Please confirm rad types

[Deleted User]

I'm going to try to calculate my radiation and could use some quick help. I think these should all be considered column-type radiators but would appreciate confirmation.



There are four types of radiators. There are three singletons and all the rest are the same (except for number of sections). So I'll show you four pictures.



#6 is the kind that is all through the house (some have a much nicer bronze/gold finish). 20" tall if it matters



#2 is unusual because it's the most ornate, the tallest (37.5"), and there is no pipe connection between the sections at the top, just mechanical contact it seems. On all the other radiators, the top connections between sections look just like the bottom connections. It is in the foyer.



#10 is similar to #2 in general appearance, but different sizes etc. It's possible that this radiator was added as a small expansion of the house at some point, but I don't know. 20" tall.



#11 has 6 columns or tubes like #6, but is 3" narrower (9.5") and has somewhat shorter sections (2.5"). 20" tall



I'm looking at three different sets of tables and these don't seem to all fit perfectly.



Thanks

Paul48

OK

6 and 11 are tube type. The others are column.

Steamhead

Further clarification

#6 is a "window radiator" but it falls under the column type.



#11 is a "large-tube" type.



The others are standard column-type radiators.



I believe you'll find all these in Dan's book "E.D.R.".

[Deleted User]

Radiation per section

Thank you both. I don't have the EDR book, and since in my whole life I'll never have to get numbers for more than these four radiators, I'm not sure I can justify buying it. But here's the estimated square feet of radiation per section from the tables I do have, using the types as you suggested. I would appreciate if you could see if this seems right (Earlier I gave some incorrect heights, these are correct):



#6 (6 column, 12.5" wide x 20" tall) - 5.0 sq ft per section



#2 (3 column, 9" wide x 38" tall) - 5.0



#10 (4 column, 10.5" wide x 27" tall) - 5.0



#11 (6 large tube, 9.5" wide x 26" tall) - 4.0



It's important I be correct on #6, as I have 8 of those. And of the three tables I've looked at, two of them don't list 6-column radiators.

Steamhead

Those numbers

are all correct.

[Deleted User]

Risers as radiators?

Thank you!



Now if I understand correctly, pipes are supposed to be included in boiler ratings so normally don't get considered in sizing your radiation. But I've got 5 risers to the second floor that kind of serve as supplemental radiation fir the 1st floor. One goes through a mudroom that is otherwise unheated, so temperature varies around 45-50 F I would guess. Should I add something for these pipes? I think they are 1.5-inch pipe.



Then I've got a couple of small radiators in the garage that were apparently removed from the system at some point. Should I add those in?

Pughie1

Radiators

Glad to see Steamhead is helping you with this. I read alot here, don't post much, but "Steamhead" is the best. A real student of Steam!

                                              John Pughe

Steamhead

If you can find

where those rads were hooked up, by all means include them. Look for plugged-off pipes or tees.



The "pick-up factor" included in the boiler's Net rating should be enough for those exposed risers.



Thanks, John!

SWEI

Pick-up factor

applies to your existing boiler for sure, but if you replace it with a mod/con and constant circulation you can eliminate it.

Pughie1

Steam

Some of those radiators don't lend themselves to a hot water conversion very well.

                       John Pughe

                                

[Deleted User]

Not really considering hot water

Well I've got two extra radiators and 4 plugged tees on the mains. I can't imagine where 4 more radiators would go, but I can imagine 2.



One is a cute, slender , 3-section, 5-tube model 38" high. I imagine they took that out of the bathroom when they remodeled it (bathroom currently unheated if you can believe it).



But the other is much larger than I remembered - 26" tall, 4 tubes and 17 sections. I know there used to be a radiator in the mudroom/pantry but this seems like overkill for that small space. I will add these in to the calculation, though if and when they might be added back in to the system is uncertain.



Thank you very much Steamhead and all the rest. You guys are the best. If any of you steam experts wants to have a "vacation" in the Rocky Mountains and replace a steam boiler while your're at it, just let me know!

[Deleted User]

Now I have numbers - what do they mean?

My total installed radiation comes to

470 sq ft or 112,800 BTU/hr



Including the two rads in the garage, it is

531.75 sq ft or 127,620 BTU/hr



With the help of John Pugh, I know that my circa 1918 Redflash #1, size 8, has a "Net steam rating" of 400, which we think is in square feet.



And with Hap Hazzard's help, I know when the burner fires it uses 195.7 cubic feet of gas per hour, which equates roughly to 199,565 BTU/hr.



I would love to hear thoughts on what all this means. But it sounds like, even when new, this boiler might be undersized? Which explains why I've got 0.0 psi pressure and the rads never heat all the way (though I have to say we're pretty comfy since ChrisJ told me how to set the anticipator on the thermostat).

SWEI

Oops

forgot this was a steam system -- mea cupla!  Don't convert it.

Pughie1

Effeciency

It would be interesting to know what your combustion effeciency is with that 200,000 you are imputing. That would greatly effect your actual gross output which in turn would effect your net rating of the boiler.

                                                         John Pughe

[Deleted User]

Right

Jamie Hall had some good suggestions about cleaning the fireside and checking/tuning the burner, gas pressure, air, draught, etc. I guess the decision is whether to put hundreds of dollars into tuning this ancient wonder to get the most out of it, or put that money (with a lot more) into replacing it.

SWEI

Efficiency

Does anyone have data for these old beasts?  The Kewanee Type C's we replaced were roughly 53% (and those were 1930's multi-million BTU/hr steel firetubes, high end stuff for the day.)

Mike Kusiak_2

Efficiency

Well, if you did have someone with a combustion analyzer come in and check the present boiler, you could get an idea of the efficiency, and how much of that 198K BTU is actually making it to the steam. At least you would have a better idea of how much you are wasting in fuel with the present boiler and how much you might save.



Considering that its a converted coal boiler, my guess would be around 60% efficiency compared to the 80-85% you might get with a modern replacement.

saikosis

Gunnison

Would you accept the services of a totally unqualified knucklehead who just wants an excuse to get back to Crested Butte before he gets too old to handle the Headwall? If so, let me know!

ChrisJ

3 pass

I thought those old 3 pass coal boilers could run pretty efficient when converted correctly?