Help with heat loss and finishing existing design details_1

hot_rod

Mike Krall said:

hot_rod said:

About 4 dollars difference between a #15 and #30, at SupplyHouse, go with a # 30

Beyond cost of parts and additional piping, are there any functional (or other) differences between 2 #15 (4 gal. total, Amtrol) or 1 #30 (4.4 gal., Amtrol)?

Mike

Edit: The designer pointed me to Amtrol but mentioned "or equivalent". What other manufacturers would fit that?

Brand doesn't matter as long as capacity is close. With two tanks you need to get them pre-pressurized exactly the same. More piping and two things to fail

Two tanks make sense when you get into large systems requiring 10 gallons or more of tank, or ASME rated tanks.

hot_rod

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

About 4 dollars difference between a #15 and #30, at SupplyHouse, go with a # 30

I was not saying to go with the #15 .... I was trying to point out how much you can put on a #15. He has two 30's in his layout with 8 loops? I did the #15 because I had no space and it was enough.

Also -- Since the Alpha II is designed eliminate 3way valves and the use of bypass valves ... why use them?

The Alpha II is also designed to know when valves open and close so there is no need to use more than one -- I'm not trying to be difficult -- trying to understand. If I'm using one basic Alpha II for 4 manifolds and 30+ loops -- why use two pumps for a simple system with 8 loops on two manifolds ?

My furthest manifold is a 10/11 loop (forgethow many ) of 3/8 pex for retrofit plates ... it's about 50' away and gets good flow through the loops

The Alpha 1 is less $$, with only 3 proportional pressure modes.


As far as a single Alpha for both manifolds, his design for just tubing shows 7.49 gpm at 15.83' of head. That looks to be a bit out of reach for the Alphas. So two zones might make sense and give you some backup if one fails.

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

Brand doesn't matter as long as capacity is close. With two tanks you need to get them pre-pressurized exactly the same. More piping and two things to fail

Two tanks make sense when you get into large systems requiring 10 gallons or more of tank, or ASME rated tanks.

One tank... #30... Is it close?
Thanks, 'Hot Rod'...

Mike

Mike Krall

The original design shows unions at the boiler (S&R piping). Should there be unions at the DHW indirect tank? At the LLH? Other places?

Mike

hot_rod

Skip the unions. They are useful if you often remove equipment for service. When the boiler or tank eventually need replacement you probably would repipe and the unions are useless anyway.

Copper to male or female adapters work for me. No issue with electrolysis on a closed loop piping, so copper to stainless, steel, etc is not an issue.

Sweat or press adapters are available in male and female. The Knight I installed in my shop last fall had copper tube connections, sweat a valve or fitting right on and go.

On the boiler bottom, to my DHW hx I used a valve with a drain port, since it was a low point to drain for boiler cleaning, injecting chemicals, water sampling, etc.

TAG

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

About 4 dollars difference between a #15 and #30, at SupplyHouse, go with a # 30

I was not saying to go with the #15 .... I was trying to point out how much you can put on a #15. He has two 30's in his layout with 8 loops? I did the #15 because I had no space and it was enough.

Also -- Since the Alpha II is designed eliminate 3way valves and the use of bypass valves ... why use them?

The Alpha II is also designed to know when valves open and close so there is no need to use more than one -- I'm not trying to be difficult -- trying to understand. If I'm using one basic Alpha II for 4 manifolds and 30+ loops -- why use two pumps for a simple system with 8 loops on two manifolds ?

My furthest manifold is a 10/11 loop (forgethow many ) of 3/8 pex for retrofit plates ... it's about 50' away and gets good flow through the loops

The Alpha 1 is less $$, with only 3 proportional pressure modes.


As far as a single Alpha for both manifolds, his design for just tubing shows 7.49 gpm at 15.83' of head. That looks to be a bit out of reach for the Alphas. So two zones might make sense and give you some backup if one fails.

Why does he need that flow ? When I plugged it in it was under 4 ... The 2 would be needed to get the auto and no dead head problem. Is the higher head the loss though the valve ?

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

Skip the unions. They are useful if you often remove equipment for service. When the boiler or tank eventually need replacement you probably would repipe and the unions are useless anyway.

Thank you...

hot_rod said:

Copper to male or female adapters work for me. No issue with electrolysis on a closed loop piping, so copper to stainless, steel, etc is not an issue.

I've looked at NIBCO, Elkhart, Mueller and not finding a 'reducing adapter, C x FNPT wrot copper in 2" FNPT x 1" sweat. The Viessmann LLH is 2" MNPT steel. I've thought of a number of solutions but they are all two piece... like Cast 2" to 1" FNPT + copper 1" x 1" sweat/MNPT. Cleanest to my eye is C x F 2" adapter + 2" x 1" reducer coupling. My problem is I don't know for sure what the nomenclature means... like does the 2" sweat adapter end take a 2" reducer coupling, or are they both 'innies' or 'outies? Have you ideas how to do this that isn't me chasing my tail, then catching it... =]

And... do the companies I mentioned above make good stuff? I got well over not spec-ing good companies one time with a bunch of junk metal electrical boxes.

hot_rod said:

On the boiler bottom, to my DHW hx I used a valve with a drain port, since it was a low point to drain for boiler cleaning, injecting chemicals, water sampling, etc.

_The 'black pipe' is gas line with a drip leg?
_The screw slot ('coin slot'?) in the drain port is a ball valve actuator... hose bib male with threaded plug or fitting end or ???

'Hot Rod', I'd PM you if that would be OK...

Mike

hot_rod

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

About 4 dollars difference between a #15 and #30, at SupplyHouse, go with a # 30

I was not saying to go with the #15 .... I was trying to point out how much you can put on a #15. He has two 30's in his layout with 8 loops? I did the #15 because I had no space and it was enough.

Also -- Since the Alpha II is designed eliminate 3way valves and the use of bypass valves ... why use them?

The Alpha II is also designed to know when valves open and close so there is no need to use more than one -- I'm not trying to be difficult -- trying to understand. If I'm using one basic Alpha II for 4 manifolds and 30+ loops -- why use two pumps for a simple system with 8 loops on two manifolds ?

My furthest manifold is a 10/11 loop (forgethow many ) of 3/8 pex for retrofit plates ... it's about 50' away and gets good flow through the loops

The Alpha 1 is less $$, with only 3 proportional pressure modes.


As far as a single Alpha for both manifolds, his design for just tubing shows 7.49 gpm at 15.83' of head. That looks to be a bit out of reach for the Alphas. So two zones might make sense and give you some backup if one fails.

Why does he need that flow ? When I plugged it in it was under 4 ... The 2 would be needed to get the auto and no dead head problem. Is the higher head the loss though the valve ?

Did you plug in a 10° delta? 37,400 BTU/hr at a 20 delta would be 3.7 gpm, call it 4 gpm.
The tighter delta, requiring more gpm drives up the head.

10- 15 delta is not uncommon for radiant loops, but you can see at what cost, circulation-wise.

For an exact number you need the density and specific heat of water at the temperature it will be circulated at. The software with those inputs seems to be doing the math accurately

I'm just using the data given for my opinions and suggestions

That is one of the best software programs, if the data was entered accurately, I'd trust the numbers.
That load for that square footage home at a -15°F design seems reasonable?

I think the calcs and design are done well, my only question was/ is the constant circulating piping logic and some of the pipe sizing.

GGross

To get from your 2" MNPT to a 1" copper you can use these two items from Elkhart Products

10030190 that is just a 2" Female adapter C x C

10032106 2" x1" fitting adapter FTG x C. that means the 2" side will slide into the 2" copper end of the female adapter, while the 1" side will go over 1" copper pipe

I have a few customers that like to put unions in place of the female adapter but to each their own, my own LLH does not have unions, I have plenty of drains etc close enough that it doesn't really concern me. In hindsight I would have used the Caleffi Sep4 but I don't think they were available at the time, or if they were I did not know about them

TAG

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

About 4 dollars difference between a #15 and #30, at SupplyHouse, go with a # 30

I was not saying to go with the #15 .... I was trying to point out how much you can put on a #15. He has two 30's in his layout with 8 loops? I did the #15 because I had no space and it was enough.

Also -- Since the Alpha II is designed eliminate 3way valves and the use of bypass valves ... why use them?

The Alpha II is also designed to know when valves open and close so there is no need to use more than one -- I'm not trying to be difficult -- trying to understand. If I'm using one basic Alpha II for 4 manifolds and 30+ loops -- why use two pumps for a simple system with 8 loops on two manifolds ?

My furthest manifold is a 10/11 loop (forgethow many ) of 3/8 pex for retrofit plates ... it's about 50' away and gets good flow through the loops

The Alpha 1 is less $$, with only 3 proportional pressure modes.


As far as a single Alpha for both manifolds, his design for just tubing shows 7.49 gpm at 15.83' of head. That looks to be a bit out of reach for the Alphas. So two zones might make sense and give you some backup if one fails.

Why does he need that flow ? When I plugged it in it was under 4 ... The 2 would be needed to get the auto and no dead head problem. Is the higher head the loss though the valve ?

Did you plug in a 10° delta? 37,400 BTU/hr at a 20 delta would be 3.7 gpm, call it 4 gpm.
The tighter delta, requiring more gpm drives up the head.

10- 15 delta is not uncommon for radiant loops, but you can see at what cost, circulation-wise.

For an exact number you need the density and specific heat of water at the temperature it will be circulated at. The software with those inputs seems to be doing the math accurately

I'm just using the data given for my opinions and suggestions

That is one of the best software programs, if the data was entered accurately, I'd trust the numbers.
That load for that square footage home at a -15°F design seems reasonable?

I think the calcs and design are done well, my only question was/ is the constant circulating piping logic and some of the pipe sizing.

Soooo ..... where did the almost 7.5gpm and the high head come from ? When I said "2" ... I should have said Alpha II ..... the II getting you the auto logic and the no deadheading.

I'm trying to understand how I heat my church with a 60k boiler and 33 odd loops of pex w/ one Alpha II pump? And get very nice flow ...

TAG

If you go to supply house they have all the parts to make this easy .. also -- many boilers come with the near boiler fitting

GGross

@TAG
Try plugging the same numbers in but use a 10 degree delta T instead of 20. As Bob said The tighter Delta T would require more GPM and add head. That is likely why your numbers differ from one another, the delta is different, generally we try to design radiant floor jobs on a tighter delta than say, baseboard.

hot_rod

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

About 4 dollars difference between a #15 and #30, at SupplyHouse, go with a # 30

I was not saying to go with the #15 .... I was trying to point out how much you can put on a #15. He has two 30's in his layout with 8 loops? I did the #15 because I had no space and it was enough.

Also -- Since the Alpha II is designed eliminate 3way valves and the use of bypass valves ... why use them?

The Alpha II is also designed to know when valves open and close so there is no need to use more than one -- I'm not trying to be difficult -- trying to understand. If I'm using one basic Alpha II for 4 manifolds and 30+ loops -- why use two pumps for a simple system with 8 loops on two manifolds ?

My furthest manifold is a 10/11 loop (forgethow many ) of 3/8 pex for retrofit plates ... it's about 50' away and gets good flow through the loops

The Alpha 1 is less $$, with only 3 proportional pressure modes.


As far as a single Alpha for both manifolds, his design for just tubing shows 7.49 gpm at 15.83' of head. That looks to be a bit out of reach for the Alphas. So two zones might make sense and give you some backup if one fails.

Why does he need that flow ? When I plugged it in it was under 4 ... The 2 would be needed to get the auto and no dead head problem. Is the higher head the loss though the valve ?

Did you plug in a 10° delta? 37,400 BTU/hr at a 20 delta would be 3.7 gpm, call it 4 gpm.
The tighter delta, requiring more gpm drives up the head.

10- 15 delta is not uncommon for radiant loops, but you can see at what cost, circulation-wise.

For an exact number you need the density and specific heat of water at the temperature it will be circulated at. The software with those inputs seems to be doing the math accurately

I'm just using the data given for my opinions and suggestions

That is one of the best software programs, if the data was entered accurately, I'd trust the numbers.
That load for that square footage home at a -15°F design seems reasonable?

I think the calcs and design are done well, my only question was/ is the constant circulating piping logic and some of the pipe sizing.

Soooo ..... where did the almost 7.5gpm and the high head come from ? When I said "2" ... I should have said Alpha II ..... the II getting you the auto logic and the no deadheading.

I'm trying to understand how I heat my church with a 60k boiler and 33 odd loops of pex w/ one Alpha II pump? And get very nice flow ...

The simple formula for cold water, 60°F looks like this;
heat transfer in (Btu/hr.) = 500.F. ∆T

Warmer water- density increases and reduces slightly the ability to transport heat

500.7 gpm. 10∆= 35,000 btu/hr
500. 3.5. 20∆= 35,000 btu/hr
501. If you want thatr tighter ∆ it takes more gpm, make sense? The higher flow rate sees more restriction in all the piping and devices so the head number goes up.

A more complicated formula would be to know the actual fluid temperature and plug in those numbers

heat transfer= (8.01 Dc).F (∆T)
D being the density of the fluid at ? temperature
c being the specific heat at ? fluid temperature

As far as your church, what is the heat load, loop length and tube size?
33 loops of 1/2 pex at 250' length? So about 3.5' head per loop, per the RadPad, assuming 120F fluid temperature"

Assume your boiler actual output is 54,000 (60,000 X 90%)
To move 54,000Btu/hr. at a 20∆ would require 5,4 gpm
54,000 at a 10∆ would require 10.4 gpm
maybe your system runs a 30 ∆?
Can't know the head without knowing the loop data.

The SIM programs allow you to massage all these numbers, play around with deltas to get a desired flow and pump size if you want to back into it., and build a system around a circulators comfort range

These formulas can predict results, but the actual building is more in charge of the ever changing loads, internal gains, solar gains, large occupancy gains with 400 Btu/hr per every breathing, warm body in the pews. Really not enough info to answer your question
If it works and everyone is warm and comfortable, amen

Mike Krall

GGross said:

To get from your 2" MNPT to a 1" copper you can use these two items from Elkhart Products

10030190 that is just a 2" Female adapter C x C

10032106 2" x1" fitting adapter FTG x C. that means the 2" side will slide into the 2" copper end of the female adapter, while the 1" side will go over 1" copper pipe

Thank you for that... I've learned a little about some stuff here.. C x C, FTG X C, Wrot

Do you see any functional differences between the above parts for this, and Elkhart Products
_ 10030192 - 2" x 1 1/2" Female Reducing Adapter C x C, with
_ 10032092 - 1 1/2" x 1" Fitting Reducer FTG x C

Mike

hot_rod

If it were me

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

If it were me

** I thought a person wasn't supposed to use iron... that there were potential problems with the it. What don't I understand?

** Ward... which class: 150, 300... 125, 250?

Mike

hot_rod

Mike Krall said:

If it were me

** I thought a person wasn't supposed to use iron... that there were potential problems with the it. What don't I understand? ** Ward... which class: 150, 300... 125, 250? Mike

Your pumps will be iron. Expansion tank is mild steel, the LLH is probable carbon steel. Many boilers are cast iron or steel
As long as it is on the heating side, ferrous metals are fine.
The least expensive 2x1 black steel reducing coupling you can buy will be fine. You are running very low pressures.

EdTheHeaterMan

I'm wondering when HotRod can send Mike a bill for all the technical instruction given here. July to September, That is almost a full semester.

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

Your pumps will be iron. Expansion tank is mild steel, the LLH is probable carbon steel. Many boilers are cast iron or steel... As long as it is on the heating side, ferrous metals are fine.
The least expensive 2x1 black steel reducing coupling you can buy will be fine. You are running very low pressures.

OK... I mostly get it. And thank you for the parts leads.

Mike

Mike Krall

EdTheHeaterMan said:

I'm wondering when HotRod can send Mike a bill for all the technical instruction given here. July to September, That is almost a full semester.

Any time he needs to... just like I said in the first post, and then again a few posts later.

I meant it, Ed.

Mike

Mike Krall

I'm back to 3-way zone valves. I can't figure how they would be piped... supply to load... load to load. There are a couple of screenshots below. First one directly pertains (the recommended 3-way). Second is similar but different valves from the newest Caleffi catalog (Aug. 2022).

It looks to me like "ideal" would be supply to load = A to B. That would need load to load being AB to B... the valves don't work that way... or I don't see how they work that way, more like it.

A lot of the 3-way stuff I ran into (J.Siegenthaler, mostly) has them running AB to A, then AB to B. With this design, all I can figure out is they need to run A to AB, then B to AB... seemingly with a lot smaller Cv (if that has anything to do with anything ???). Some of that shows in the second screenshot.

So... how does this work?

Mike

TAG

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

TAG said:

hot_rod said:

About 4 dollars difference between a #15 and #30, at SupplyHouse, go with a # 30

I was not saying to go with the #15 .... I was trying to point out how much you can put on a #15. He has two 30's in his layout with 8 loops? I did the #15 because I had no space and it was enough.

Also -- Since the Alpha II is designed eliminate 3way valves and the use of bypass valves ... why use them?

The Alpha II is also designed to know when valves open and close so there is no need to use more than one -- I'm not trying to be difficult -- trying to understand. If I'm using one basic Alpha II for 4 manifolds and 30+ loops -- why use two pumps for a simple system with 8 loops on two manifolds ?

My furthest manifold is a 10/11 loop (forgethow many ) of 3/8 pex for retrofit plates ... it's about 50' away and gets good flow through the loops

The Alpha 1 is less $$, with only 3 proportional pressure modes.


As far as a single Alpha for both manifolds, his design for just tubing shows 7.49 gpm at 15.83' of head. That looks to be a bit out of reach for the Alphas. So two zones might make sense and give you some backup if one fails.

Why does he need that flow ? When I plugged it in it was under 4 ... The 2 would be needed to get the auto and no dead head problem. Is the higher head the loss though the valve ?

Did you plug in a 10° delta? 37,400 BTU/hr at a 20 delta would be 3.7 gpm, call it 4 gpm.
The tighter delta, requiring more gpm drives up the head.

10- 15 delta is not uncommon for radiant loops, but you can see at what cost, circulation-wise.

For an exact number you need the density and specific heat of water at the temperature it will be circulated at. The software with those inputs seems to be doing the math accurately

I'm just using the data given for my opinions and suggestions

That is one of the best software programs, if the data was entered accurately, I'd trust the numbers.
That load for that square footage home at a -15°F design seems reasonable?

I think the calcs and design are done well, my only question was/ is the constant circulating piping logic and some of the pipe sizing.

Soooo ..... where did the almost 7.5gpm and the high head come from ? When I said "2" ... I should have said Alpha II ..... the II getting you the auto logic and the no deadheading.

I'm trying to understand how I heat my church with a 60k boiler and 33 odd loops of pex w/ one Alpha II pump? And get very nice flow ...

The simple formula for cold water, 60°F looks like this;
heat transfer in (Btu/hr.) = 500.F. ∆T

Warmer water- density increases and reduces slightly the ability to transport heat

500.7 gpm. 10∆= 35,000 btu/hr
500. 3.5. 20∆= 35,000 btu/hr
501. If you want thatr tighter ∆ it takes more gpm, make sense? The higher flow rate sees more restriction in all the piping and devices so the head number goes up.

A more complicated formula would be to know the actual fluid temperature and plug in those numbers

heat transfer= (8.01 Dc).F (∆T)
D being the density of the fluid at ? temperature
c being the specific heat at ? fluid temperature

As far as your church, what is the heat load, loop length and tube size?
33 loops of 1/2 pex at 250' length? So about 3.5' head per loop, per the RadPad, assuming 120F fluid temperature"

Assume your boiler actual output is 54,000 (60,000 X 90%)
To move 54,000Btu/hr. at a 20∆ would require 5,4 gpm
54,000 at a 10∆ would require 10.4 gpm
maybe your system runs a 30 ∆?
Can't know the head without knowing the loop data.

The SIM programs allow you to massage all these numbers, play around with deltas to get a desired flow and pump size if you want to back into it., and build a system around a circulators comfort range

These formulas can predict results, but the actual building is more in charge of the ever changing loads, internal gains, solar gains, large occupancy gains with 400 Btu/hr per every breathing, warm body in the pews. Really not enough info to answer your question
If it works and everyone is warm and comfortable, amen

Love that slide calculator !! I always do shorter loops -- the 1/2 pex are all under the 250 and the 3/8 for the plates are all in the 150-160 (you and others gave me advise on the 3/8 w/ plates) I did use 1.25 copper out from the LLH to the remote manifolds. The final church project is a bit over 4k square feet of living space w/ a load about what the smallest Viessmann 200 boiler can net. 58k is my memory

I'm not trying to mess up the OP's thread ... as a non professional the "why" questions from those not doing it every day can be informative to others. I'm building a barn and one of the builders plumbers who gave a bid "does not trust the new pumps" -- so his build is full of dumb pumps and flow checks. With each project I learn what I did not need ...

When I see pumps and zone valves together -- as the non professional I have to ask why? Same with 3 way zone valves .... and smart pumps. The most comfortable radiant is with constant circulation and the best way to control that seems to be with ODR

hot_rod

Mike Krall said:

I'm back to 3-way zone valves. I can't figure how they would be piped... supply to load... load to load. There are a couple of screenshots below. First one directly pertains (the recommended 3-way). Second is similar but different valves from the newest Caleffi catalog (Aug. 2022).

It looks to me like "ideal" would be supply to load = A to B. That would need load to load being AB to B... the valves don't work that way... or I don't see how they work that way, more like it.

A lot of the 3-way stuff I ran into (J.Siegenthaler, mostly) has them running AB to A, then AB to B. With this design, all I can figure out is they need to run A to AB, then B to AB... seemingly with a lot smaller Cv (if that has anything to do with anything ???). Some of that shows in the second screenshot.

So... how does this work?

Mike

You have the Z-One, ignore that 642 it is a completely different valve. Don't look at that 642 tech sheet ever again

The valve you have is 7.5 Cv in either position. 7.5 gallons per minute with a 1 psi, exactly what you system demand is.

Always pump away from or out of the AB port. Try to have at least 6" of straight pipe before you connect the pump to AB.

Supply from the hydro sep to the A port, 1" copper as we discussed.
Return from the manifold to the B port, 1" copper

The B port is opened to the AB port when there is no thermostat call, no power on the valve. It is always in this position. This is your constant circulation, it's not needing or getting heat from the boiler.

When the thermostat calls for heat the valves closes the B port, opens the A port to AB. Now flow "heat" comes from the boiler and hydro sep.

When you install the motor actuator on the brass valve, latch the motor to the open position. When you remove the actuator for what ever reason, latch the motor open. See the notch in the end of the case with the lever. It pushes fairly hard, as you are working against a spring.

Either A or B is always open to AB, so that is how you get constant circulation

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

You have the Z-One, ignore that 642... it is a completely different valve. Don't look at that 642 tech sheet ever again

OK, I promise
Mike

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

The valve you have is 7.5 Cv in either position. 7.5 gallons per minute with a 1 psi, exactly what you system demand is.

Always pump away from or out of the AB port. Try to have at least 6" of straight pipe before you connect the pump to AB.

** I've come across 'min. 12 P dia.' of straight pipe to circulator intake a bunch of different places... Caleffi Idronics mag., for one. Only thing I've seen contrary to that is "ME" saying he put boiler circs. tight to PONPC... that he has found "pressure droop" in some circumstances doing the 'min.12 P dia.' and especially if a longer distance.

Not arguing here... what makes all the above true... or ???

Mike

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

When you install the motor actuator on the brass valve, latch the motor to the open position. When you remove the actuator for whatever reason, latch the motor open. See the notch in the end of the case with the lever. It pushes fairly hard, as you are working against a spring.

Thanks for this 'Hot Rod'... nice and clear. I've seen the function schematics and I'd have been way too cautious moving the lever.

Mike

hot_rod

Mike Krall said:

hot_rod said:

The valve you have is 7.5 Cv in either position. 7.5 gallons per minute with a 1 psi, exactly what you system demand is.

Always pump away from or out of the AB port. Try to have at least 6" of straight pipe before you connect the pump to AB.

** I've come across 'min. 12 P dia.' of straight pipe to circulator intake a bunch of different places... Caleffi Idronics mag., for one. Only thing I've seen contrary to that is "ME" saying he put boiler circs. tight to PONPC... that he has found "pressure droop" in some circumstances doing the 'min.12 P dia.' and especially if a longer distance.

Not arguing here... what makes all the above true... or ???

Mike

12 pipe diameters is fine and a good rule of thumb for circ inlet. That 3 way valve is not a flow reducing device in your case at 7 gpm flows, so it would not be a problem having the circ closer to the valve, if space is tight.

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

12 pipe diameters is fine and a good rule of thumb for circ inlet. That 3 way valve is not a flow reducing device in your case at 7 gpm flows, so it would not be a problem having the circ closer to the valve, if space is tight.

OK... if space is tight...

** Only if it can be said simply... what is the pressure droop thing Mark Eatherton has found with boiler pumps 12 pipe dia. and more from PONPC.

Mike

hot_rod

Mike Krall said:

hot_rod said:

12 pipe diameters is fine and a good rule of thumb for circ inlet. That 3 way valve is not a flow reducing device in your case at 7 gpm flows, so it would not be a problem having the circ closer to the valve, if space is tight.

OK... if space is tight...

** Only if it can be said simply... what is the pressure droop thing Mark Eatherton has found with boiler pumps 12 pipe dia. and more from PONPC.

Mike

Even a piece of pipe 1" long has some pressure drop, depending on the flow rate. Ideally we want the circ inlet close to the tank connection, keep that pressure drop to near zero. A foot or two isn't going to cost much drop, a psi or two.

Like everything hydronic, that exact number could be calculated, using the info in those Idronics issues

Here is the timeless Carlson/ B&G example, spiffed up with some color.

The exact point the tank connect establishes the PONPC, 10 psi in this example. Notice the small pressure drop in the short section from the tank to the circ, 1 psi.

The other drawing shows quite clearly what happens when you pump at the tank connection.

So the pressure differential (∆P) that the circ can generate (8 psid) either adds or subtracts from the static fill. Depending on the tank connection.

In some extreme cases, when pumping at the tank, you can pull a sub-atmospheric condition in the piping, allowing auto air vents to pull air in.

Also the 1960 vintage B&G drawing, possibly hand drawn by Gil Carlson?

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

Mike Krall said:

hot_rod said:

12 pipe diameters is fine and a good rule of thumb for circ inlet. That 3 way valve is not a flow reducing device in your case at 7 gpm flows, so it would not be a problem having the circ closer to the valve, if space is tight.

OK... if space is tight...

** Only if it can be said simply... what is the pressure droop thing Mark Eatherton has found with boiler pumps 12 pipe dia. and more from PONPC.

Mike

Even a piece of pipe 1" long has some pressure drop, depending on the flow rate. Ideally we want the circ inlet close to the tank connection, keep that pressure drop to near zero. A foot or two isn't going to cost much drop, a psi or two.

Like everything hydronic, that exact number could be calculated, using the info in those Idronics issues

Here is the timeless Carlson/ B&G example, spiffed up with some color.

The exact point the tank connect establishes the PONPC, 10 psi in this example. Notice the small pressure drop in the short section from the tank to the circ, 1 psi.

The other drawing shows quite clearly what happens when you pump at the tank connection.

So the pressure differential (∆P) that the circ can generate (8 psid) either adds or subtracts from the static fill. Depending on the tank connection.

In some extreme cases, when pumping at the tank, you can pull a sub-atmospheric condition in the piping, allowing auto air vents to pull air in.

Also the 1960 vintage B&G drawing, possibly hand drawn by Gil Carlson?

What 'other drawing'?

So circ. placement as near as connectors allow to one or two feet (straight piping, no angles or, "etc.") ?

Mike

Canucker

Mike Krall said:

The system needs a fill

12 pipe diameters is fine and a good rule of thumb for circ inlet. That 3 way valve is not a flow reducing device in your case at 7 gpm flows, so it would not be a problem having the circ closer to the valve, if space is tight.

OK... if space is tight... ** Only if it can be said simply... what is the pressure droop thing Mark Eatherton has found with boiler pumps 12 pipe dia. and more from PONPC. Mike

Even a piece of pipe 1" long has some pressure drop, depending on the flow rate. Ideally we want the circ inlet close to the tank connection, keep that pressure drop to near zero. A foot or two isn't going to cost much drop, a psi or two. Like everything hydronic, that exact number could be calculated, using the info in those Idronics issues Here is the timeless Carlson/ B&G example, spiffed up with some color. The exact point the tank connect establishes the PONPC, 10 psi in this example. Notice the small pressure drop in the short section from the tank to the circ, 1 psi. The other drawing shows quite clearly what happens when you pump at the tank connection. So the pressure differential (∆P) that the circ can generate (8 psid) either adds or subtracts from the static fill. Depending on the tank connection. In some extreme cases, when pumping at the tank, you can pull a sub-atmospheric condition in the piping, allowing auto air vents to pull air in. Also the 1960 vintage B&G drawing, possibly hand drawn by Gil Carlson?

What 'other drawing'? So circ. placement as near as connectors allow to one or two feet (straight piping, no angles or, "etc.") ? Mike Mike

@hot_rod posted 2 drawings showing the effect that the piping will have on your system and the principles behind the numbers 

hot_rod

Mike Krall said:

The system needs a fill

hot_rod said:

Mike Krall said:

hot_rod said:

12 pipe diameters is fine and a good rule of thumb for circ inlet. That 3 way valve is not a flow reducing device in your case at 7 gpm flows, so it would not be a problem having the circ closer to the valve, if space is tight.

OK... if space is tight...

** Only if it can be said simply... what is the pressure droop thing Mark Eatherton has found with boiler pumps 12 pipe dia. and more from PONPC.

Mike

Even a piece of pipe 1" long has some pressure drop, depending on the flow rate. Ideally we want the circ inlet close to the tank connection, keep that pressure drop to near zero. A foot or two isn't going to cost much drop, a psi or two.

Like everything hydronic, that exact number could be calculated, using the info in those Idronics issues

Here is the timeless Carlson/ B&G example, spiffed up with some color.

The exact point the tank connect establishes the PONPC, 10 psi in this example. Notice the small pressure drop in the short section from the tank to the circ, 1 psi.

The other drawing shows quite clearly what happens when you pump at the tank connection.

So the pressure differential (∆P) that the circ can generate (8 psid) either adds or subtracts from the static fill. Depending on the tank connection.

In some extreme cases, when pumping at the tank, you can pull a sub-atmospheric condition in the piping, allowing auto air vents to pull air in.

Also the 1960 vintage B&G drawing, possibly hand drawn by Gil Carlson?

What 'other drawing'?

So circ. placement as near as connectors allow to one or two feet (straight piping, no angles or, "etc.") ?

Mike

Mike

These are suggested best practices, for optimal performance and circ health.
Realistically these X piping arrangements happen on a frequent basis and systems still deliver the heat. Circ may cavitate under extreme conditions.

A common PSC circ, 15-58, 007, NRF 22 pick a pump. They run about 20% efficient on a perfect day, so any piping that prevents the best condition, drives down that wire to water efficiency.

Mike Krall

Canucker said:

@hot_rod posted 2 drawings showing the effect that the piping will have on your system and the principles behind the numbers 

Thank you. Saw the two screenshots... got into my head there was to be a third.

"...Here is the timeless Carlson/ B&G example, spiffed up with some color."
"...The other drawing shows quite clearly what happens when you pump at the tank connection."
"...Also the 1960 vintage B&G drawing, possibly hand drawn by Gil Carlson?"

Doesn't matter, really... I mostly get this.

Mike

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

Mike Krall said:

The system needs a fill

hot_rod said:

Mike Krall said:

hot_rod said:

12 pipe diameters is fine and a good rule of thumb for circ inlet. That 3 way valve is not a flow reducing device in your case at 7 gpm flows, so it would not be a problem having the circ closer to the valve, if space is tight.

OK... if space is tight...

** Only if it can be said simply... what is the pressure droop thing Mark Eatherton has found with boiler pumps 12 pipe dia. and more from PONPC.

Mike

Even a piece of pipe 1" long has some pressure drop, depending on the flow rate. Ideally we want the circ inlet close to the tank connection, keep that pressure drop to near zero. A foot or two isn't going to cost much drop, a psi or two.

Like everything hydronic, that exact number could be calculated, using the info in those Idronics issues

Here is the timeless Carlson/ B&G example, spiffed up with some color.

The exact point the tank connect establishes the PONPC, 10 psi in this example. Notice the small pressure drop in the short section from the tank to the circ, 1 psi.

The other drawing shows quite clearly what happens when you pump at the tank connection.

So the pressure differential (∆P) that the circ can generate (8 psid) either adds or subtracts from the static fill. Depending on the tank connection.

In some extreme cases, when pumping at the tank, you can pull a sub-atmospheric condition in the piping, allowing auto air vents to pull air in.

Also the 1960 vintage B&G drawing, possibly hand drawn by Gil Carlson?

What 'other drawing'?

So circ. placement as near as connectors allow to one or two feet (straight piping, no angles or, "etc.") ?

Mike

Mike

These are suggested best practices, for optimal performance and circ health.
Realistically these X piping arrangements happen on a frequent basis and systems still deliver the heat. Circ may cavitate under extreme conditions.

A common PSC circ, 15-58, 007, NRF 22 pick a pump. They run about 20% efficient on a perfect day, so any piping that prevents the best condition, drives down that wire to water efficiency.

My impression from reading about straight for 12 pipe dia. min. to pump inlet is the distance allows a smoothing out of flow. And that was true for thermowell's also... either downstream of a pump or even downstream of an LLH. Do I have this correctly?

Mike

hot_rod

It’s mainly downstream or upstream of a circ pump. The flow out off a circ is fairly turbulent, kind of looks like a tornado when you see it in clear pipe. The straight pipe allows it to straighten up a bit before going into a valve or device.

On the inlet, too much restriction can cause inadequate flow and pump noise, cavitation.

on large commercial pumps they often use a suction diffuser fitting to assure good straight flow into the volute.

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

It’s mainly downstream or upstream of a circ pump. The flow out off a circ is fairly turbulent, kind of looks like a tornado when you see it in clear pipe. The straight pipe allows it to straighten up a bit before going into a valve or device.

On the inlet, too much restriction can cause inadequate flow and pump noise, cavitation.

on large commercial pumps they often use a suction diffuser fitting to assure good straight flow into the volute.

In 'Idronics mag.' (somewhere) I came across 12 pipe dia. inlet side and 5 pipe dia. outlet side. Somewhere else found a reference to thermowell on secondary side of supply wanting either 12" or 12 pipe dia. (bad note taking). I roughly see the "tornado-like" turbulence. What is it about the outlet-side distance difference between circ. and thermowell?

Absolutely don't want noise in this system... would be really noticeable in what is a very quiet house... and had to look up suction diffuser... now I'm 'an expert'... =]

Mike

hot_rod

Noise issues are more often from over-pumping, too high of velocity. Pin holes in copper are also related to high flow rates, un-reamed copper creating an aggressive turbulent erosion flow condition.

If you are between 2- 4 fps no noise, and a good air removal speed.

Plenty of systems out there that break those distance rules and they run for years and years. The key again is they are low velocity systems.

No reason to tempt fate if you have the real estate to spread out the piping components.

Mike Krall

hot_rod said:

Noise issues are more often from over-pumping, too high of velocity. Pin holes in copper are also related to high flow rates, un-reamed copper creating an aggressive turbulent erosion flow condition.

If you are between 2- 4 fps no noise, and a good air removal speed.

Plenty of systems out there that break those distance rules and they run for years and years. The key again is they are low velocity systems.

No reason to tempt fate if you have the real estate to spread out the piping components.

Well, the wall area is 58" - 63" wide and 100" tall. Width depends on how much clearance to indirect and how tight to a door swing. A person could use the behind-door area and get 86" width (32" door pin is 42" out from that corner).

Is that having "enough real estate"?

Mike

Mike Krall

Need some sort of filling/purging system... the bits and pieces.

The designer felt having a pressure gauge, filling the system as cold as could, marking the pressure gauge... then marking it again at full heat was a simple way to know if there was water loss via loss of pressure... said to check it often. If low, open 'valve off' to replace water needed. There was mention of possible GE Smart filter, but at the time, the designer only knew there was a deep drilled well and "good" water.

I've read Idronics #18, but all I've got is awareness... not understanding. I need help getting the fill/purge part of the system and water stuff spec-ed.
-----------------------------------------

Well Water (207', pump at 175')... smells and tastes good... clear... a little build up in cook pots (drill hole not in high calcium strata... is siltstone and sandstone so likely gypsum)... sudses well and doesn't "feel" hard. Got very small amount of 'dirt' in the toilet tank... gritty... and there is a little mineral build up on above-water parts.

Test...
* Hardness........... 14 gpg (239.4 ppm)
* TDS.................. 280 ppm
* Hyd. Sulphides.. 0
* Iron.................... 0
* pH...................... 7.5

Mike

hot_rod

A Caleffi 573 Autofill is a great valve. It is a fast fill valve, about 5 gpm, so excellent for purging

Here is the water spec out of the Lochinvar Knight manual. Your water is pretty far out of spec. That will be tough in your water heater tank also.

If you fill your system with that well water, essentially you void the boiler warranty. And they can tell that when they cut open a failed boiler☹️

you could fill, flush and pressure test with that water.  Once you fire the boiler all the minerals will come out of solution and coat the boiler heat exchanger. They stick to the hot metal surface, not unlike the bottom of your tea kettle 

I’d run the water you have through a DI tower, or go and buy 55 gallons of DI or RO water for the final fill.
Add a squirt of Rhomar conditioner to buffer that low Ph filtered water once it is up and running properly.

Do you have any water treatment companies nearby? Culligan  or others? They sometimes will sell filtered water, used to be a buck a gallon in my area. Take a plastic barrel and they fill it with purified water

But not softened water, needs to be demineralized.  Car washes have demineralized water for final rinse,  especially if 14 gpg is common around there. If you know the car wash dude, maybe get some water there.

There is an Idronics issue on water quality that explains the different methods for treating hard water.