Recent Install Pics

Motty

Hi all,

Here are pics of a Williamson Thermoflo GSA-125 that I installed a couple days ago. I'm looking for constructive criticism/feedback please. Thanks

MK

gerry gill

I like it.

clean and neat.

jonny88

? for gerry

in dans books he says the 90 for the equaliser should face down.i tried it on my last steam boiler with a drop header and it worked great however i was always taught to pipe it the way motty did,with the 45.thanks motty for posting as it is a great way for us to learn.

nicholas bonham-carter

piping pics

nice to see new piping!

it may be a trick of the lens, but is that header smaller, instead of larger, than the riser from the boiler? also may be the camera, but it looks like the boiler is floating an inch above the floor!

are the returns well under the waterline?--nbc

The Steam Whisperer (Formerly Boilerpro)

Yes, neat and clean.....

I would suggest using unions after the auto feed and the manual feed valves to help in diagnosing a leaking valve.  Also, a 3 inch header is probably not much more cost than a 2 1/2.    Of course, if a GSA 125 is only 125,000 input than a 2 1/2 inch header is probably already one size larger than minimum, which is plenty.  Oversized headers really  make the installation perform exceptionally well.  That Williamson looks like a rebranded Weil McLain.

gerry gill

I like straight down also.

But the 45 would be the next best thing..it will slow down the return of the water a tad bit, but as long as to much doesn't back up into the header, it should still be a good steam seperation device.

Motty

thanks for the input guys...

the riser is 3", header 2", equalizer 1.5"... the boiler is in fact a bit elevated, its resting on cement blocks.... and yes Williamson is made by weil mclain so the tappings are identical.

cheers

mk

Vinnie Smedick_3

Nice job

I noticed you ran the relief valve down with black pipe. I did that last year on a job and the inspector made me remove it and run copper tubing. I asked why and he stated that if water leaks into the black pipe it could sit and rust and create a blockage. One other thing I thought was absolutely ridiculous was he made me put in a backflow preventer on the boiler feed. I asked why would I need that on a steam boiler and he said it's code on all boilers. I said there is no possible way with the water level 2' below the shut off valve it could possibly back into the potable system, he said it's code do it or I'll fail you. What do you guys think about that?

Paul48

Is

it an optical illusion, or is that header offset pitched back at the boiler?

nicholas bonham-carter

Back flow preventers

There is a provision in our code for having a water tank, with no permanent plumbing connection, but that would cost more than the back flow itself.

They are good for the manufacturers, and the plumbers who inspect them on a yearly basis.

Even my other hot water system runs all the time with the fill valve turned off.

You just can't fight city hall!--NBC

Steamhead

The reason for that

is if the boiler is under pressure but the water supply is not, you can get backflow. This is true even at the ounce pressures we find in steam systems.

Vinnie Smedick_3

Backflow preventer

I get your post steamhead. But as I stated the water supply is manually operated. Wouldn't one know if there were no water psi in there home? Wouldn't they contact someone about that before deciding to add water to a boiler? Some codes are just plain dumb! Done by dumb people whose only job is to make life more difficult for the people who actually know what they are doing, who read Dan's books, who attend classes on a regular basis and are proud to be future dead men!

Paul48

Pride

You can feel proud, the next time you read an article about someone leaving a hose in a duck pond with no backflow protection on it, and it siphons into the public water supply when the main is being worked.

Dave in QCA

Hartford Loops and Silly Regulations

I just read this thread and have been sitting and thinking.  You know, I would be pretty darn sure, given human nature, that back in the day of the dead men, there were two camps.  One thought that the new regulations that required one of those stupid Hartford loops on ALL boilers was just about the dumbest thing to come down the pike.  Then, there was also the camp that realized that if the Hartford Loop saved lives and property, even though thousands of boilers without Hartford loops had never exploded or caused the house to burn down, that the extra measure of safety that the Hartford loop provided was a good thing.



I think it was Will Rogers who said, "I'm all for progress, it's change I don't like!"



On that note, a year and a half ago, I was angrily arguing with the water company about the new regulations for back flow prevention.  I learned that one alternative to the backflow preventer is with the use of a air gap device.  I considered installing that, but eventually decided not to.  With the installation of a new boiler coming soon, I may change my mind.  It would be nice to save the annual inspection fee and the as well as the eventual breakdown of the backflow preventer.  But either way, I am assured of no one accidentally getting contaminated water out of their faucet as the result of some freakish plumbing mishap.

nicholas bonham-carter

More dangerous situation

The hose in the pond should be more protected than the boiler. How many suburban garden hoses are there doing the same thing in a mud puddle?

As far as steam boilers are concerned, the possibility of old water from the basement level syphoning out when the mains are shut off (how often is that) is remote, while the hose in the pond is on the same level as the ground foor plumbing, and is therefore a real danger.

Whoever will be in office in the Whitehouse next could create many more jobs, by making sure every house has a back flow preventer.

The air gap method really provides a reservoir tank as well, so there would be added benefit for steam boilers.--NBC