out of the base is useful inside the building. The government hacks that came up with this boondoggle obviously never spent any time in the usual drafty basement.

Any heat that is produced but leaks out the base rather than going to the radiators is wasted.

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

Steve Garson_2

I converted my WM SGO-4 to gas last summer with a Carlin EZ-Gas when the price of oil was close to $4/gallon.

My real cost this past season was $2.21/equivalent oil gallons ($1.59/therm including transportation). Oil prices were an average of $2.19/gallon with Mass Energy in Boston, but $2.28 for the general Boston market.

So I really didn't save anything, especially when you factor in the gas piping and installation. But my boiler is still clean and I like the monthly payment plan that the gas company provides.

In retrospect, I should have stayed with oil. But if the price difference grows in favor of one or the other, I can switch burners. But with similar pricing, there will be no return on investment.

Unknown

GAS EXPLOSIONS

Im not going to get into the gas oil thing here but come on...Gas explosions? 98% of all home fires are caused by electric! Thousands of children die in these fires every year...including adults and pets. So few people ever die in a gas explosion its not worth mentioning. More children drown in 5 gallon buckets!Are you going to take the electric out of your house? Ban 5 gallon buckets?

Unknown

Basement heat

Changed out a gravity boiler in a city basement. Installed a modcon and the customer wanted mains insulated.. I told him that the heat from the mains wasnt lost because it was in the structure and kept the chill out and the first floor floor warm...nope he wanted them insulated. Basement got real cold and the wife refused to do the wash till she had some heat. Installed some used cast iron rads on seperate zone which she promply set at 72 degrees. There went the savings.

Steamhead (in transit)

If that basement

was as drafty as most, you could have just tightened it up and it probably would have been warm.

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

billtwocase

Steve

Budget payment plans can be had with oil companies also, atleast mine offers them. Makes for a predictable monthly exspense. As for gas conversion burners, the new ones are an improvement, but on an old coal conversion boiler that had oil, there's no way it will heat it as quickly as with oil, sorry. peace

Sissy

To me any person dying through no fault of their own is worth a mention. Also not to be a harper but what about carbon monoxide poisoning?

jimmac

hmm...

not to argue with you steamhead but when we test and set them up we are still testing the combustion effeciency. have not installed your beloved g-8 or second in command the intrepid but pound for pound the combustion effeciency on a peerless lets say ect-4 will be 84.7 on oil and the same boiler with a midco ec-200 at best working hard to achieve will be 80 or 81 percent tops on gas its not just the afues that tell the truth. Havent been able to get the mid 80's ever with good parameters on gas

TONY_22

without a doubt

If you have a gas furnace or really any gas appliance, you should have a co detector. It seems ridiculous that we must off times use double wall heat exchangers to protect the hot water supply( that we dont drink) But it is ok to depend on a single wall heat exchanger to protect the air you breath as you sleep. Few people buy them though, I include them with my furnace jobs. I prefer the nighthawk digital. The reason for this is the Gas utilities do not want to associate gas with danger. Also auto relights on gas ranges should be mandatory but they fight that to.

Steamhead (in transit)

The main difference

is what happens to the heat after it is produced. The wet-base/power burner combination saves fuel two ways:

1- The power burner burns clean with much less excess air, and

2- The wet-base captures more heat from the flame.

Next time you test an atmospheric, look at the excess air. You'll probably find it's at least 35%. With a power burner you can usually get down to at least 25%, sometimes 20% and still have some headroom that will keep you from making CO. The less excess air, the less heat going up the chimney.

Also feel around the base. You'll probably see it's pretty warm there, especially in front where the burners are mounted. That heat is not going to the radiators.

Finally, pay attention to Tim McElwain who also posted in this thread. Tim is the Granddaddy of Gas- he's converted more boilers than the rest of us put together.

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

jimmac

uh oh

as tims explanation has any oil boiler converted to gas would be more efficient than atmospheric gas boiler (not the argued point) any gas burner would be more efficent than oil?have trouble with that one though are you suggesting the 80% is better than the 84.7%?That oil run time to full satisfied would be lets 13 minutes+/- and with the gas 19 minutes +/-? Stays hotter longer sure. better than atmospheric for continued thermal effeciency sure. but if the boiler is new a great shape sure gas gun. OUt of the box with greater install cost,not so sure.Better for the increased electric use not sure .complaints of wow did not realize it would be louder then the oil burner not so sure.I do listen and pay attention to the customers as well.not meant to ruffle feathers but i was paying attention.payed closer attention when you said customer should do his homework to see if gas was actually cheaper?if anything it a lot less maintence intensive.I do it any way i am asked because not everyone will pay attention or extra.

Steve Garson_2

You're right about the sound level. I had no idea how much louder my gas gun would be versus the oil gun. The reduced maintenance cost offsets the lower effiency of the gas burner. In fact, when you factor the maintenance, I end up saving $$ with gas.

Steamhead (in transit)

Not necessarily

more efficient than the oil burner in the same boiler, but definitely more efficient than an atmospheric boiler of similar size. Plus, the wet-base unit gives you the option of switching fuels without buying a new boiler.

Here's a case in point, using manufacturers' published ratings: A certain popular atmospheric steamer has an Input of 112,500 BTU/hr, a DOE output of 90,000 and a Square Feet be setrating of 281. In this case the DOE is 80% of the Input rating.

The 3-section Smith G-8 steamer has an Input of 105,000, a DOE of 91,000 and a Net of 283 square feet. On this one, the DOE is 86% of the Input.

Which would you want in your basement in these days of rising energy costs?

Regarding noise and slower response with the gas burner: You did adjust it with a digital analyzer, right? What were the combustion test results?

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

jimmac

g-8

the g-8 has no listed afue with the carlin ez-gas the 86% afue listed is for the oil rating 8 series brochure

g-8 brochure states input mbh to be 105 no mention of the output rating in the g8 gas brochure.

digital analyzer sure testo 327

asked about your intrepid results 'bout a month ago and yours was still a 80%ish result.

speaking only about the small residential installs not the larger or duel fuel ones

Steamhead (in transit)

That job

had way too much draft in an old coal-designed chimney. They're going to get it re-lined and then we'll re-test it. But it still did better than the old atmospheric boiler.

Smith could do a lot better job of marketing G-8 boilers. But you'll notice, the lower BTU input on oil is the same as that specified with the EZ-Gas. The AFUE on gas is probably a point or two lower, but still better than atmospheric. We've never had a problem with one of these boilers not carrying the rated load.

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

jimmac

input is the same...

of course the input is the same it is not what you put in it is what you get out!!
I AM NOT SAYING ATMOSPHERIC GAS BOILERS ARE MAINTENCE FREE,but with the added maintence of the motor ,fan electrode and the additional electric use on a small residential gas burner and not to mention the exta upfront cost the your savings on the wet based might be thrown away!

"you gotta pay for efficency"

Steamhead (in transit)

\"it is not what you put in it is what you get out!!\"

That's right. And for a given input, a good wet-base/power burner will usually give more output than a comparable atmospheric. Even if the two boilers I mentioned earlier had the same AFUE rating- we'll use 82% as an example- 82% of 105,000 is 86,100, which is still less than 82% of 112,500 (92,250). The better thermal efficiency of the wet-base wins.

As for the additional components, given that today's atmospherics generally come with electric ignition, they already have electrodes, ignition modules that combine the ignitor and safety control, and many have draft inducer fans and motors. So there really aren't that many extra components on the power burner- they're just arranged and packaged differently, and they don't use any more electricity than a similarly equipped atmospheric. On the EZ-Gas, the motor is only 1/15th horsepower.

And if you can service an atmospheric or an oil burner, you can service one of these. It's really not that complicated, just a bit different. You already have the most important tool you need- your Testo. That sets you above many, many others.

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

jimmac

last post i promise but....

your input aren't the same more will get you more!
atmospheric e.i. with vent damper 100,000 in 82000 out 82 %
forced draft 100,000 in 82000 out 82 % on gas. oil fired forced 100,000 in 84,700 out 84.7 % . gas does not provide the same output in same boiler period.afue or combustion so if there is no more wear and tear on a power burner than say an atmospheric boiler ok ur right.was about converting a fairly new boiler to gas with a gun at what cost versus installing new atmospheric pinner.tough market out there plus all the hacks then to push the thermal efficency equation to spend more money is not here.good is good great is great be it what it may.have accounts with everthing inside them iam sure as do you have harder time convincing them to install needed upgrades forget that this is just a little better but it will cost that much more.
mod con will not use anymore electricity either? most owners with power gas guns actually complain of more gas usage for there buildings as opposed to very very similiar atmospheric sized eqipment same owner very close edr.go figure andcan let you speak to someone at the grid to back that up.yes the run times are controlled by panels with shut downs same owners some are sister buildings!!just actually do not see the savings in the field but i listen sometimes people don't hear.

Steamhead (in transit)

I got those numbers

from the manufacturers' publications.

Look again at the G-8 with Carlin EZ-Gas. Notice they don't fire the gas burners as aggressively as they can with oil. On oil they have a High rating and a Low rating. On gas, they only fire at the equivalent Low oil rating. If they tried to fire the gas burner at the higher level, the efficiency would likely drop.

If a power gas burner causes an increase in fuel consumption, something is wrong with the burner, the installation or both. I've seen big PowerFlame gas burners so far out of adjustment that they sooted up the boilers they were firing. This lack of proper setup is inexcusable.

The next time you hear something like this, you might do what I would do- ask for combustion test results. I bet their answer would be the classic deer-in-the-headlights gaze. Then take your Testo in there, and I bet you find the problem.

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

Unknown

I thought I would

bring this posting back for a little comment.

After years of installing conversion burners (over 3,500) since back in the 1960's. I have seen it all. What makes both the oil and gas power burners more efficient than atmospheric gas is that the power burners need less excess air. Excessive excess air reduces efficiency. So in all cases outside of Mod/Con gas equipment oil will be somewhat more over all efficient using conventional testing and burner setup as set forth by many experts in their labs and perhaps with some field testing.

It has been my experience that when looking at efficiency numbers including AFUE and others they are misleading. The real efficiency if we must talk that way is BTU in BTU out assuming of couse a properly sized and set up emitter system we will have high efficiency.

Let's talk about burner set up when we install a power gas conversion burner into a design oil system. No conversion should be done on anything older than 25 to 30 years old. The old coal and oil conversions are no longer worth fooling with. The refurbishing and in the case of coal dry base having to build a combustion chamber make them labor intensive. The oil boiler and chimney should be cleaned and a followup one year later to clean again as fly ash will be produced from the gas flue gases cleaning the residual oil left in the boiler sections and flue passages along with the chimney.

Way back in the 80's Fuel Oil News published a System Efficency report authored by Dr. Ulrich Bonne, Senior Research Fellow, Coporate Technology Center, Honeywell Inc.it reported that a Natural Gas Power Burner Spark Ignition was in the range of 85% efficient compared to a #2 Fuel Oil Power Burner Modern Unit which was around 72% to 75% efficient. This was based on weather in the Minneapolis, MN area.

I have been involved with hundreds of studies conducted by numerous different agencies over the years and in all cases Power Gas Conversion Burners installed in design oil boilers exceeded oil when compared using seasonal costs based on previous costs with oil or with gas depending on the conversion.

The design of the oil boiler lends itself to work very well with Power Burners in most cases. There are some exceptions.

Now we come to the important part which is the fine tuning of the gas conversion burner once it is installed. This I find is were installers fall short. I have gone out on hundreds of installations after the installer left and found the burner was not firing at maximum firing rate based on combustion analysis. Do not get me wrong they did the test the figures are hanging there for everyone to read on their tag left on the job. The basically took the orifice sent on the burner, or one in a package that came with the boiler, installed it and made a few air adjustments according the installation manual, found they had a good efficiency reading of anywhere from 75% to 80% and left. In many cases these burners are noisy.

The readings to support that are around 5% O2 with 9.5% CO2 a net stack around 400°(F) which gives a reading on instrument of around 80% with 25% excess air. I have taken that same burner/boiler set up and with adjustment to input pushed the burner/boiler to its maxixmum firing rate with adjustment to the regulator or in some cases redrilling the orifice.In some cases removed the draft hood and installed a double swing barometric.In addition sometimes having to resize the flue pipe on the boiler. This along with some tightening up of air leaks from sources not designed to allow air in for combustion and come up with the following: O2 2%, CO air free 50 PPM, net stack 350°(F)with about 10 to 15 % excess air. Now those are really the only figures I care about as all the rest with electronic analyzers are just mathematical/electronic calculations including the efficiency reading. But just to be fair the efficiency reading with those figures was 83%. Much more important than that in many cases was a reduction in overall cost to operate per heating season was in the the range of 10% to as high as 25% total savings. I will not argue in some of those cases other adjustments to the structure took place but in all cases without exception in my 50 years at this the cost to operate with gas was less than with oil.The burner when finally set up by the way was much quieter.

I would like to conclude this with saying that in some cases certain oil boilers should not be converted unless you can guarantee efficiency improvemets over 82%.

dan holmes_4

conversion burner

I have a G3B carlin gun long Island N Y $300.00 used for two hours.