Beckett AFG oil burner puff of soot at startup

Jay4334

My oil fired steam boiler (installed new March 2013 and serviced/tuned March 2014)has been running great. The other day I noticed a slight oil smell, left and came back a few hour later and the smell was stronger. I check the boiler again and notice some fine soot particles on the boiler and nearby HW heater. Kept it off through the night to clean the next morning after it cooled off. There was a good amount of soot in the burner chamber so I took the top off, vent stack apart and vacuumed/cleaned everything. Ran it later that day it it seemed to run fine, not smell no soot. Left for a few hours and came back to oil smell again. Turned it off again, and today I replaced the nozzel, adjusted the electrodes and replaced the oil filter. Primed and started again. Delayed start seem to be a bit longer than usual. Then can a sucking/swishing (backdraft - of you will) noise before it fired and then the same puff of soot from all areas around the burner itself. While I'm certainly no professional, I try and learn and tackle what I can as an educated homeowner. I've been likey the temp hasn't been too cold the past few days, but my luck runs out tomorrow night. Electric space heaters only do so much, with two young kids, 66degrees doesn't really cut it. I have been looking for a local pro who I have confidence that's knows more than I do (not easy to come by unfortunately). Anyone have an idea what the problem is? Any recommendations for a professional in 19026 (just outside Philadelphia). Thank you.

mgdesrochers

Your delayed ignition could be a couple of things, could be a weak igniter, could be an oil flow problem, could be excess air...
How did you adjust the electrodes? Do you have a gauge or the specs for the proper forward dimension and gap?

You mentioned the nozzle and filter, did you change the pump strainer? That could be plugged up preventing proper oil flow.

Have you checked the coupling between the motor and pump? Could be worn and slipping on the shafts of the motor or pump.

The steps you've taken are good starting points but without the proper test equipment you can't properly tune and adjust the burner to ensure a safe, clean, efficient fire.

I think annual service is probably in order here, unfortunately I can't help you with locating a professional near you but you could try the contractor locator here.

BornForDying

It's probably a good idea to have a pro come out. I can't personally recommend anyone though.

It's usually rather difficult to accurately diagnose these issues through an online forum, but based on your account, and the fact that you've already tended to the oil portion of the burner (assuming it's all set up correctly), I would check the ignitor first. Sounds like it could be producing a weak spark which will cause a delayed ignition.

In order to have flame, you need clean oil, good spark, and air. Most generally when a burner is off on reset, you're lacking good oil (bad nozzle, bad oil pump, out of oil) or no spark (bad ignitor, poor electrode set).

Obviously this is an extreme oversimplification of how a burner works. There are many small details that ensure a proper, efficient and SAFE flame. That's why it's important to get a pro.

Jamie Hall

If you can't anyone in your area (have you tried Find a Contractor? by State?) you could ask @Steamhead . It's farther than he usually comes but I'll bet he knows someone.

Steamhead

I think @STEVEusaPA is in that area, but not sure what his company is called. I'll send him a PM and ask him to look at this thread.

Jay4334

Just had a guy from a local oil company come out and take a look. Seems the problem was I did not clean the heat exchanger as well as I should have. Next time I'll buy a soot saw & brush for clean out. Also, was told air gauge on side of burner was nearly closed (at 1) and should be at 8. Went from a .85 80B nozzel to a 1.0 80w nozzle because he said "the flame looked crappy". My last service was by a guy named Joe Starosielec from Central Jersey, found him on the board, and I thought he was incredibly knowledgeable and detailed. Haven't been able to reach him however.

It's been running for about 30 mins now, no puffs of soot during startup, but it is cycling more often than usual now. I'll try and keep track on my phone of the run periods over the next little while.

Anyone with current contact to Joe Starosielec or another local knowledgeable and detailed oil burner/steam guy would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

stevemikel

The shorter cycles come from a higher firing rate usually. When it is de- rated you get longer cycles. Is your fuel pressure at least 100#? A sloppy pump drive coupling can give you some drama-it has been awhile but there used to be Crown-hard rubber couplings that lasted longer than the plastic ones. As previously stated in this thread, a weak transformer can give you issues. Needs at least 9000v to work right if memory serves. Electrode gap is key as well.

Jamie Hall

Sorry, but I think Joe S is out of the business...

Steamhead

Jamie Hall said:

Sorry, but I think Joe S is out of the business...

His company got bought out.

Jamie Hall

Steamhead said:

Jamie Hall said:

Sorry, but I think Joe S is out of the business...

His company got bought out.

Ah. Is that what happened. I wondered. Good man.

mgdesrochers

I'm glad you got the soot issue sorted out. @stevemikel is correct that the shorter cycles are due to the larger firing rate; he increased it by 15% going from a .85 to a 1.00 gallon per hour nozzle; that is 21,000 more BTU's going through that boiler if the pump pressure is 100#. Short cycles don't = greater efficiency though.
You said he changed the nozzle

Jay4334 said:

because he said "the flame looked crappy".

Did he perform a combustion test when he was done? The days of adjusting these systems "by eye" are long gone.
If it is still short-cycling I'd be interested to know what the boiler make and model are to compare his nozzle set-up with OEM specifications.

BornForDying

Is it just me or does it sound weird that the air band "should be set to 8"?

On a burner that size I'll usually start around 7 or 8 and adjust down based on smoke/combustion testing, but I hardly ever note where the air band is when I'm finished. It doesn't seem like something that is always consistent between systems.

Maybe that was the recommendation from the beckett manual for initial settings.

STEVEusaPA

BornForDying said:

Is it just me or does it sound weird that the air band "should be set to 8"?

Air band and shutter settings are all over the place based on OEM's testing.
First time I touch a new oil burner I start right with the OEM Spec guide for nozzle, pump pressure, head, air band and shutter. Then use combustion equipment and go from there.

billtwocase

8 is not too far of for a gallon nozzle. He shouldn't have increased the nozzle size, and to a semi solid? Get someone else to put the recommended nozzle back in, check the pump pressure, more than likely requires 140 PSI, test it, and tighten the air band when done. Did you move the setting, or was it loose? Set on 1, this wouldn't have ran a week, let alone a couple of years that way

captainco

Any time you change the oil filter and nozzle you are putting a lot of air in the system. Priming alone does not get rid of it. A standard felt, wool or paper filter need to be outgassed. If not you can have delayed ignition and afterdrip for several weeks. Wipe the bottom of the burner with a paper towel and see if there is oil on it. That would indicate afterdrip and give you the oil smell.

Anyone that depends on only eyesight to determine a burner is running correctly has the technical expertise of a caveman.

100# pump pressure should have been discontinued in the 80's. Studying nozzle testing and performance 100# is only good if you pre-heat your oil to 80-100 degrees.

I do believe SteveUSA can help!

billtwocase

There are still burners that operate on 100 PSI today, and good at that. Also I wouldn't demean the "cavemen" captainco, not all were useless. For those of us that go back to a time when we used our senses and Bacharach testing equipment, it is insulting. He should have tested without a doubt, especially with all the user friendly test equipment we have today

captainco

Sure using a sundial is better than looking at the sun to tell time. I am more than familiar with equipment set up with bottles. I was a caveman when I started too! Equipment ran but efficiency was not so good but oil was cheap (60 cents a gallon. As I learned in the 80's if you can't do a CO test on a oil burner you cannot set it up safe or efficient, but you can make it run.

When I helped contractors in the field there were two mandatory requirements for me to help. Pump pressure had to be raised to 125# and only l-line systems. If not I said see you later because it can't be set to operate correctly.

I learned how to nitpick oil when I sold 90% condensing oil furnaces. Most of the factory setting didn't work. But once adjusted with an analyzer they could actually run several years with any service, not I recommended that. Changed the pump pressure, different nozzle and different draft. If you saw the tight passages in the heat exchangers you could see there was no tolerance for any sooting. Eventually the factory sent the field tech to observe what I was doing because no one else was having success keeping them running.

When you discover something that works better getting that knowledge out was always important to me. Just like I have never used 3-1/2" gas pressure on a furnace. In 39 years of using digital combustion analyzers I have not found a furnace factory set correctly for the installation that we expose it to.

Oil was always my favorite fuel to work on because it allowed to actually make adjustments and corrections. I did help on commercial oil, steam atomized oil, waste oil etc. All a piece of cake knowing how to interpret the CO readings.

I know many skilled techs that work on oil that are pretty sure it is working great everytime. I like to be 100% positive it is working the best possible.

As I keep reading I see how no one likes to work on oil. The real problem is they don't know how!

Steamhead

captainco said:

As I keep reading I see how no one likes to work on oil. The real problem is they don't know how!

One exception is right here- see

http://forum.heatinghelp.com/discussion/160431/any-hope-for-my-national-heat-extractor-100-series-oil-boiler

billtwocase

I am sure you are an asset to oil captainco. Like my father before me, I started with rotary, low pressure, kero stoves, and so on. I would not like to go back. I know a little bit about oil, and would never work on anything but. There are many that still do prefer oil believe it or not

captainco

I fortunately only had to help on one commercial slinger type oil burners but certainly sold parts for the rest, even the belt drive oil pumps. I wonder what oil pump worked at 1140 rpm. that had to be a special.

Steamhead you like oil because you got the smarts to do it! So do others but they are far and few in between.

My deal is anything I have discovered since the 80's using a combustion analyzer that other may have not paid attention to I try to share. Most of my students have talents way beyond anything I have but I have a combustion experience that is quite extensive.

Setting the drawer assembly on an oil burner using the CO reading only sets it perfect. Knowing whether a nozzle is good or bad or the wrong one using just a CO reading.

Things that people rarely look at is what percent of oil combustion is sensible heat versus latent heat. Oil is 6% Hydrogen and in the combustion process that equates to 8% to 10% latent heat. What that means is if you don't condense there is only 128,800 btus of sensible heat in a gallon of oil. That puts your maximum starting efficiency at 92%. Then every % of O2 is another percent lost, like 10% O2 takes you down to 82%. Efficiency on oil uses 40 degrees of flue temperature above ambient is 1% loss or Net Temperature. So if the flue temperature is 440 degrees and the room air is 60 degrees the net stack is 380 degrees. 380 divided by 40 = 9.5% 82% minus 9.5% = 72.5% An earlier argument on this site before Christmas which I don't want to start again, I mentioned, based on field energy audits and difference in fuel usage, it showed that when equipment was underfired, each % of O2 that was over 4% on oil or 6% on gas = a 2% loss of efficiency and each 40 degrees of flue temperature on oil and 30 degrees on gas that was low equaled 2% efficiency loss. These are my numbers based on personal field results.

I do get some absolute genius students in my classes which sometimes makes me the student but in the end there so much information presented to them even they get surprised. But its all about sharing and learning and that is what I have dedicated my career to do. I read this site as much for personal education and I thank you all for that and hopefully I contribute to everyone's knowledge.

EBEBRATT-Ed

@captainco Ipretty much agree with most of what you said except:

each 40 degrees of flue temperature on oil and 30 degrees on gas that was low equaled 2% efficiency loss.

This I am afraid I don't understand how raising the stack temperature will increase efficiency??

So maybe I am missing something??

In many cases manufacturers settings are not right. For me it's just a good place to start.

Especially with oil there are many variables, draft, temperature of the oil and combustion air, firing rate and temperature of the HX and fire box, oil pressure, composition of the oil etc.etc.

working on burners "in the old days"

we had little or no application information. Experimentation. You bought a burner and stuck it in the boiler and read.

Charlie Burkhardt's book. He explained how to do a nozzle application test and talked about raising the pump pressure to get better combustion, that was the first trick to getting the best out of a marginal burner, baffle a boiler (the coal boilers)

Unfortunately, most "technicians" today wouldn't have a clue about this and most don't want to work on oil anyhow.

We sold Iron Fireman commercial burners that ran 300 psi @ the nozzle back in the late 50s when it was un herd of.

billtwocase

and the Waltham Dynajet would run at 150 PSI. We were the lab rats back then

EBEBRATT-Ed

@billtwocase how true!

captainco

Ed I know this kind of goes against the grain but remember I said if it was underfired. Usually when equipment is underfired the O2 tends to be higher or the CO2 lower. One of the elements of heat transfer is temperature difference and another is mass. First you need a hot flame and hot flue gases but you also need enough mass to effectively heat the heat exchanger. Even though a candle can burn around 2500 degrees it wouldn't do much inside a big heat exchanger no would 10 candles. Obviously there is a point of no return if we get too hot. Understand I have always made equipment operate at its maximum rating and never less unless mechanical
issues didn't allow it.

Oil, depending on who charts you read can burn somewhere between 4000 degrees and 4800 degrees. Natural gas will burn at 4800 degrees if you use 100% O2 and no Nitrogen so I assume oil which burns much hotter would approach the 4800 degree mark at perfect combustion, which we can't attain. Having worked on more different types of residential, commercial and industrial equipment than I can count, I found that there is a certain flue temperature range that maximizes heat transfer and efficiency. Again there are variables, but assuming a proper operating system I have logged thousands of combustion readings on oil and gas. There were certain ranges of flue temperatures and O2/CO2, that produced the most efficiency (Thermal) not a fictitious combustion efficiency calculation. Unfortunately I cannot explain totally in a few paragraphs what it take me three days to teach in a class.

If I were to make one statement it would be: "When equipment is operating at its maximum mechanical and safe ability, it will operate at its maximum efficiency " Having worked with contractors from the south for over 30 years also, they know their furnaces are 200% to 300% to big for the load. But they need the big blowers. Many thought de-rating furnaces was the way to go, as do most. Whether is was Hattisburg, MS or San Antonio, TX etc., they no longer think that way. ASHRAE even did a study that verified oversizing has little or no affect on fuel usage if the equipment is fired at its rating. I can quote Newtons Laws of Motion, Kelvins Laws of Thermal Dynamics, Stephan-Bolzmann Laws of Radiant Heat Transfer but then most would be more confused then before.

I know I present many things that are controversial but I would be pretty stupid if they were incorrect and I just like to blow hot air. Okay I do like to blow hot air, but that is from the furnace not me. just keep hoping when everything else fails someone will give the recommendations I make a shot.

I am pretty sure I am not as smart as most of the people or at least as skilled on this site, however I do have 39 years of combustion testing using a digital analyzer. I am great with numbers but lousy with tools!!

Jay4334

Thanks for all the discussion on this post. I must admit, I am getting a bit lost on technical aspects. I bought the house as a foreclosure back in April 2013. Before closing I had the bank remove the VW bus sized boiler and replace it. Oil was near $4/gal that year and it made me sick to my stomach at how often it was cycling (burning up fuel). Had Joe S (JStar) out to clean/tune it late Feb 2014 (printout from his report is pictured). I don't recall what size was nozzle was originally used, but I do recall him saying the boiler/nozzle/btu's were almost 50% oversized. Tried reaching out to him again last year to no avail for a cleaning. Haven't found anyone with similar confidence in what they're talking about and the cleaning/service has been neglected since. I'm very practical and handy so a thorough cleaning and nozzle/filter change is totally in my realm, but resizing nozzles and adjusting air band is obviously out of my comfort zone. My DIY attitude does have a pragmatic limit when it comes to the health/safety of my wife and two toddlers.

Referencing my last post, while I am greatful for the help I still don't have confidence that my service was anything more than generic. The "short cycle" I mentioned, was actually my boiler trying to play catch up temp wise. Seems someone turned up the Tstat to 75 and it just kept cyclingto get if from 68 (when tech left) to 75. He did not have a meter of any kind, just simply looked through the port in burner door. I would say my boiler has been running "normally" since I adjusted the temp. However I don't know if this "normal" is the correct, best, or most efficient setup. @captainco are you local(ish) to the 19026 area ?

Thank you.

STEVEusaPA

For starters your underfired, which explained your low CO2, and very low net stack temperature. Your heat exchanger is probably a mess. The flue piping is completely wrong. The oil lines look horrible.
Also your sight glass suggests you may need a skimming.
I really don't know what to even say about the piping.

Steamhead

19026 should be right in your area, @STEVEusaPA ............

@Jay4334 , if you can get Steve to look at this, do so.

billtwocase

The fuel pump must be set at 100 PSI ? Input of 1.20 and spec nozzle is 1.25 ? Can you take a pick of the spec label on the burner itself? That is the money shot here

billtwocase

also, is that the oil tank just to the lower right with a small General filter? Code her is at least 5' away from the units, or a fireproof wall. That looks to be rather close, and as Steve mentioned, not much is right about this

Jay4334

Shots of the burner. The oil tank is on the other side of the room 10+ft away. That is the filter in the bottom right but oil line loops around behind the boiler & HW heater back to the oil tank.

As I mentioned it was installed by bank contractor and I've yet to find any local knowledgeable oil guys. Which is crazy because there are a ton of houses in my neighborhood that still use oil (atleast 4/15 houses on my block alone )

Jamie Hall

So... where are you located? Have you tried Find a Contractor? I know that if you are in @JStar 's former area, there are other very good folks around.

Jay4334

Zip is 19026 (just southwest of Philadelphia). I believe JStar was from the central Jersey area.

Jamie Hall

Have you tried @EzzyT or @Dave0176 ? They might travel that far...

Steamhead

billtwocase said:

The fuel pump must be set at 100 PSI ? Input of 1.20 and spec nozzle is 1.25 ? Can you take a pick of the spec label on the burner itself? That is the money shot here

The Beckett spec on the rating plate is wrong. If you want 1.20 GPH at 140 PSI, you need to use a 1.00 GPH rated nozzle. That would be a 1.00x80B Delavan with this burner.

If you run a 1.20 rated nozzle at 140 PSI, you get 1.42 GPH. If there's a 1.20 nozzle in that one and it's running 140 PSI, that's a big part of the problem- it's over-fired. And how would you know your combustion was wrong if you don't test?

billtwocase

Seeing the label on the burner, it does indicate 100 PSI. If I was to work on it, it would get 140 PSI, and an .85 to 1.00 80 B nozzle to start with. This most likely doesn't need to be at max firing rate

STEVEusaPA

The sticker on the boiler, from the manufacturer is 145,000 BTU'S, which is a 1.25@ 140psi. The 85x80B is too small, especially if the pump is at 100psi.

billtwocase

I would boost it to 140 Steve. .85 to 1.00 would be a start. Not sure if this boiler is overkill for him or not. He has short cycling also

Steamhead

Right, the label on the burner doesn't agree with what's on the rating plate. I agree, go to 140.

billtwocase

Too bad this is not close enough to you Frank, or Steve. This is what gives oil heat a bad rap

Jay4334

@STEVEusaPA a few people have mentioned you for this area, where are you located?

rick in Alaska

That is one confusing data plate. It shows one nozzle at 1.25 gph and 140 psi, another at 1.0 and 140 psi, and another at 1.0 and 175 psi. Those are all going to give you different inputs. So which one is it supposed to be? Is this unit supposed to have an input of 1.2gph at 100 psi which would give 168,000 btu input? That would be pretty close to the heating capacity. Very confusing.
Rick