one pipe steam

Fred

The other thing I notice is that the Main, off to the far left of the picture, just before it turns up, seems to have a dip in it that would hold water. I don't see any way that drips back to a wet return. I suspect that end of the main has sagged and that that portion of the Main actually pitched back towards the boiler and that plugged fitting (on the main, near the boiler) was originally a drip that dropped into the wet return.
That may be where some of the gurgling originates???

Abracadabra

Fred said:

The LWCO doesn't need to be on the same side as the return and the equalizer. There shouldn't be enough difference in the water levels across the boiler to trip the LWCO unless it really does need water.

I respectfully disagree , especially with my experience with WM.

Fred said:

Certainly the auto feed doesn't need to be on the same side as the LWCO since it is tripped by the LWCO, it will only work by a shut down of the LWCO regardless of its location on the boiler.

Yes.. you're right there... I usually use a MM 51 or 53 Combo Feeder/LWCO so I usually have to put them on the same side

http://www.burnhamcommercial.com/assets/pdf/5b-manuals-io.pdf

Seems Burnham wants the return piped to the right side and trim on the left side. :shrug: OP has the LWCO and feeder on opposite sides, with the LWCO on the return side. Also looks like Burnham wants a 67 LWCO or a 47 combo LWCO/feeder installed.

Fred

I don't know about the LWCO placement. It looks like it could go on either end but it does seem to suggest it go on the end opposite the return. "If using a float type LWCO, feeder or pump controller on a steam boiler that does not use quick connect hook up fittings, install between
tappings H and return B. Use opposite return B for system return connection."
I have a Burnham series 4B boiler (866 sq.ft. of steam) and the LWCO is on the opposite end from the return and equalizer. My boiler doesn't even have any additional tappings on that end of the boiler, except for the relief valve but obviously they have added a few more tappings. I just would not have expected the water level to be significantly different across the span of the boiler.
EDIT: It also says those controls should go on the same side as the gas controls.

archibald tuttle

Don't know what i'm doing wrong but i can only see the pictures as glyphics. i tried double clicking them and right clicking so i can't look at it very closely. But I somewhat recognize the setup because i'm running a 5008 with a condensate receiver with an auto feeder triggering the return pump.

i didn't install the receiver and it was maybe done when they put the boiler in or maybe later to remedy a problem similar to what you are experiencing.

but this thing was set for like 5 lbs and never making the cutoff but was steaming like crazy to try. after long and passionate work on the dwyerstat in like a 5 page thread that was called "idea for a vaporstat alternative" (that thread has vanished somewhere or i'd give you the link but it comes up as not found and nothing shows up when is search the title, maybe we got banished for some reason, being too creative or something, i don't know) i have the the whole house steamed at 6" of water column and i'm scheming whether i can get rid of the condensate receiver which is just something to break on an otherwise relatively resilient system.

So I would try running the thing at very low steam pressure and see if you get the same results. i actually set up the 5008 for two-stage operation after talking with the burnham engineers at AHR (and the 5011 i think they make a two stage burner set up all though honestly i like the lower flame across the whole boiler myself. their set up is to pipe gas to either end of boiler so you can light one half or both halves.

The empirical equivalent is to find or add to some tapping a dead end pipe where you can bring it down to a small adapater and throw a sensitive electric manometer e.g. UEI 151 or 201. then get it going until it just starts to bump pressure off of 0 and then close the gas valve maybe halfway until you noticeably limit the input.

these boilers usually show you a low limit of btus in. i kind of felt my way and had someone watching the gas meter and i was actually able to infer that full open it was running at the nameplate input btu and then slow it down toward the minimum input and i got it to balance out and run well under a lbs. although these burners run a lot like a stove burner, which doesn't require an adjustment of the air in when you adjust the gas in because the air is drawn into the tubes by the flow of the gas itself and so you get some inherent moderation. i did a lot of work with a combustion meter to see if adjustable cowlings on the burner tubes could be set to give the best combustion at both btu inputs and i got very little change in the results after hours of adjusting so other than if you observed odd flame characteristics or sooting i wouldn't sweat it as long as you are in the btu range specified by burnham and you are running this as an experiment where you are there monitoring anyway.

the problem is, even if you put a vaportrol on there set to a very low pressure, with a boiler that size and not turning down the thing is going to go on and off quite a bit , or course maybe that is OK to let the condensate return catch up but it sure seemd to me that a steady state low fire was a more sensible approach. then, you can see if you are able to steam the whole system reliably at very low pressure and time the return, and or see if steaming at the lower input slows the steam out to better match the condensate return. the lower pressure should help to break any barometric return log jam you might have. what is the height of your dry returns above the boiler water.

that is what i would try before going for a condensate receiver.

if the experiment were successful, then you could look into options for fire control that would replace you having to stand next to the boiler all winter - although that is job security.

others can chime in and call me crazy here or whatever.

brian

EBEBRATT-Ed

I am not famalier with that particular boiler at all. I have had boilers when we had problems and found that the water level at one end of the boiler different from the other end as

Abracadabra pointed out" While boiler was steaming, there was a decent amount of difference in the water line between the left and right side of the boiler"

Fred

EBEBRATT-Ed said:

I am not famalier with that particular boiler at all. I have had boilers when we had problems and found that the water level at one end of the boiler different from the other end as

Abracadabra pointed out" While boiler was steaming, there was a decent amount of difference in the water line between the left and right side of the boiler"

I can buy that but I still don't think I'd put the LWCO on the high side and have the low side run the risk of being near dry should there be a legitimate need for the LWCO to shut things down and the auto feed may be turned off or on a delay. In my opinion, I'd want my LWCO on the lowest side just to be safe. JMHO

Abracadabra

Fred said:

I can buy that but I still don't think I'd put the LWCO on the high side and have the low side run the risk of being near dry should there be a legitimate need for the LWCO to shut things down and the auto feed may be turned off or on a delay. In my opinion, I'd want my LWCO on the lowest side just to be safe. JMHO

Fred,
The issue I think with putting the LWCO on the return side of the boiler, is that the waterline on that side might be more "stable"? From what I saw on the boiler that customer wanted glass on both sides, the non-return side was bouncing around about 2" while the return side was rock solid stable. I must point out, my experience with this is limited to WM LGBs and a 21section at that. Maybe on a smaller boiler the difference left to right would be less? Although this Burnham design looks similar, not sure if it would apply here. Just thinking out loud.

Fred

Yea, I don't have any experience with a boiler that size so I'm just making some assumptions that may or may not be valid. You've seen more of these and have the experience.