Why hot water and not steam?

hot_rod

Robert O'Brien said:

The choice isn't between steam or hot water, it's between air or hydronic. And that isn't even close.

On larger applications I see VRF as the thorn in the side of hydronics, mini splits on the smallest end of the load spectrum. Typical ducted sheetmetal boxes with heat pumps in the middle.

Time will tell if all that copper mini tube VRF will work and live as expected. The ability to heat and cool at the same time is a game changer in commercial applications.

Here is some VRF conversion handi-work at a recent hotel I stayed at.

My room had hydronic baseboard, very noisy, a PTAC, portable heat cool unit, and a partially completer VRF installation.

ChrisJ

hot rod said:

Robert O'Brien said:

The choice isn't between steam or hot water, it's between air or hydronic. And that isn't even close.

On larger applications I see VRF as the thorn in the side of hydronics, mini splits on the smallest end of the load spectrum. Typical ducted sheetmetal boxes with heat pumps in the middle.

Time will tell if all that copper mini tube VRF will work and live as expected. The ability to heat and cool at the same time is a game changer in commercial applications.

Here is some VRF conversion handi-work at a recent hotel I stayed at.

My room had hydronic baseboard, very noisy, a PTAC, portable heat cool unit, and a partially completer VRF installation.

Interesting that these system use phase change, just as steam does but no one is complaining about it in these applications.

My understanding is there's zero or close to zero loss when you change states, so why not?

Very awesome systems, I love the idea of cooling one space by heating another.

Steamhead

FranklinD said:

It's an interesting subject to me too. The area I live in, the western tip of Lake Superior, has very few residential steam systems. Sure, there are several steam plants for the universities, for downtown Duluth (but the company that just bought it is going to switch all the downtown buildings and the distribution system to hot water - they have "green" in their name), and so on. But no residential steam.



Take my block, for instance...the eastern side of the block, 6 houses, were all built between 1914 and 1916. They all have hot water heat, originally gravity. The two houses on the western side of the block were built in the early 50's and have originally installed forced air heat. That seems to be the norm around here, of the house had it originally, it still has it.



But as I said, no residential steam. I've checked every house in town that I've been able to (within reason), talked to a couple service guys I know, and no one has ever come across one.



Why is that? Why would it be prevalent elsewhere in the country, further east, but not around here? Could it be related to hot water being, as Dan said in his article, a Canadian import, and our proximity to the border?

May have been that the local contractors simply preferred hot-water.

The Baltimore area was about half steam and half hot-water. In many very old houses you can see the remains of the original gravity hot-air systems that obviously didn't work well, since the owners upgraded to steam or hot-water heat at some later time.

With regard to Vapor steam systems, we know that Trane had a very strong presence in Baltimore since we see a LOT of their systems. After that we find Hoffman and Webster, then Dunham, Illinois, Kriebel and others.

hot_rod

ChrisJ said:

hot rod said:

Robert O'Brien said:

The choice isn't between steam or hot water, it's between air or hydronic. And that isn't even close.

On larger applications I see VRF as the thorn in the side of hydronics, mini splits on the smallest end of the load spectrum. Typical ducted sheetmetal boxes with heat pumps in the middle.

Time will tell if all that copper mini tube VRF will work and live as expected. The ability to heat and cool at the same time is a game changer in commercial applications.

Here is some VRF conversion handi-work at a recent hotel I stayed at.

My room had hydronic baseboard, very noisy, a PTAC, portable heat cool unit, and a partially completer VRF installation.

Interesting that these system use phase change, just as steam does but no one is complaining about it in these applications.

My understanding is there's zero or close to zero loss when you change states, so why not?

Very awesome systems, I love the idea of cooling one space by heating another.

I don't think anyone is "complaining" about the concept, just trying to determine if the cost and energy required to phase change is worth it. We all have heard the explanation of the additional BTUs required to go from 212F to vaporize to steam. Examine if that additional energy required adds benefit or efficiency to the task at hand.

Personally I think the goal should be lowest possible temperatures and energy consumption to heat a space for example. I sat in on a Siggy and Bean seminar a few years back. Siggy suggested we design around a 120F max, Bean asked why not 100°F? Probably a metric based opinion.

Still some feel scratching rocks from the earth to burn, turn water to steam, spin a turbine to rotate a generator, then transfer electrical energy 100's of miles over copper to be consumed, make good economic sense??

Others feel silicone and glass on the rooftop over the loads is a better way to generate and use electrical energy. Less moving parts.

I'd add some wind, wave and if possible safer nuke power to the PV, to fill in the gaps. Leave the rocks in the ground to drive motorcycles and ATVs over Turn those coal rail spurs into recreational trails

ChrisJ

hot rod said:

ChrisJ said:

hot rod said:

Robert O'Brien said:

The choice isn't between steam or hot water, it's between air or hydronic. And that isn't even close.

On larger applications I see VRF as the thorn in the side of hydronics, mini splits on the smallest end of the load spectrum. Typical ducted sheetmetal boxes with heat pumps in the middle.

Time will tell if all that copper mini tube VRF will work and live as expected. The ability to heat and cool at the same time is a game changer in commercial applications.

Here is some VRF conversion handi-work at a recent hotel I stayed at.

My room had hydronic baseboard, very noisy, a PTAC, portable heat cool unit, and a partially completer VRF installation.

Interesting that these system use phase change, just as steam does but no one is complaining about it in these applications.

My understanding is there's zero or close to zero loss when you change states, so why not?

Very awesome systems, I love the idea of cooling one space by heating another.

I don't think anyone is "complaining" about the concept, just trying to determine if the cost and energy required to phase change is worth it. We all have heard the explanation of the additional BTUs required to go from 212F to vaporize to steam. Examine if that additional energy required adds benefit or efficiency to the task at hand.

Personally I think the goal should be lowest possible temperatures and energy consumption to heat a space for example. I sat in on a Siggy and Bean seminar a few years back. Siggy suggested we design around a 120F max, Bean asked why not 100°F? Probably a metric based opinion.

Still some feel scratching rocks from the earth to burn, turn water to steam, spin a turbine to rotate a generator, then transfer electrical energy 100's of miles over copper to be consumed, make good economic sense??

Others feel silicone and glass on the rooftop over the loads is a better way to generate and use electrical energy. Less moving parts.

I'd add some wind, wave and if possible safer nuke power to the PV, to fill in the gaps. Leave the rocks in the ground to drive motorcycles and ATVs over Turn those coal rail spurs into recreational trails

That's the problem,

The btu's required to go from water to steam is not waste like heat going up a flue. You get all of it back when the steam condenses.

In fact, I believe water has one of the highest of all gases.

What is it, something like 970 btus to change one pound of water into steam? You get 100% of it back when ti condenses in a radiator, that's how steam transfers heat.

It's not waste.

FranklinD

@Steamhead - Around here all the hot water systems have ARCO radiators. I've seen quite a few Ideal boilers, lots of the "snowman" boilers, and so on. I've been slowly collecting old tin "instruction" plates that hung on the walls behind old boilers - I have a few Silent Automatics that are in pristine condition and a bunch of others. I'd imagine these all came along in the 20's-40's when oil shipping across the Great Lakes made this a major oil port for awhile.

My folks' house was converted from coal to oil in the late 20's...some of the original automatic coal feeder/stoker parts are still piled up on a pallet in the old coal cellar. Side note: mom had to have the original in-ground oil tank removed a few years back, planning ahead for when she sells the house. They guys dug it up and were shocked to find a 3000 gallon 1/4" steel riveted tank complete with a 24" manhole 10" below ground level. Never leaked a drop of oil according to the soil testing. Amazing.

It's a shame, though, as I love reading about old hot water AND steam systems...but there don't seem to be any of the latter around here for me to stare at in wonder. As you said, it must have been a preference thing among the installers of the time.

hot_rod

That's the problem,

The btu's required to go from water to steam is not waste like heat going up a flue. You get all of it back when the steam condenses.

In fact, I believe water has one of the highest of all gases.

What is it, something like 970 btus to change one pound of water into steam? You get 100% of it back when ti condenses in a radiator, that's how steam transfers heat.

It's not waste.

I'm not sure I said or alluded to waste? Certainly if you can use the condensate energy to contribute to the load, all the better.

Using steam for cooling or power generation would require some additional thermal loads to get as much energy transfer back as possible. I have not seen any condensing 90% residential steam boilers?

If a utility has excessive energy to dump into a district system as a byproduct of generating electricity, and the infrastructure to distribute it, that makes sense.

I looked at one of the new air to water HPs, the predicted high efficiency numbers in cooling mode cooling only worked if you had some thermal loads also. Same concept.
You never get 100% of the energy with any thermal transfer, but we can get some very high% with condensing, fired equipment.

Nothing against steam, I won a science fair scholarship with a steam demo I built in high school, although I bought a motorcycle with the money

I don't see a big market for new residential steam installs, and I do appreciate the pros here, and the knowledge and passion they have to keep the resi steam systems viable.

Steamhead

hot rod said:

I have not seen any condensing 90% residential steam boilers?

90%+ on steam HAS been done.

ISTR two companies called Gasmaster and Hoval did so on larger boilers a few years ago. I believe they used some sort of exhaust gas heat recirculation rather than condensing technology to make this work, but do not remember the details.

There's no reason this could not be scaled down to residential levels, but boiler makers, as usual, don't seem to want to step up. How efficient could a MegaSteam be with a setup like this?

Jamie Hall

Steamhead said:

hot rod said:

I have not seen any condensing 90% residential steam boilers?

90%+ on steam HAS been done.

ISTR two companies called Gasmaster and Hoval did so on larger boilers a few years ago. I believe they used some sort of exhaust gas heat recirculation rather than condensing technology to make this work, but do not remember the details.

There's no reason this could not be scaled down to residential levels, but boiler makers, as usual, don't seem to want to step up. How efficient could a MegaSteam be with a setup like this?

I suspect that the problem with 90 plus condensing for steam is one of complexity -- and therefore cost. With a hot water boiler, the thing is set up so that the return water hits the outgoing flue gas and, if it cool enough, condenses the water vapour in the flue gas -- which is where you get the efficiency gain. Perhaps more to the point, the whole mass of water in the boiler is below the condensing temperature of the flue gas (and, as we all know, the lower the better). However, for steam the mass of the water is at boiling. Therefore, you really need a feedwater (return condensate) preheater before the condensate gets to the boiler. Not that it can't be done -- steam engines of all flavours used them for years (and some marvelous contraptions they were, too!). But it does add complexity and cost. As usual, a tradeoff there...There is no particular reason why the preheater couldn't be integral to the boiler, of course, but such a critter would have to be more expensive.

I'd have to run some numbers -- which I'm not going to do now - to see if, in fact, there is enough return water mass to do the job. Mass flow rates in steam heating boilers are remarkably low, since as has been mentioned above you are transferring heat by phase change, which requires much less mass (at least 1,000 times less) than doing it with changing temperature of a mass.

hot_rod

Steamhead said:

hot rod said:

I have not seen any condensing 90% residential steam boilers?

90%+ on steam HAS been done.

ISTR two companies called Gasmaster and Hoval did so on larger boilers a few years ago. I believe they used some sort of exhaust gas heat recirculation rather than condensing technology to make this work, but do not remember the details.

There's no reason this could not be scaled down to residential levels, but boiler makers, as usual, don't seem to want to step up. How efficient could a MegaSteam be with a setup like this?

I suppose boiler manufacturers do market research to see if product development, testing, certification and marketing would be dollars well spent?

I'm amazed the market supports roughly 65 brands and models of mod con hydronic boilers. Some suggest hydronics in the US is stagnate, possibly shrinking with all the competing technologies that we mentioned above.

I've noticed more and more of the boiler brands offering DHW options combi and tankless products as well as air side components to their lines, to stay relevant.

A large solar thermal distributior I know in the upper midwest, got into industrial and process steam products a few years back and they are kicking butt. There is a market for those type of steam systems. Must be all the beer and liquor brewers up there?

Steamhead

As I said my memory of this isn't perfect, but in addition to reheating return water as you describe I think they also added heat to the combustion air as well.

Condensing boilers, by their nature, are more complex and therefore cost more than standard boilers. This would be no different.

ChrisJ

@hot rod You do not need to use condensate to heat things in order to get 100% of the latent heat back.

You add 970 btus into a pint of water to turn it into steam. I think it's a pint?

When the steam condenses, you get 970 btus back out, or close to it.

Run the system in a vacuum and you can lower the operating point if you wish. Like I've said many times before, I envision a hermetically sealed steam system plumbed in copper. It'll never vent, and it'll never lose water. It can run at any temperature you want, though sadly, it's a fixed temperature, so no ODR. But it'll be far faster than hot water, and overall, have far less mass because it's not filled with water. Not sure if "faster" is beneficial here as I've found quick changes are generally bad, but it could be beneficial for efficiency.

Is it cost effective? Compared to forced air absolutely not, But then again, neither is hot water.


That's what I'd like to see one day.
I'm not arguing that normal steam heat is as efficient as hot water with an ODR. I'm arguing that it CAN be, and maybe more so. It can also have less moving parts. No pumps, no expansion tanks, no auto feeders etc.

I can dream, can't I?

@hot rod I saw a link about a tiny house you built but i can't find it again?

Gordy

Chris mass is your friend when properly managed. You seem to think it's a curse.

Noel

I'm enjoying thinking about a closed steam system that operates like a refrigeration process. Thanks, Chris, for planting that seed. It's pretty interesting.

Robert O'Brien

> @hot rod said:
> The choice isn't between steam or hot water, it's between air or hydronic. And that isn't even close.
>
> On larger applications I see VRF as the thorn in the side of hydronics, mini splits on the smallest end of the load spectrum. Typical ducted sheetmetal boxes with heat pumps in the middle.
>
> Time will tell if all that copper mini tube VRF will work and live as expected. The ability to heat and cool at the same time is a game changer in commercial applications.
>
> Here is some VRF conversion handi-work at a recent hotel I stayed at.
>
> My room had hydronic baseboard, very noisy, a PTAC, portable heat cool unit, and a partially completer VRF installation.

Mini splits are air!

ChrisJ

> @Gordy said:
> Chris mass is your friend when properly managed. You seem to think it's a curse.

It certainly wasn't my friend working in the attic

ChrisJ

> @Noel said:
> I'm enjoying thinking about a closed steam system that operates like a refrigeration process. Thanks, Chris, for planting that seed. It's pretty interesting.

I guy the idea looking at heat pipes. I would love to build one in house.

ChrisJ

https://youtu.be/-Bcgq8bYYbU

Gordy

Heat pipes are an integral part of vac tube solar collectors.

They need to learn how to use an IR thermometer to get proper readings.

Gordy

ChrisJ said:

> @Gordy said:

> Chris mass is your friend when properly managed. You seem to think it's a curse.



It certainly wasn't my friend working in the attic

I said properly managed mass. Might want to look at your BMI.

hot_rod

It was a cold, sunny winter day, I pulled one of the vac tube out of my array and built a copper coffee cup with thermo well.

I've heard the fluid inside those tube boils at around 100- 120° under vacuum.

Gordy

hot rod said:

It was a cold, sunny winter day, I pulled one of the vac tube out of my array and built a copper coffee cup with thermo well.

I've heard the fluid inside those tube boils at around 100- 120° under vacuum.

Nothing escapes the imagination

j a_2

ChrisJ said:

I'm just curious why many modern homes (1940s and up) use hot water heat instead of steam.







I've seen quite a few posts saying steam heat when configured correctly is more efficient than forced air and even hot water.  If this is so, why isn't steam more popular or even existent at all in newer homes?







I know why forced air is popular, its CHEAP to install.  But hot water isn't any cheaper to install than steam, is it?







What are the pros and cons,  steam vs hot water?







As many know, I'm 100% for steam,  I'm simply trying to expand my knowledge and understand the whole picture.

Chris it's really nice that you and other homeowners here on this site love the fact that steam heat is/was a great way to to comfortize a home...But today's building standards just don't allow for an archaic system, it's just how it is....I am a huge fan of the older steam systems, the history alone amazes me...But I can seriously tell you it's not a system that will be speced out on newer homes...It is what it is....

ChrisJ

J a you just responded to a question I asked in 2012.....

JUGHNE

He said the history amazes him.....and now you must be a part of it!

Steamhead

j a said:

Chris it's really nice that you and other homeowners here on this site love the fact that steam heat is/was a great way to to comfortize a home...But today's building standards just don't allow for an archaic system, it's just how it is....I am a huge fan of the older steam systems, the history alone amazes me...But I can seriously tell you it's not a system that will be speced out on newer homes...It is what it is....

Builders like Ryland, etc. are not interested in comfort or longevity. They only want to build a house as cheaply as they can, get as much money as they can for it, and run. If it weren't for Codes, their houses would be even worse.

This explains all those poorly-functioning heat pumps.

Gordy

Unfortunately these days builders like that out number the good ones. Even with codes, the selection of building materials is usually going to be as cheap as possible to achieve code compliance. Unless specified otherwise by the owner,designer, or architect.

There are builders out there that are willing to go above, and beyond to provide a top notch structure, but it takes money to do so.

Jamie Hall

And, of course, they can get away with the cheaper stuff, since very very few people intend to stay in one house for more than a few years any more -- so who cares if it falls apart ten years down the line? Applies to most commercial properties, too. And, of course, any government project is low bid -- so you get exactly what you pay for.

j a_2

ChrisJ said:

J a you just responded to a question I asked in 2012.....

Chris the post was on my front page...so I responded, I guess it appears others have...as well....Pretty good at how you repost old but still very valuable guestions...Well in any case hope you finally got the answers you were looking for....It appears your favorite is steam, mine to, but very unrealistic buy today's standards...To bad, but it is what it is...Wish they still made muscle cars but they don't and never will...as they once did....Enjoy your day

ChrisJ

> @j a said:
> J a you just responded to a question I asked in 2012.....
>
> Chris the post was on my front page...so I responded, I guess it appears others have...as well....Pretty good at how you repost old but still very valuable guestions...Well in any case hope you finally got the answers you were looking for....It appears your favorite is steam, mine to, but very unrealistic buy today's standards...To bad, but it is what it is...Wish they still made muscle cars but they don't and never will...as they once did....Enjoy your day

Honestly my favorite is any system that performs well.

Not sure what you mean regarding muscle cars. We have cars that are 200HP more than any muscle car from the 60s right from the factory

JUGHNE

Yep, plenty HP available now. But most cars look alike today.
Don't have the looks and sounds of the 60's.
Plus we didn't have all sissy stuff of seat belts and air bags.

You just had to live thru it.....and remember that decade.

j a_2

You would of have to lived the muscle car days to appreciate them...It was one of a few good things that came out of the 60s..The music wasn't bad either...

BobC

I remember helicopters and irate men with brass on their collars trying to tell me how to do things, they didn't get far. The bright ones let me be, the others got to find out what life was like with NO communications.

And there was some great music.

Bob

Gordy

You could do something with the old muscle cars. That was the satisfaction of being able to work on them. Anyone can go buy a car from the factory all ready to go with HP, if their wallet supports the cost.



The remakes are nice. Favorite being the challenger pretty close to the era. Chevy blew the camero remake in my opinion. Never been much of a corvette fan. However the new vetted really have some built in technology. G-force sensitive seats that change configuration as you are cornering etc. body style mimics European designs.

ChrisJ

Any cars from any era all look generally the same.
Look at 1930s cars, they all look very similar.
Look at late 1950s, same thing. Mid 1960s, same thing.

Cosmetics are cosmetics.

Things can be done to modern cars as well Gordy. My little 1.4 liter stock produces 138HP, but with some work guys are getting 250HP out of it.

I understand guys reminiscing about when they grew up, but the fact is, it's the same for every generation and there's nothing special about 1960s cars.

Yes, I too like how they look.
I love the mid 1960s GTOs and the 1967 Firebird, the 1967 Camaro isn't too bad either. Late 60's Chargers etc.

Then again, I also like how a 1955-56 Belair looks.

But there's nothing superior about them. They all handle terribly in stock form compared to even the cheapest econobox sold today.

Personally, I have a thing for 1920s Harry Miller designs and Duesenberg.

I have a huge amount of respect for Harry Millers work, as well as what he did with Offenhauser

J A, how about this 1920s Miller that will give a 1960s muscle car a run for it's money down the strip?

https://youtu.be/Zbvq8fT7oyU

Or these, early 1930s Miller V16s? Now those are mean sounding. 1600HP worth of mean.

ChrisJ

And then we have Harry Miller's later work.....well, it's based 100% on his designs.

1969 Offy.

https://youtu.be/zBfhhc8x33g

I'd love to put one in something like a Ford model A or B.

Gordy

Yeah cosmetics are cosmetics. There were far more cosmetically appealing cars from eras of the past than today.

Each car maker had a few models. Not just one.

Wish I still had my 72 cutlass.

And yes there is a lot that technology has improved on. Traction control being one of them. Being able to transfer that HP to the road, and saving on rubber. But hell that was some of the thrill laying rubber. Suspensions, drive trains, etc.

Super bee's, and Super birds. Super bird ran 225 mph off the factory line. Super bee 180 mph. No improvements. Were they a porpoiseing boat? Sure. That was part of the thrill.

To each their own. Not a fan of the lawn mowers running around.

JUGHNE

If you were there in the mid 60's you could see the little differences.
Mustangs.....1964 1/2....1965...1966. I can still ID the years on those. Had a 66 fastback that was sold to buy a full size station wagon (Griswald type). Just a sign of life changes for me in the early 80's.

ChrisJ

JUGHNE said:

If you were there in the mid 60's you could see the little differences.
Mustangs.....1964 1/2....1965...1966. I can still ID the years on those. Had a 66 fastback that was sold to buy a full size station wagon (Griswald type). Just a sign of life changes for me in the early 80's.

That was exactly my point.
People growing up now, can see the little differences that you can't. Just as they can't see the differences in older ones.

@Gordy Not sure what your point is, my 1.4 liter econobox can do 130MPH as you drive it off the lot.

Lawn mowers.
Did you look at the videos I posted? Was Harry Miller's 4 cylinder Offenhauser design a "lawn mower"?

j a_2

Thank you.....have a 33 on me