“Vacuum Boost” for steam heating system

Abracadabra

Is @Hatterasguy the reincarnation of @icesailor ?

Gordy

That's funny emoji stuff I have to admit.

SWEI

Gordy said:

The envelope efficiency can effect the heating systems efficiency.

Of course, but if we're comparing the same envelope with multiple heating systems, the common denominator drops out. If that's not what we're doing, then the gloves come off and we are dealing with something akin to a third order twelve equation system with eleven variables. Too hard.

Hatterasguy said:

If you obtain the Oxygen content and the temperature of the exhaust, you can calculate the efficiency quite accurately.

The smart guys I know would disagree with that statement. The analyzers use lookup tables used which are based on some assumptions that are highly unlikely to exist in any one particular installation, especially over time.

Fuel consumption is about the only thing we can measure with relative ease on most systems, LPG generally being much harder than oil and NG there. BTU meters work on hot water systems but are not common. Condensate flow can be metered on a steam system, and if you combined that with pressure logging you would get some good data.

SWEI

Hatterasguy said:

Can the final result vary significantly (more than 5%) from the reading obtained from the table? I think not.

If true, it calls into question the very use of the analyzer to carefully tune a mod-con. If true, the entire premise of the analyzer becomes worthless and we can just toss them all in the can and hope for the best.

The analyzer is used adjust for optimal combustion efficiency, which is done by minimizing O2 or maximizing CO2 while monitoring CO levels. The efficiency percentage displayed on the analyzer is essentially there for entertainment purposes.

A properly trained technician will observe how these levels behave during light-off, operation, post-purge, and shutdown. That information will quickly point to the cause of almost any appliance combustion problem.

hvacfreak2

Mr. Hatterasguy , I attempted to measure the performance of my system based on time to heat the main ( attached ). Maybe before and after measurements like this would quantify the performance increase of a vacuum modification ?

Edit : or something like this to the furthest radiator ?

izhadano

Dear Hatterasguy
I’ve prepared next reply to your recent post, but dropped it. Sorry, but you are not listening - it's not productive.
Instead of discussion on vacuum heating we bogged down on heating efficiency estimations methods where you admit heatloss approach only. Heat balance is important, meanwhile, nobody cancel Second Law of Thermodynamic and exergy analysis.
You’re skeptical about 35% fuel savings from steam heating conversion into vacuum heating, but proud of 55% fuel saving achieved by “proper venting” of single-pipe steam system. Somehow NYSERDA and DOE studies on this matter with less impressive results are “obviously flawed and totally factually incorrect”.
I’ll gladly discuss benefits and disadvantages of vacuum heating versus steam and hot water systems on this particular thread which was initial intention.
Other participants asked you to focus on the topic as well.
Thank you.

Steamhead

Hatterasguy said:

izhadano said:

You’re skeptical about 35% fuel savings from steam heating conversion into vacuum heating, but proud of 55% fuel saving achieved by “proper venting” of single-pipe steam system.

The 55% was not at all a result of strictly venting. The entire system was replaced with a new boiler, new near boiler piping and proper venting. The initial efficiency was probably on the order of 50%.

You also have no understanding of what my original point is regarding the initial efficiency of the system and cling to an argument that doesn't agree with the First Law. Install your system on an existing system at 50% efficiency and you can also be the King.

So, I'm out.

Do whatever you wish and post your results.

Thank you as well.

Paul48

A little over-the-top....no?

izhadano

Hatterasguy to hvacfreak2
The use of vacuum to increase the speed of the steam is not magical when the large pipes need to be heated first. Of course, the Doctor intends to do away with the large pipes in favor of tiny pipes that will heat nearly instantly. So, his system isn't a fair comparison to adding vacuum to yours.
He can obtain significant benefits from tiny delivery piping under vacuum conditions at lower temperatures. You can't.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Actually, the main benefit of vacuum heating compared to steam system is not higher speed but more even vapor throughout the system due to higher pressure drop between boiler and radiators. Other advantages include improved boiler efficiency, pulling more heat from boiler after stop, less corrosion, better control, etc.
Adding smaller (not tiny) diameter tubing for vapor supply and using original piping for condensate return is an option as well. I had successfully used 1/2" ID Teflon tubing in 2013-14 and 2014-15 tests.
Thanks.

Steamhead

Paul48 said:

A little over-the-top....no?

Hatterasguy said:

Why you would post a study that is obviously flawed and totally factually incorrect is beyond my comprehension.

(snip)

Now, certain people have no idea what they are doing.........

(snip)

You also have no understanding of what my original point is regarding the initial efficiency of the system and cling to an argument that doesn't agree with the First Law

No. This was getting too personal.

izhadano

Steamhead said:
No. This was getting too personal.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Frank, let's consider this being too emotional and continue discussion.
I believe Hatterasguy did not push envelope intentionally.

Paul48

Whether you agree with what he is asking for, or not.......He is asking for the same thing that all engineers ask for.....DATA. He wants to see the data, "specific" to this application. Everyone keeps posting studies, stories, theories and theses. They are all wonderfully informative, but have nothing to do with the specific application, other than they may, or may not contain the words, "vacuum" or "vent".

@Steamhead
Along the same lines as.....he was swearing, so I punched him in the face.

ChrisJ

Paul48 said:

Whether you agree with what he is asking for, or not.......He is asking for the same thing that all engineers ask for.....DATA. He wants to see the data, "specific" to this application. Everyone keeps posting studies, stories, theories and theses. They are all wonderfully informative, but have nothing to do with the specific application, other than they may, or may not contain the words, "vacuum" or "vent".

@Steamhead
Along the same lines as.....he was swearing, so I punched him in the face.

And the only way anyone will get such data is by building a bunch of identical houses with identical systems all in the same area and monitoring them for an entire heating season.


Anyone on HH have the money or time to gather such data?

@Fred ?


It really wouldn't be a bad investment, you could sell the houses and land afterwards.

Two with vacuum systems (anyway to get a mod-con to work with this?)

Two with single pipe steam
Two with two pipe non-vacuum steam.
Two with radiant hot water.
Two with forced hot air.

Gordy

The problem I have with Igor's white paper is where was the starting point other than therms consumed? Absolutely no idea. No idea of the boiler size, edr, heat loss to determine if the boiler was properly sized to the radiation, and if the radiation was properly sized to the heat loss. This would at least invite some sort of idea IF the system was fubar, or reasonably close to as close as it gets to an average steam system sized to the load properly.

The only information is percent reduction in gas usage.......as been said if the system was complete fubar 50% reduction in consumption is not outlandish.

However how do you go into a customer with out being able to analyze the present system from an efficiency stand point to offer a clue as to how much each package can reduce their gas bill? There has to be a means of a starting point to determine the systems present status other than present therms used..

Then you have a concrete basis as to how much package A,B,C, or D can benefit the end user in percent reduction in consumption.

SWEI

Tracking normalized fuel use before and after a modification (as Frank suggests) is about the best experiment control we can manage in the field.

Gordy

I know Kurt, but how do you approach a customer with turn key up grades that offer a % range of possible reductions in fuel use. Pretty hard to reveal ROI with out a good starting point., and potential end point.

Consumers are inevitably hung up on efficiency ratings in all facets of fuel consuming apparatuses. Right,wrong,or misleading.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

I know Kurt, but how do you approach a customer with turn key up grades that offer a % range of possible reductions in fuel use. Pretty hard to reveal ROI with out a good starting point., and potential end point.

Consumers are inevitably hung up on efficiency ratings in all facets of fuel consuming apparatuses. Right,wrong,or misleading.

Just like everyone else that advertises.

"UP TO 30% REDUCED FUEL CONSUMPTION!!"

That says up to, meaning, it definitely won't be more, but can easily be less, even zero.

izhadano

SWEI said:
Tracking normalized fuel use before and after a modification (as Frank suggests) is about the best experiment control we can manage in the field.
///////////////////////////
Gordi said:
The problem I have with Igor's white paper is where was the starting point other than therms consumed? Absolutely no idea. No idea of the boiler size, edr, heat loss to determine if the boiler was properly sized to the radiation, and if the radiation was properly sized to the heat loss. This would at least invite some sort of idea IF the system was fubar, or reasonably close to as close as it gets to an average steam system sized to the load properly.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I tried my best to have base line (single pipe steam system on first floor) intact since 2012 and used fuel consumption to normalize results of steam heating system retrofit on 2nd floor. I wish DOE allocate funding some day for comparative study as Fred suggested
Two with vacuum systems (anyway to get a mod-con to work with this? *)
Two with single pipe steam
Two with two pipe non-vacuum steam.
Two with radiant hot water.
Two with forced hot air.
*IMHO vacuum system would not benefit from mod-con

ChrisJ

izhadano said:

SWEI said:
Tracking normalized fuel use before and after a modification (as Frank suggests) is about the best experiment control we can manage in the field.
///////////////////////////
Gordi said:
The problem I have with Igor's white paper is where was the starting point other than therms consumed? Absolutely no idea. No idea of the boiler size, edr, heat loss to determine if the boiler was properly sized to the radiation, and if the radiation was properly sized to the heat loss. This would at least invite some sort of idea IF the system was fubar, or reasonably close to as close as it gets to an average steam system sized to the load properly.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I tried my best to have base line (single pipe steam system on first floor) intact since 2012 and used fuel consumption to normalize results of steam heating system retrofit on 2nd floor. I wish DOE allocate funding some day for comparative study as Fred suggested
Two with vacuum systems (anyway to get a mod-con to work with this? *)
Two with single pipe steam
Two with two pipe non-vacuum steam.
Two with radiant hot water.
Two with forced hot air.
*IMHO vacuum system would not benefit from mod-con

I suppose it depends on how you run the vacuum system.
If you run in a vacuum the entire time, you should be able to achieve 130-140F temperatures, no?

Gordy

That is also a broad range for an informed consumer to decide whether , or not x dollars is worth that potential savings range over x years.

That is also an indication to some as to the worthiness, and understanding of the improvements application.

To say you might save 0-30 bucks on a Franklin yearly does not impress. At least me.

ChrisJ

Gordy said:

That is also a broad range for an informed consumer to decide whether , or not x dollars is worth that potential savings range over x years.

That is also an indication to some as to the worthiness, and understanding of the improvements application.

To say you might save 0-30 bucks on a Franklin yearly does not impress. At least me.

Look around you my friend, we're surrounded by exactly this.
I just bought cameras with night vision that say "up to 65 feet" on the night vision distance.

Yay, zero to 65 feet and anything in between.

izhadano

ChrisJ
I suppose it depends on how you run the vacuum system.
If you run in a vacuum the entire time, you should be able to achieve 130-140F temperatures, no?
//////////////////////////////////////////////
130-140oF corresponds to 25-24"HG vacuum - that's quite leak tight system. My original steam boiler was chest leaking so it wasn't an option. With new boiler I decided to keep system at 14-18" HG to reduce vacuum pump load.
With more engineering involved it should not be a problem to keep system at 25-24"HG vacuum.

Gordy

ChrisJ said:

Gordy said:

That is also a broad range for an informed consumer to decide whether , or not x dollars is worth that potential savings range over x years.

That is also an indication to some as to the worthiness, and understanding of the improvements application.

To say you might save 0-30 bucks on a Franklin yearly does not impress. At least me.

Look around you my friend, we're surrounded by exactly this.
I just bought cameras with night vision that say "up to 65 feet" on the night vision distance.

Yay, zero to 65 feet and anything in between.

That's what product manufactors specs want consumers to believe. Creative Advertising has consumers right where they want them. You on the hook with them off the hook.
You can either take it, or challenge it, and move on.

Fred

@ChrisJ said: Anyone on HH have the money or time to gather such data?

@Fred ?
It really wouldn't be a bad investment, you could sell the houses and land afterwards.

Two with vacuum systems (anyway to get a mod-con to work with this?)

Two with single pipe steam
Two with two pipe non-vacuum steam.
Two with radiant hot water.
Two with forced hot air.

I have a couple acres of shovel ready land. One acre next to my home, the other acre across the street that I would offer up as a "test site" for construction of test homes. The rest of you guys can pool your money for construction. After testing is finished, we can market the homes. How about that???
I also own a four unit apartment building next door to my home. It might be a good test bed. Each unit is 1100 sq. ft. , heated separately, with individual utilities. They are currently forced air units but I'm open to replacing that with steam.
I've given you a couple options, Chris, take your pick and put some skin in the game
I also agree with @Steamhead 's approach. If he knows what his fuel usage is from the starting point and can measure the incremental improvements along the way and it all happens in the same structure without any other variables/modifications to the envelope or the system, what more can you ask for, especially in the field?

Gordy

Soo string the customer along? Let me do this see what that gets. Let me do that I can get more? Well that should have done more, but it did not.

All some people are saying here is there is a need for refinement so the consumer, and the installer knows what to expect. Unreasonable? It protects both no?

jumper

Actually there is lot's of data. Just not as neat as we want. Any boiler manufacturer will tell you that it takes fuel to produce steam. And we all agree that air has to be evacuated. In classic one pipe steam is used to evacuate the air and then we let the air right back in. MisterHatterasGuy says the steam used is insignificant,and besides the steam ends up as heat. I maintain that using steam to evacuate air and then allowing air to get back wastes steam. I also maintain that that wasted steam does not necessarily heat the building usefully.

For data (information) one can compare two pipe to one pipe. In general the first is considered more efficient. Partly because the air is evacuated by a better device than two way vents?

SWEI

We are comfortable enough with the numbers we have seen in the field that we can almost always promise a guaranteed savings percentage. We try to review two years worth of bills before we even begin a design. We try not to propose things which make little to no economic sense unless the customer has revealed other drivers (increased comfort, long-term energy security, environmental concerns, etc.)

Gordy

So Kurt when you go in to analyze an existing system. You do look at existing boiler size, edr, heat load etc. To try, and draw some existing infrastructure conclusions correct?

Paul48

You would need to take a conventional one-pipe system and make it proper. Then track your fuel usage based on degree days. Then add vacuum to the system, and again, track your fuel usage. You would have to do this, before you could go to a potential customer and make claims about what they could expect in savings.
The system as described would make a mod/con look like a cheap alternative if you were to attempt to put it in a turn-of-the-century Victorian. Especially(I don't know), if you can only save a few percent, over a properly piped and vented system.
How do you get around the boiler short cycling? The volume of saturated steam per pound under vacuum is much larger.

Paul48

@jumper
"For data (information) one can compare two pipe to one pipe. In general the first is considered more efficient. Partly because the air is evacuated by a better device than two way vents"?

Can you please clarify that? Ultimately, how is a 2-pipe vented?

SWEI

Gordy said:

when you go in to analyze an existing system. You do look at existing boiler size, edr, heat load etc. To try, and draw some existing infrastructure conclusions correct?

First we look at the bills. Thanks to the confluence of our mild average temps and today's absurdly low NG prices, it's not at all uncommon here to see a leaky, poorly insulated (but small) old house paying under $70 per month for gas here in January/February. Our hotel retrofit (very efficient) heated 30,000 square feet of 1937/1947 concrete and brick for under $1k this past January and February. Math is math. Customers (other than a few at the very top and the environmentally or economically conscious sort) who have no pain have no money to spend. Should we spend time marketing to people who have no money to spend?

jumper

Paul48 said:

@jumper
"For data (information) one can compare two pipe to one pipe. In general the first is considered more efficient. Partly because the air is evacuated by a better device than two way vents"?

Can you please clarify that? Ultimately, how is a 2-pipe vented?

Hopefully liquid pushes air out main vent of two pipe. And,unlike conventional one pipe,there aren't vents re-admitting air all over the place.

Paul48

Oh OK...I'm not too familiar with 2-pipe systems. How do they keep the air in the mains only?

Gordy

SWEI said:

Gordy said:

when you go in to analyze an existing system. You do look at existing boiler size, edr, heat load etc. To try, and draw some existing infrastructure conclusions correct?

First we look at the bills. Thanks to the confluence of our mild average temps and today's absurdly low NG prices, it's not at all uncommon here to see a leaky, poorly insulated (but small) old house paying under $70 per month for gas here in January/February. Our hotel retrofit (very efficient) heated 30,000 square feet of 1937/1947 concrete and brick for under $1k this past January and February. Math is math. Customers (other than a few at the very top and the environmentally or economically conscious sort) who have no pain have no money to spend. Should we spend time marketing to people who have no money to spend?

So Your saying that the weather in your region is pretty mild, and consistent yearly. So with that being said data as you choose to analyze it is going to be consistent.

SWEI

Mild on average, yes -- but our winter design temp ranges from 6-14°F depending on location. The usage on the bill shows us what they're spending, and thus what kind of savings an upgrade might deliver.

izhadano

SWEI said
First we look at the bills. Thanks to the confluence of our mild average temps and today's absurdly low NG prices, it's not at all uncommon here to see a leaky, poorly insulated (but small) old house paying under $70 per month for gas here in January/February. Our hotel retrofit (very efficient) heated 30,000 square feet of 1937/1947 concrete and brick for under $1k this past January and February. Math is math. Customers (other than a few at the very top and the environmentally or economically conscious sort) who have no pain have no money to spend. Should we spend time marketing to people who have no money to spend?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I believe that vacuum heating should penetrate into market through the point of most pain where uneven heat distribution and noise makes residents life miserable and heating bills high - multifamily houses.
The two-pipe steam system retrofit would be the easiest/inexpensive one - and very transparent case.
Next step might become retrofits of single-pipe steam systems and finally new installations.
Am I missing something?