Nozzle selection

bignozzle

I have a smith fd12-6 boiler with tankless coil with an ez-1 running 1.25 as nozzle, I want to try a Beckett afg instead but am not sure what nozzle to use. Any help would be appreciated 

STEVEusaPA

Whatever one your service provider recommends, then confirms with proper combustion tools and techniques.

bignozzle

I am the service provider

HVACNUT

I don't see that model listed in the Beckett OEM burner manual. 
And the Carlin OEM manual calls for a 101CRD so... where did the EZ-1 come from? 

STEVEusaPA

bignozzle said:

I am the service provider

Then you’re better off calling Beckett tech support to see if they can guide you.
Before you call, make sure you have the dimensions of the combustion chamber and the location from bottom of chamber to center of the burner hole, in case they haven’t already tried this combo. This will help them size a replacement burner, air tube, end cone, pump presssure, and nozzle.
But those are all starting points. You’ll still have to know how to perform a full proper combustion test and probably a nozzle substitution test to dial it in.

STEVEusaPA

HVACNUT said:

I don't see that model listed in the Beckett OEM burner manual. 
And the Carlin OEM manual calls for a 101CRD so... where did the EZ-1 come from? 

I think it’s so old Beckett didn’t even consider testing one.

HVACNUT

STEVEusaPA said:

I don't see that model listed in the Beckett OEM burner manual. 
And the Carlin OEM manual calls for a 101CRD so... where did the EZ-1 come from? 

I think it’s so old Beckett didn’t even consider testing one.

Same with Riello. 
Maybe it originally took a Shell head.

EBEBRATT-Ed

Not sure what boiler that is I think it was before the series 8.

I was told it is similar to the 8 but they tended to be leaker's or had some other issues. The jackets were Blue.

Then they came out with the 8 which is basically the same boiler I think and they changed gaskets or something but they went with a RED jacket to make it different

426hemi

The firing rate should be the same you didn’t say what the angle or pattern is. Not sure why you would want to swap a ez1 for a afg the Carlin is a better burner I always run them at 140-160psi for a better/cleaner fire. If you run a 1.0 nozzle at 160 you will get the same 1.25 gph if your currently at 100psi these Carlin’s run super clean and stable at the higher pressure with a hollow nozzle at your firing rate. I personally would never replace one with a Beckett granted the Beckett is a lot more forgiving of improper setup than the Carlin but that’s not a good thing! The Carlin with a delayed oil valve at 140-160psi burns as clean as a rellio! 

bignozzle

You’re right about the leaking. They had neoprene gaskets between the sections which eventually leaked. The one I have is a replacement block which was warranteed and came without sheet metal and no serial # plate, so it probably isn’t an fd12 but whatever model replaced it.  I was under the impression the becket was superior to the Carlin, but the last post is interesting.

SuperTech

I honestly don't think there's any difference between the Beckett and Carlin as far as quality goes. In my experience both are capable of burning cleanly when set up right and tuned correctly.  I like to downsize the nozzle and increase the oil pump pressure on any burner that comes from the factory with the pump pressure at 100 PSI. I think some guys think the Beckett is inferior because some older AFGs came with 100 PSI pump pressure and no delay valve. I like the modern AFG and Carlin burners better than the Riello just because they are easier to work on,  but all three are capable of burning clean and being very reliable. 

426hemi

I agree with super tech on this I wouldn’t replace a af/afg with a ez1 or the opposite. I can tell you why Carlin and Reillo have a bad reputation in some parts of the country let’s say in your area you see 90% Af and afg Beckett burners so you have all the parts for them in your van and you see only 5% carlin ez burners, Do you stock all the parts on your van? Do you have the room? Do you make a run to the supply house every time? What if your in a rural area and it’s a 60mi drive to get Carlin parts but every one has Beckett parts locally? What happens if you get a no heat call on a Friday night do you tell the customer there **** out of luck till Monday morning? Most people tell the customer that the x model of  burner is a piece of junk and should be replaced by x model which is the most popular one in that area. Just my 2cents.

HVACNUT

One of the first things I did when I moved into my home in '02 was remove the AFG from the Weil McLain GO-3 and install a Riello F5.
That was then. Carlin, Beckett, and Riello all have their place. That AFG would've been fine if I left it. It had an R8184G so in my mind the whole thing had to go.
The AFG runs awesome in an EK. And so does the EZ-1.
My number one will go to Riello. @SuperTech, they're extremely easy to work on. The hardest part is putting the cover on. And off, and on, and off, and on. Making adjustments during combustion tests the cover must be on for accurate measurements. It's a bit of a PITA and a race against limit.
@bignozzle , if that's a newer model warranty block, there must be a stamping on it somewhere. You can cross reference a burner that way.

426hemi

I agree Riello is a great burner but I see maybe 1 or 2 of them out of every 100 burners I service not a popular unit around here. I can’t justify stocking parts for them because there so rare.

SuperTech

Taking the covers on and off to tune the burner is a pain on any burner. At least EK has a good design. The only reason why I prefer Beckett or Carlin is because I find working on and troubleshooting problems easier with a separate primary control and igniter. Its nice to be able to easily check cad cell resistance with the burner running too. 
Burners are like women, every guy has his particular preference, and they all can be beautiful.

BDR529

I'll bite 1.10-70-A

MaxMercy

bignozzle said:

I was under the impression the becket was superior to the Carlin, but the last post is interesting.

I'm not a pro, but have dealt with a fair amount of both over the last 40 plus years, and honestly I think they're both fine burners. If I was ordering a new one, I suppose I'd order the AFG but for no particular reason. Properly sized, installed, and tuned, I think they're both fine burners. I also think there might be a bit of the old Ford vs Chevy fan boy arguments when discussing which is better.

What I'm trying to say is that I can't see any reason to swap the Carlin for the Beckett, or a Beckett for a Carlin unless the burner is just old and shot. If the Carlin doesn't seem to be performing, find out why and repair it.

STEVEusaPA

426hemi said:

I agree Riello is a great burner but I see maybe 1 or 2 of them out of every 100 burners I service not a popular unit around here. I can’t justify stocking parts for them because there so rare.

Riello's are semi popular here, but that simple Riello repair kit covers all you'll ever need and doesn't take up much space.

Around my way in the late 80's one large company decided they were putting in only equipment with Riellos. First ones anyone ever saw. Their goal was to make sure no other company could work on them.
Although it's my favorite burner, I'd rather walk up to a Beckett, with a ProMaxx or newer Honeywell primary.
I remember talking to the Riello expert (George) back in the 90's, and he told me overseas, burners are serviced by the manufacturer. And Riello has a full diagnostic tool that hooks into the burner and diagnoses every component-ohms reading and amp draws. I don't think they would even let him take a picture of it. Don't know why they wouldn't sell/share that.
Carlin is also good, but it's a 2 hour round trip if I ever need an air tube. And if there is one thing that will go wrong on an older Carlin that isn't maintained properly, it's a warped end on the air tube.

STEVEusaPA

SuperTech said:

Taking the covers on and off to tune the burner is a pain on any burner. At least EK has a good design. The only reason why I prefer Beckett or Carlin is because I find working on and troubleshooting problems easier with a separate primary control and igniter. Its nice to be able to easily check cad cell resistance with the burner running too. 
Burners are like women, every guy has his particular preference, and they all can be beautiful.

You can snake a standard cad cell into the air tube for some diagnostic help, but I hear ya.

"Burners are like women..." I really thought you were going to go a different way with that.

Steamhead

I checked my copy of the 1991 Beckett OEM Spec Guide. For Smith, it only lists the BB14 and 8 series boilers. The FD-12 is nowhere to be found.

With that said, there's no reason an AFG- or AF- should not work well on the FD-12. Like the AF, the Carlin 100- and 101-CRD burners weren't high-static units IIRC.

The 60° solid nozzles in the Carlin spec sheet were for the Carlin adjustable heads. Beckett fixed heads (F-series, for this boiler the F6) typically use 80° solid nozzles, so that's what I'd try first. Go to a 70° solid if the 80° flame impinges on the side walls or only fills the front half of the chamber.

EBEBRATT-Ed

That FD boiler is pretty old.

Same or similar to the series 8 I think. The FD was 1970s I think. I know the * has been around since 86ish

bignozzle

The  Carlin burner on my smith runs fine. The reason I wanted to replace it with the afg is that I thought I’d use less oil because it runs at higher pressure than the Carlin.

Steamhead

Wouldn't make any difference. Save yourself the trouble.

MaxMercy

bignozzle said:

The  Carlin burner on my smith runs fine. The reason I wanted to replace it with the afg is that I thought I’d use less oil because it runs at higher pressure than the Carlin.

If you ask me, there's no difference in oil consumption between Carlin, Beckett, and even Riello when all are sized, installed, and adjusted properly. Let's say that any difference might in fractional percents.

As far as pump pressure figure, that's up to the boiler manufacturer on prepackaged boilers or up to the installer for any other installation.

A lot of pros will take the stock 100psi setting and raise that and downsize the nozzle using a nozzle size/pressure chart to net down to the correct gph that the boiler requires . The Beckett and Carlin are virtually identical in that respect anyway.

And of course, any adjustment of pump pressure and nozzle size must be done with proper combustion equipment.

EBEBRATT-Ed

Beckett, Carlin are = as far as I am concerned.

I like Carlin because the retention head can be removed for cleaning easily

Jamie Hall

The argument of less oil with higher pressure... ah, no. You still need the same amount of oil to produce the same amount of heat. And unless the nozzle is changed, it would use more -- not less.

Chips203

Downfall to the EZ-1 is a brass drawer assembly with a retaining clip rather than a flange like the AFG to secure it inside the burner housing. Too many times I've come across stripped threads for the nozzle line due to the previous tech cross threading them on. Much harder to do on an AFG. 

EdTheHeaterMan

Jamie Hall said:

The argument of less oil with higher pressure... ah, no. You still need the same amount of oil to produce the same amount of heat. And unless the nozzle is changed, it would use more -- not less.

Not sure I understand your post. I don't believe anyone is saying "less oil". I do believe that a .85 nozzle at 140 PSI pimp pressure will fire the burner at 1 GPH with smaller spray droplets. This procedure allows for more surface area of the fuel. This allows for complete combustion with less excess air.

@STEVEusaPA are you talking about a Philadelphia based company that installed Riello?

Prior to that, they installed Carlin to be different from Beckett. Prior to that, they use a Lynn Burner with an aftermarket label over the Lynn nameplate. The goal was to have customers burn less fuel. All the technicians and installers went to in house training and factory training at least once a month to stay informed on the latest technology to provide customers with savings.

Their competitors were also unhappy with the $14.95 service contracts that included all the oil burner parts and labor and yearly maintenance. The 1960s were a very different time for the oil heat industry.

STEVEusaPA

Not the large family owned one, the other one with the scarf logo on the trucks

HVACNUT

STEVEusaPA said:

Not the large family owned one, the other one with the scarf logo on the trucks

Aren't they all children of Star Gas?

STEVEusaPA

HVACNUT said:

STEVEusaPA said:

Not the large family owned one, the other one with the scarf logo on the trucks

Aren't they all children of Star Gas?

They are now.
I think Petro, who gobbled up Sunoco also has Meenan. And I think they are all Star Gas.
Ed may have been thinking about the about the large privately owned Haab.

EdTheHeaterMan

Haab was more commercial. Young in Olney section of Phila was purchased by Meenan They also purchased Young in Lansdale (different family) with the lumber yard that burnt away.

Steamhead

Petro also operates in the Baltimore area, and Star Gas also owns Carroll, Griffith and Hoffberger. So the four largest oil suppliers in this area are all under the same ownership. They must not be too concerned about anti-trust laws.

@EdTheHeaterMan , I've never seen a Lynn burner. Around here we had lots of Sunrays.

MaxMercy

EdTheHeaterMan said:

Jamie Hall said:

The argument of less oil with higher pressure... ah, no. You still need the same amount of oil to produce the same amount of heat. And unless the nozzle is changed, it would use more -- not less.

Not sure I understand your post. I don't believe anyone is saying "less oil". I do believe that a .85 nozzle at 140 PSI pimp pressure will fire the burner at 1 GPH with smaller spray droplets. This procedure allows for more surface area of the fuel. This allows for complete combustion with less excess air.

Not speaking for Mr. Hall certainly, but I think he was responding to the OP who thought a high pressure pump (say a .85 @ 140lbs) would somehow use less oil than a 1.00 @ 100lbs even if they calculated out to the same flow rate.

I guess a higher pump pressure might result in a finer atomized fuel and perhaps even more complete combustion, but I don't think it amount to any measurable difference in fuel consumption.

EdTheHeaterMan

@MaxMercy If the combustion efficiency is 86% with a .85@ 140
PSI and a 1.00 @ 100psi flame is 85% efficient as a result of less excess air needed for complete combustion, there would be a lower fuel consumption by about 1.01% This is how the whole game is played. But your concept is correct and easy to understand. 1 GPH is 1GPH so the gross input is the same. The idea is to get the output to be different. As far as any single individual is concerned, 1.01% is not much. Add all the oil heat population with a new burner and 1.01% is a ton of $$$.

Add each piece of the puzzle for any particular customer like Barometric Draft control, new combustion chamber, removing all the soot from the exchanger, adding baffles where indicated, sealing air leaks in the combustion chamber and exchanger, better air oil delivery and mixture for reducing excess air, and burning with no smoke and they will save as much as 1/2 on their oil consumption. The customer purchases less oil but they are still purchasing OIL... not GAS!!! Get the customer to save, tell their friends, and get more customers. That was a good business model back in the day



@Steamhead, In the 1950s & 60s, Lynn made a burner that used the Shell Head technology of the time. Made by the same company as the Lynn combustion chambers. You could get complete combustion with less excess air, No Smoke, and a "Sunflower" shaped flame. The flame could also be adjusted to a long narrow flame as needed. This is what I learned on my first days of burner service. I was taught "No Smole, no Soot, no Odor from the radiant heat flame. All the heat is extracted from the Oil."

The burner fan was above the assembly, and the ignition transformer was on the right side of the burner under the motor. A model "J" pump was standard. The nozzle assembly was removed from a door on the back of the burner housing.

MaxMercy

EdTheHeaterMan said:

@MaxMercy If the combustion efficiency is 86% with a .85@ 140
PSI and a 1.00 @ 100psi flame is 85% efficient as a result of less excess air needed for complete combustion, there would be a lower fuel consumption by about 1.01% This is how the whole game is played.

Thanks Ed, really appreciate the information!