Flame retention head conversion of Wayne E series burner

MikeAmann

Steamhead (and others that can help with this),

I have found some great info from you here on heatinghelp.com that almost exactly pertains to my situation. My 57 year old boiler (Burnham clone and completely rebuilt and improved by myself - not a pro) has a Wayne "E" series "sunflower" burner (not even early flame-retention) that I am in the process of converting to a flame-retention head using Beckett AF parts. I will still be using the Wayne housing and mounting flange/air tube, 1725 rpm motor and fan, and 100 psi oil pump, so it will not end up as efficient as a completely new high-speed burner, but it will be better. The Wayne setup used a Delavan .85 gph x 80*A hollow nozzle. Since the FR setup could be up to 20% more efficient, that calculates to using a .65 gph nozzle with the Beckett parts. To go with that, I will be using an F0 head with ceramic heat shield. I rolled my own air tube out of stainless steel because the Beckett tube actually fits inside of the Wayne tube. Years ago, I had new baffles made from CNC laser-cut stainless steel, but the "tongues" ended up a little small and I thought too much heat was going up the tubes without enough heat getting into the water jacket. So I recently made those tonges larger and it seems to have made a difference. billtwocase referred to this as baffling it down. And I added a gasket to the transformer to eliminate any unwanted air infiltration.

What I am looking to achieve with this final upgrade is a more efficient flame, which translates into fuel savings and less soot build-up. With the improvements I have made over the years, this unit should last the rest of my life - and that is the reason I did it. It's so good now that over this past winter I added a 40 gallon indirect water heater to it.
Is there any other advice you can share? And of course I will have a boiler serviceman set up the burner using instruments. But finding the right person that actually understands this might prove to be difficult. My old-school boiler serviceman was forced to retire due to health reasons, so I need the advice of the pros here. I will add pictures later.
I copied the relevant information from past posts below:

Maintenance of Wayne Flame-Retention Oil Burner
older American Standard Arcoliner oil-fired hot water boiler
This is a Wayne Flame-Retention Oil Burner Model OE or MP-98
Steamhead Member Posts: 14,563 November 2013 edited November 2013
If replacement is not an option, an Arcoliner can be made to run reasonably well if the right person gets involved.

If you don't have the specs for that burner, someone here in cyberspace probably does. I believe it is a flame-retention burner but have never worked on one. The Arcoliners I've worked on all have Beckett AF burners. When well sealed and properly tuned, these units put up some pretty good combustion test results and don't get sooted up over the course of a heating season.

The flue passages are rather large compared to a modern boiler, but can be baffled to make the hot flue gases wipe the cast-iron better. However, the person installing the baffles MUST make sure they do not kill the draft over the fire, or reduce the stack temperature enough to cause the flue gases to condense.

Icy is right in that the Arcoliner can't match the efficiency of a newer boiler, but it can do better than most people think. And he's right about some things needing to be corrected. Just a cursory glance shows the high limit aquastat apparently placed after the flow-check, the lack of an oil line filter (unless there's one at the tank), no oil shutoff valve at the burner (unless it's hidden) and I'll bet the primary control (the one you reset if the burner stops) is mounted on the smoke pipe, which means its "trial for ignition" is way too long.

billtwocase Member Posts: 2,385 November 2013
these Waynes were not flame retention Alex. As Frank mentioned, I would at least have a Beckett installed, new chamber, baffle it down, and save some $$$$. Short of investing in new equipment, that is money well spent here. These were coal converted back in the '40s. Tough as nails, but inefficient by today's standards. I have got them up to mid 80% efficient after upgrades.
earl burnermann Member Posts: 126 November 2013
This Wayne is an early flame retention head burner. It still has an iron end cone from the standard burner design. It also runs at 1725 rpm. But if you pull the nozzle assembly out of the tube, you will find a permanently installed turbulator on the end of the assembly. I remember it because it was one of the very few nozzle adapters that where 11/16" instead of 3/4".

I have to admit that I have never seen one that had been set up well enough not to prevent soot build up. So the right way to service this boiler is to vacuum it every year. Since it is probably the easiest boiler to clean, that shouldn't be a problem.

HVACNUT

You're doing what now?
Aero had a 1725 retention head that was half way between the Wayne OE and Beckett AF. Quiet too. 
Does this "alteration" get smoke, draft, and combustion tests when complete?
I hear golf is fun.

Robert O'Brien

It's not April 1st?

MikeAmann

HVACNUT - got any links to the AERO? Quiet? - my mods made it such that I can only hear the Wayne burner running if I am near the boiler in the basement. I wonder how much quieter it will be with the Beckett FR parts? And yes, this "alteration" definitely will get smoke, draft, and combustion tests when complete.
Golf, you mean whack the heck out of a ball, go chase it, and do that again and again? Doesn't sound like fun to me.

MikeAmann

I have to edit the pics. I will post them within a few days. Stay tuned...…….

MikeAmann

There is a new old stock Aero on ebay right now: https://www.ebay.com/itm/333778215033?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=333778215033&targetid=1263094005306&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=200511&poi=&campaignid=13822837114&mkgroupid=124092824626&rlsatarget=pla-1263094005306&abcId=9300604&merchantid=6296724&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIi8vFl5z_8QIVLD2tBh07dQmVEAQYASABEgICc_D_BwE

Talk about an antique. But the head end is like what the Wayne had.

And another newer Aero: https://www.ebay.com/itm/283391573719?hash=item41fb743ed7:g:0NwAAOSwGjtccGBs


This is very similar to what I have created. So how do these Aero's perform?

Steamhead

The Aero burner shown runs fine if set up correctly. The head looks similar to the Beckett F heads, which are used on the 1725-RPM SR series as well as the AF.

This is the current Wayne E series. Does the head of your burner look like this?

https://waynecombustion.com/products/ehasr/

EBEBRATT-Ed

@Steamhead
has it right the Beckett SR was a good low speed flame retention burner. Being 1725 rpm doesn't mean a burner is not flame retention. Put a few of those in back in the day and I liked them. Much quieter too

I would follow the Beckett SR specs if you can find them

MikeAmann

A friend of mine and I have very similar boilers, but his had the design above. He gave me his burner for spare parts for mine when he converted to gas. I was actually going to try to convert mine to this style, but was advised that the benefit would be minimal compared to what I already had. Besides, his was 3450 rpm, but his motor and oil pump was on it's last leg.
The end of my Wayne looks like the red Aero above with the cast iron end with fins. Well, not any more. Now it looks like this:


I will search for the Beckett SR specs.

My friend Kevin is welding the SS air tube I rolled tomorrow. Pics coming. Thanks guys.

MikeAmann

Inspectapedia has the SR manual: https://inspectapedia.com/heat/Beckett_Oil_Burner_SR_Instructions.pdf


Beckett now recommends the same settings for AF/AFG and SR.
The standard 5/16” dimension can be used on all Series AF, AFG, SR, SM and SF burners using the “F” style head and will remain the standard setting for our L1, V1 and FBX airtube combinations.

I used the new orange setting tool, Westwood T100-202.

BDR529

I got as far as 57 year old boiler then the merry-go-round broke down.

Steamhead

@MikeAmann , the Beckett head also needs a static plate mounted on the nozzle line assembly if you're using the F0, F3 or F6 head. See item #36 on the parts diagram in the manual. Does the Wayne assembly have such a plate? Post a pic if you're not sure.

MikeAmann

Correct. I am using the 3-3/8" plate to go with the F0 head and .65 gph nozzle - the complete Beckett nozzle line assembly (shown above), but I had to swap over to the longer oil line from the Wayne assy.
My old Wayne setup also used a 3-3/8" static plate but the ID of that air tube measures 4-1/8". The new 4" OD air tubes (thin & wimpy) slide inside of my heavy duty Wayne mounting flange/air tube. Remember, this old flange had to support that heavy burner assembly with it's larger motor and wire-wound ignition transformer. I really don't want to hang all of that on one of the newer flanges that has only 2 or 3 set screws to hold everything in place. Sure the newer flanges make setting the insertion depth easy, but my old Wayne flange is welded at the proper angle and I will not need to use extra supports or legs. All I had to do was shorten the Wayne tube by 3/8" and slide the new stainless steel adapter tube I made into it and attach the F0 head. This gives me the proper 1/4" back from edge of combustion chamber insertion depth. I did the "tube-in tube" thing because I needed to match the ID of the Beckett air tube so as not to screw up their calibrated air/fuel ratio. Stainless steel because this is the adapter piece that makes this all work and I don't want to ever have to fabricate another, nor do I want it to burn out.
I read the manual for the Beckett SR burner. That is exactly what I should end up with - 1725 rpm fan with the latest style flame-retention head.

Those that are laughing at all of this and/or asking "WHY" - I think you will understand once you see the pictures.

EdTheHeaterMan

I like your project. This will make the arcoliner look original and offer you most of the benefits of the flame retention burners of today. You just need to realize that your static pressure will not be the same as that created by a 3450 RPM fan motor. This will make it a little more difficult but not impossible) to get the air and oil to mix properly using minimal excess air.

The excess air allows for zero smoke, but also cools down the flame. So you want as little excess air as possible. the higher speed fan creates higher static pressure and some added noise, but the excess air can be reduced and still accomplish zero smoke.

Another trick you may try is to reduce the nozzle size to .60 GPH and increase the pump pressure to 120 PSI. This will make the droplets smaller creating more surface area for the oxygen to mix with the fuel. You will also get a .66 GPH firing rate at that pressure on the smaller nozzle.

This may reduce the amount of excess air needed and get you another percent or two of efficiency. Not a lot but every little savings adds up and if that one thing it only saves you $5.00 or $10.00 a year, that is $5.00 you get for free (just an adjustment)

MikeAmann

Thanks for the tip Ed. My pump only puts out 100 psi (I have a gauge on it), but I was using .85 with the Wayne setup, now I will start with .65 gph. That's a 20% savings right there. If I can get the same heat output from the new F.R. head, but using less oil to do it (more efficient) AND less soot (cleaner), then that's a win-win for me.

Although my motor & fan is only 1725 rpm, it uses a larger diameter fan than the 3450 rpm unit. So the static pressure difference might not be that big of a factor. I have a feeling that this new setup is going to put up some numbers that might closely rival a much newer setup of the same configuration. So then the question becomes not "WHY", but "WHY NOT". We'll see soon.....

If my motor or pump were in bad shape, then I never would have done this. I would have just upgraded to a new(er) high-speed burner. The boiler itself is worth it (wait for the pics). Plus if the tank failed, I could just put that new burner on a new boiler. Or sell it to someone else and buy a complete boiler with new burner.

EBEBRATT-Ed

I agree with @EdTheHeaterMan , use a smaller nozzle and bump the oil pressure to get the firing rate you want. You will get better combustion, it won't hurt the pump at all

Steamhead

@MikeAmann , that 3-3/8" static plate might be too big.

The air tube combinations listed in the manual are the same as used on the AF/AFG models, but they do not have the same firing rate ranges since the SR's fan can't move as much air. For example, the F0 head on the SR can fire 0.40-0.75 GPH with a 2-3/4" plate, while on the AF/AFG it can fire 0.40-0.75 with the 3-1/2" plate or 0.50-0.75 with the 3-3/8" plate.

Also, I'd start with 0.75 GPH as a firing rate, and drop it later if it seems too much. Use your 0.65 nozzle at about 135 PSI.

MikeAmann

When I added the gauge to my pump, I set the pressure for 100 (as called for with the Wayne setup). But IIRC (If I Remember Correctly), the max pressure I could get was 105-110 psi. I will have to recheck that when the burner gets fired up again.


Steamhead, great point about the SR static plate sizes. The new Beckett NLEA (Nozzle Line Electrode Assy) came with the 2-3/4" plate installed. I swapped that for the 3-3/8" plate to match the AF/AFG specs. My Wayne setup also used a 3-3/8" plate, but that was with a 4-1/8" ID tube. It looks like I will be somewhere in the middle. So which plate do I start with? Or flip a coin? No, you pros know exactly what you are talking about, and I will go with the plate you suggest!

Since this probably also figures into that selection, here is what my old baffles looked like (best one), the SS baffles as I originally had them made, and then as they are now with the larger "tongues" to force more heat into the water jacket. I have already seen a difference. Nice, huh?
Oh, btw, my boiler has 8 tubes.

MikeAmann

I found out that the oil tube from a Beckett AFG 9" NLEA measures 9-7/8" (Q dimension) and would fit my combination. Beckett hasn't answered any of my messages. How can I get just the tube with the attached nozzle adapter?

MikeAmann

It's time for some background info on how I got to this point. Remember, I'm a homeowner, not a boiler technician. This boiler is a National Standard A/690, 3.5M Gross, 1.15M Net, 1.10 gph max. I bought the house 19 years ago, and always watched what the boiler servicemen did. Some did more, some did less. Like many others, I thought to myself, I can do that, and a better job of cleaning it too.

The way that my exhaust pipes are set up, it is easier if I take everything apart prior to the serviceman getting there. So in the fall of 2010, I did just that and started vacuuming. And I shined a light down the tubes and saw a whole bunch of crap at the bottom. You can start laughing now. I'm going to get this thing really clean, I thought. The ID of the tubes is 2-3/4" and my shop vac's hose is 2-1/2". Perfect. I start sucking and it sounds like a steady stream of sand going through the hose - each tube. I kept at it for about 2 hours until I couldn't get anything else. But what were those white chunks? The combustion chamber - of course. It ran like this for the next 8 years. 6 years in my boiler guy was forced to retire due to health reasons, but he managed to pack some Superwool in there. And yes, the burn marks on the sides were starting to get worse. 2 years later - fall 2018 - I pull the burner to look inside and I am hoping to pack one of those wet blankets in there through the less than 5" opening. Yeah, right. Just touching anything was crumbling like a potato chip. So I reached in and crumbled it all, and then sucked it ALL out. I was committed now.

Now I am actually capable of installing a new boiler, but I don't want to start disconnecting pipes and reconfiguring them with winter right around the corner. This boiler does not have any doors to easily get into the combustion chamber. So I take it apart.


And found this:


Things were warped, only one and a half screws out of four were holding the water jacket to the fire box. I repaired and sealed the firebox. The water jacket looked really good.

Long story short, I actually found a Lynn 1107 pre-cast chamber that fit.



And I made a few improvements to that. The tubes at side were too blocked. So I made a little clearance.

I read that what happens when these chambers fail, is they slide down and that's when you get those burn marks on the sides. Well I wasn't going to allow that to happen, so here's my solution:



That's 1/2" thick cement board. I took my propane torch directly to it and it does not burn. The cement board fits into those notches I created on the underside of the "flange" of the chamber. WHY? To hold it up and keep it from sliding down. The firebox is now completely lined with cement board. I have a chamber, within a chamber, within a firebox.












It took some time, but I fit that ceramic chamber to my warped firebox TIGHTLY.

Now that I have your attention, I will pause here.

Big Ed_4

Nice work , but I think you are putting in too much work thought and money into a garbage can .

SuperTech

I can appreciate the effort that you are putting in to attempting to preserve the old boiler.  Sure you addressed the fire side of the heat exchanger but what about the water side? Do you have any idea about the condition of that? In my experience boilers like yours lose some ability to transfer heat after several decades and that leads to higher stack temperature and lower efficiency.  And all the effort going into the antique burner, why not just get a new AFG and be done with it? Why not just get a new boiler? Winter actually isn't right around the corner, its still July and you have plenty of time. I would hate to see you put all the time and effort into this and then have the boiler start leaking and need replacement anyway. 

Steamhead

Now that I've seen the firebox, it looks like you'll need a hollow nozzle such as a Delavan 80° A series. A solid nozzle might produce a long flame that contacts the back of the firebox, which would cause poor combustion. You can try the 3-3/8" plate, but if the air supply is not enough to prevent smoke/soot, change to the smaller one.

The end result should be at least 10% CO2 with zero smoke. If you can't achieve that, replace the burner.

MikeAmann

Big Ed_4 - true, but we are way past that point. Everything else has been done. The burner is the last item to upgrade. This unit works great.

Supertech - the water side actually shows only the usage of 5 years (in my estimation) and certainly not 57. That is the exact reason that I continued with it. The tankless coil is still working and not leaking, even when cold. And I had a SS plate made to block it off should it fail. I actually got a look inside of the tank and was blown away by the great condition it was in. So great that I added a 40 gallon indirect water heater to the system this past winter. The tank now has a powered titanium anode to prevent further deterioration.
If and when this unit fails in a major way, of course a new unit will replace it. Everything is now set up for an easy swap, and all of my new supporting components will transfer over. At this point, I can get some increased efficiency from the burner, and from then on, this unit owes me nothing! Well except for all the time it took to get to this point. But what I have learned is priceless.
The reason I am sticking with this unit is because it has already gone 57 years, and it still has more to give. It's not that I am in love with old things - it's that they were built to last, unlike everything made today with it's built-in PLANNED OBSOLESCENSE. Am I going to get 57 years out of a new unit?

Steamhead - Wayne recommends Delavan 80° A hollow nozzles, and that is what I bought. The previous servicemen were using 70 and 60 degree nozzles to try to keep the flame off of the failing sides (where the burn marks show).
I looked back through the old service tags. The best was from the fall of 1997. I got the house 2 years later, and the first job I had to do was take care of the exhaust piping - tape, aluminum foil, holes, loose, just a complete mess. And the boiler itself wasn't much better. But it posted these numbers:

Gross stack 470
Net stack 400
CO 10%
Smoke Zero
Breach draft -.04%
Overfire draft -.03%
Nozzle .85 x 60*A hollow

Efficiency 82%

No one has run the numbers since, but I know it's better than what it was.
When this burner upgrade is done, I will certainly have somebody dial it in with the instruments.
Any takers out there?

Steamhead

Where are you located?

MikeAmann

Central / Southern CT. Meriden actually. 06450.

MikeAmann

Ok, let's continue with this and get everyone up to where I was before this burner FR upgrade.
I packed mineral wool into the voids surrounding the new chamber. Also around the water jacket. It was NEVER insulated like this from the factory. The flat yellow insulation is actually fiberglass ceiling tiles, and I did remove the plastic. The boiler is incredibly quiet and I can hold my hand on any surface all day long (except for the top). Notice the square aluminum U channel with the clear hose attached. If the tankless coil leaks, the water runs into the channel and down the hose into a container, instead of soaking the insulation. Plus it will alert me to the leak. The heat reclaimer is just to get a little heat in the basement.

MikeAmann

This past winter I went without heat or hot water because I was doing this (adding cleanout):


My basement floor is anything but flat or level, and a perimeter drainage system was installed by the previous owners. It looks like the work was done in the dark. The concrete that was replaced looks like it was just thrown back into the areas where it was removed to install the drainage pipe and "leveled" with a rake. But they left "slots" in certain areas, one slot behind directly behind the boiler. I always wanted to take advantage of that by pouring concrete curbs around the boiler so that if the boiler should fail, the water would be contained and drain into the drainage system, and not all over the basement floor, potentially damaging whatever might be on the floor. The floor under the boiler was also pitched away from the wall (I had to build the floor up to make it pitch towards the wall and slot), and I also wanted to get the boiler up on a platform so that water could not get into the bottom and ruin the new combustion chamber. That's when I also decided to add the 40 gallon indirect water heater. Here's how that came out:

MikeAmann

Let's get us closer to what it looks like today:
















I built my own controller for the IWH and gave priority to it.
So you see that this is now not some old clapped-out boiler on life support that I refuse to let die.
Imroving the burner is the last thing to do. All the supporting components are new. All this thing has to do is run (maybe for the rest of my life) and all I have to do is keep it clean and maintained every few years.
When I put it back in place, I added unions so that it could easily be removed should it fail.
I like the features and configuration of a Burnham V8H. Are those reliable and easy to service?

Steamhead

MikeAmann said:

I like the features and configuration of a Burnham VH8. Are those reliable and easy to service?

Not really. If you replace that boiler, get a 3-pass type which is much easier to service, such as the Solaia, Biasi, Burnham MPO, Weil-McLain Ultra OIl and similar units. The Energy Kinetics boilers also have quite a following.

MikeAmann

Thanks. I will look into those.

MikeAmann

So back to the FR head conversion. The SS adapter tube is done and ready for final assembly.












I will have to reduce the open space around the air tube with some 2100* Superwool to protect the head and tube. I cannot use the ceramic fiber burner head protector sleeve.

Ctoilman

First off, that's amazing work you've done, truly impressive.  I can see countless hours put into it, and it's beautiful. 
That being said, you've really changed too much on the burner to be confident it'll be safe to run.  I know you'll fire it eventually so you better have a qualified experienced tech guy with burner instruments to 100% be sure that thing runs safely.  Not raining on your parade here, but if that thing is making carbon monoxide (more than 50 ppm and I wouldn't run it) then it's a safety/life risk.  IMO, a used Beckett burner right off Ebay for less than $300 is no doubt better and safer.  And to be quite honest, homeowners insurance would sure not approve of the burner modifications.  I understand the fun and challenge of prolonging equipment, as I 100% agree stuff is replaced much too often in our 'throw-away' society, but you've gone too far IMHO.
FWIW, be smart and safe and creative.

Big Ed_4

Teflon tape on oil fittings are a no-no. , small pieces can break loose and kill the oil pump

MikeAmann

The only place that has teflon tape is the 2 flare fittings on the spin-on oil filter adapter. Those now never get worked - only the flare connections if necessary.

Thanks for the concern guys. This unit has already been running (and running well) since 2019, just without the FR head. This is the final alteration.
The burner will now be a replica of the Beckett SR burner and will be set up properly with the instruments. The added water heater is just plumbing. The oil line is new and you wouldn't believe the kinked and crushed mess that just the couple of pieces I removed of the old oil line were in. Builders will cover anything up.





Steamhead - your understanding of this and these parts is right on the money! Here is a pic of the box label from a Beckett 9" air/tube combo. Notice, like you said, fits AF (3450 rpm) and SR (1725 rpm). Both use the 2-3/4" static plate. So now that my SS tube is 4" ID to match the Beckett tube, I will start with the 2-3/4" plate. I will now have an SR burner and published Beckett specs to follow.
This is going to work GREAT!

MikeAmann

I had to stop working on this because my car needs attention. I will get back to it soon.

HVACNUT

MikeAmann said:

I had to stop working on this because my car needs attention. I will back to it soon.

A Tesla retrofitted with a Holley double pumper?

vtfarmer

HVACNUT said:

MikeAmann said:

I had to stop working on this because my car needs attention. I will back to it soon.

A Tesla retrofitted with a Holley double pumper?

Man oh man, that's the funniest thing I've read in a long while. I laughed in an empty room when I saw this and I'll be been giggling to myself about it all day now. Thanks @HVACNUT

Nice workmanship here, but it reminds me of fully restoring a chainsaw from the 50s for daily use (heavy and dangerous...but it's cool?). Different strokes and all that...

Big Ed_4

When your young it comes down to either you have more time or money ..... When you are older you have less time and spend money for less aggravation .

MikeAmann

A Tesla retrofitted with a Holley double pumper? Good one!

When your young it comes down to either you have more time or money ..... When you are older you have less time and spend money for less aggravation . You nailed it Ed. I inherited this mess when I bought the house. I improved the weak links one-at-a-time over the years. Now I am at the final upgrade - the F.R. head. True that I can't get back the time I have put into this, but I get to keep the education. Going forward, this unit owes me very little $$$ and will now pay me back for the (hopefully) next few decades. If and when it does fail, the entire system is now ready to easily accept a new boiler (easy swap).

MikeAmann

Would anyone happen to have just the oil tube (with nozzle adapter) from a Beckett AF90 combo? I don't need the air tube or the electrodes.
The "Q" dimension should be 9-5/8".