Lofty Goals

Steve Ebels

I've been around Viessmann enough to know that if they bring it to market it IS going to work, it IS going to work a long time and it IS going to work without a lot of problems. JMHO

Mike T., Swampeast MO

May yet be realized

Eight years ago I was determined to heat AND cool a 100-year-old 3,500+ sq.ft. (not including finished attic) home for an average of $200/month AND with exceptional comfort delivered simultaneously to multiple occupants with varying definitions of "comfort".

There are 47 large ORIGINAL windows, 12 doors--all but two glazed--to the outside (not including 2 garage doors) and more North facing glass than ALL of the glass area of a modest new home. Full basement about 50% above grade--it is uninsulated and because of summer conditions WILL stay that way. Home on a ridge with the North and West exposures mainly free of trees, lots of slope and a windy "micro-climate". Continental (highly changeable) climate and exceptionally hot/humid summers. Winter design temp 8°.

Determined to have a reasonably conventional systems with the lowest possible maintenance requirements AND ability to be maintained AND understood by a reasonably astute technician.

With the increase in energy costs (especially natural gas) in this time frame I nearly abandoned the goal as I questioned the possibility of wringing that much efficiency out of a gravity conversion heating system. The boiler I only imagined did not exist at the time.

Now there at least two boiler candidates and likely many more to come. I sincerely believe it possible as "my" numbers seem to be corresponding with actual data.

The insulation/weatherization I've added is conventional and thorough but I have kept in mind that "old houses like to breathe." (Personally I think new homes should breathe as well but that's another story.)

I've seen the utility bills from before I owned the place and this will amount to a whopping 70% reduction in fuel use! The attic was ALREADY insulated acceptably and I made few changes there. As I do all of the work myself, it's really hard to determine how much it will cost to achieve this. It's just as difficult to separate how much this would add to the cost of a more conventional renovation--but I believe the added cost is far less than you might imagine. The comfort part of the equation is even less tangible as it is impossible to fully separate comfort from energy reduction.

Dreams CAN come true!

Mark A. Custis

Sounds like

my kind of hobby. What are the numbers?

Mark

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Mike T., Swampeast MO

The bad side

Since I'm an industry outsider--mainly just a homeowner--and am mainly self-educated few in the trade and even fewer in academia will take me seriously. Even if they accept my results, they will deem them mainly theoretical, unverified and non-reproducable.

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Look carefully

at other current threads and slog your way through "Performance Testing of a Family of Type I Combination Appliances" you'll get an idea. I should be receiving some reasonbly "hard" data soon but it will be a few seasons before I actually get the boiler. Cost and indecision are about equal in causing the delay.

Mark A. Custis

Mark, I don't

have time to rerun this site. I'm lucky to get here ever once and awhile. Just took the retirement and went selfemployed as I'm the only one besides Frank Blau who will pay me what Iam worth in my market area.

I do design for free, if I do the work. Sending the apprentice to Tulane for 5 years so she can tell me what to do. I was fortunate to have seen one of Dan's first adds about "DEAD GUYS KNEW WHAT THEY WHERE DOING" or something close and even got the free hat. The hat is gone to the bottom of Lake Erie but some of the book stuck between my ears.

I was never told the was a box or envelope to be concered with, so I dont't think within them. I do.

Will help,

Mark

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Mark A. Custis

Mark, I don't

have time to rerun this site. I'm lucky to get here ever once and awhile. Just took the retirement and went selfemployed as I'm the only one besides Frank Blau who will pay me what Iam worth in my market area.

I do design for free, if I do the work. Sending the apprentice to Tulane for 5 years so she can tell me what to do. I was fortunate to have seen one of Dan's first adds about "DEAD GUYS KNEW WHAT THEY WHERE DOING" or something close and even got the free hat. The hat is gone to the bottom of Lake Erie but some of the book stuck between my ears.

I was never told the was a box or envelope to be concered with, so I dont't think within them. I do.

Will help,

Mark

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Mark A. Custis

ps

One can only get so many BTUs/ what ever, I'm into getting the bill under the mark. Mark, Mark

To Learn More About This Contractor, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Contractor"

Boilerpro_2

Difintiely possible, Mike,

> Eight years ago I was determined to heat AND cool

> a 100-year-old 3,500+ sq.ft. (not including

> finished attic) home for an average of $200/month

> AND with exceptional comfort delivered

> simultaneously to multiple occupants with varying

> definitions of "comfort".

>

> There are 47 large

> ORIGINAL windows, 12 doors--all but two

> glazed--to the outside (not including 2 garage

> doors) and more North facing glass than ALL of

> the glass area of a modest new home. Full

> basement about 50% above grade--it is uninsulated

> and because of summer conditions WILL stay that

> way. Home on a ridge with the North and West

> exposures mainly free of trees, lots of slope and

> a windy "micro-climate". Continental (highly

> changeable) climate and exceptionally hot/humid

> summers. Winter design temp 8°.

>

> Determined to

> have a reasonably conventional systems with the

> lowest possible maintenance requirements AND

> ability to be maintained AND understood by a

> reasonably astute technician.

>

> With the

> increase in energy costs (especially natural gas)

> in this time frame I nearly abandoned the goal as

> I questioned the possibility of wringing that

> much efficiency out of a gravity conversion

> heating system. The boiler I only imagined did

> not exist at the time.

>

> Now there at least two

> boiler candidates and likely many more to come.

> I sincerely believe it possible as "my" numbers

> seem to be corresponding with actual data.

>

> The

> insulation/weatherization I've added is

> conventional and thorough but I have kept in mind

> that "old houses like to breathe." (Personally I

> think new homes should breathe as well but that's

> another story.)

>

> I've seen the utility bills

> from before I owned the place and this will

> amount to a whopping 70% reduction in fuel use!

> The attic was ALREADY insulated acceptably and I

> made few changes there. As I do all of the work

> myself, it's really hard to determine how much it

> will cost to achieve this. It's just as

> difficult to separate how much this would add to

> the cost of a more conventional renovation--but I

> believe the added cost is far less than you might

> imagine. The comfort part of the equation is

> even less tangible as it is impossible to fully

> separate comfort from energy reduction.

>

> Dreams

> CAN come true!

Boilerpro_2

Definitely possible, Mike,

Prior to our most recent gas price increases we have been spending about 350 per year on gas for heat and about 200 on electric for A/C for our 1-1/2 tons of "window shakers". Or moneypit was built in 1906, 2,800 sq ft on two floors plus unheated full basement, about 700 sq ft of glass, the largest percentage on the south and east. Design temp is about -4F here. Still running our 1962 American Standard G series boiler, less 6 of the 9 original burners. Most of the house is heated with columnar radiation resized for 160F at design conditions with all new piping. Keep at it, its pretty easy to get an old house tighter than most new homes....most are incredibly leaky.



Boilerpro

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Not talking physical impossibilities

When you consider that an atmospheric cast natural gas iron boiler is LUCKY to put 85% of the BTUs available from the fuel into the system under ideal (read laboratory) conditions AT FULL OUTPUT and AT OUTDOOR DESIGN TEMPERATURE things that may sound impossible on the surface (like 50% reduction in fuel use) can take on new meaning if:

An extremely efficient INITIAL heat transfer process is teamed with a proportional "fire" and proportional high mass delivery of those BTUs to the final space.

Granted I have some really wild views of radiation but every source (mathematical prediction, empirical data, subjective data) all seem to confirm that the closer your BTU input to the instant BTU output the more that output will take the form of radiation.

tombig

Empirical?

Mike, you have entirely too much time on your hands.

Tombig

Eric Taylor_21

Here we go again...

Mike,

Maybe its me, but I just can't fathom what you are claiming about the ratio of radiation to convection changing if you are only putting in the same btus in that go out. I understand that if the surfaces that the radiator "sees" get colder you will get more radiation, but that means more total heat output not less convection. Radiation and convection are mutually exclusive in that one dosen't affect the other.

So if a rad is at 120* you get X btuh in the form of radiation and Y btuh in the form of convection. Now your walls cool off just a bit, so you get a little bit more radiation, but the cooler walls also cool the air and increase the convection not to mention the TRV will let more heat into the rad when the air temp drops.

Any warm surface in air will convect. Any warm surface will radiate. How can more of one equal less of the other for a given surface?

Eric

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Ratio change is RELATIVE

to what is happening in the space.

IF the final heat emission device is supplying EXACTLY the number of BTUs to MAINTAIN the temperature of a space, the surface temperature of that device will be at a minimum. Put one extra BTU in the device and it would try to RAISE the temperature of the SPACE by one BTU. Because the device is ALREADY liberating the maximum amount of BTUs possible via radiation, that single BTU will leave either in the form of convection to the air or conduction to whatever surface it directly contacts.

As soon as that single extra BTU enters another BTU pops out in the form of conduction (remember that convection IS a form of conduction). Because of this that BTU seems to pass through the system WITHOUT RAISING ITS' TEMPERATURE. Since either the emitter or receiver MUST change in temperature to change radiation, that single BTU will not be given off as radiation.

Now add LOTS of extra BTUs. Since convection is an inefficient form of conduction the ability of the device to "pop off" the extra BTUs becomes overwhelmed. The temperature of the device increases and ONLY THEN can you get more radiation. BUT since those convective BTUs aren't lost they have in fact raised the temperature of the cold surfaces a bit and radiation does not increase proportionally with the convection.

For a REALLY GOOD analogy remember that "toy" made up of five idential steel balls suspended in contact with each other. Think of what happens when you drop one or two balls against the rest compared to dropping three.

If you agree with this, you'll see how an emission device giving off x BTUs CAN AND DOES divide those BTUs differently between radiation/convection depending on the nature of its environment.

Radiant is a "backwards" way of heating. It strives to maintain a space in stasis. If you control the radiating device such that it has just enough energy to maintain temperature of the space it will be radiating maximally.

Now imagine that you could actually control the initial source (the boiler) in the same manner--just enough energy in to satisfy the energy demand.

Do it with a model of a "black body" like that "derby hat" of an emitter in the Viessmann. Remember that there is hardly even flame in the conventional sense. Control that emitter proportionally and the consequences are literally fantastic. Turn up a TRV and watch the glow increase nearly instantly and slowly diminish to just about the point where it started.

Photo from a previous post by Steve Ebels--hope I spelled that last name right! You're probably looking at the closest source of "pure energy" available to us mere citizens. Am not at all trying bad mouth other boilers!!!! I just find this burner technology fascinating.

Eric Taylor_22

Its simpler than that

Heat will not flow without a temperature difference to drive it. Just like water will not flow without a pressure difference and electricity will not flow without a charge difference.

"IF the final heat emission device is supplying EXACTLY the number of BTUs to MAINTAIN the temperature of a space, the surface temperature of that device will be at a minimum."

I agree with that 100%

"Put one extra BTU in the device and it would try to RAISE the temperature of the SPACE by one BTU."

I think you mean energy of the space, but you're wrong anyway. The extra btu is still in the rad! There are only two ways to get it out. It either goes into the space via a temperature difference OR it moves on down the pipe to the next temperature difference. The only way to go from the steady state conditions we started with to raising the energy content of the space is to increase the temperature of the rad. Doing so will result in a proportionate increase in both radiation and convection.

I have one of those desktop toys with the five balls. Conservation of energy always works. If I drop three balls I get three out the other side. Same as if I drop two, one, four, or five.

That Veissmann burner is really sexy, but there is no magic there. That blue haze around the dome is fire. It is just really good fire I totally believe that burner radiates more than it convects for two reasons. One, it is VERY HOT, and two, the airflow is minutely controlled to minimize convection. The btus gotta come out somehow!

Someone here said something along the lines of "I can sell you high efficiency or I can sell you reliability, but I can't sell both" I hope he was wrong, but I fear he was right.

Eric

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Game

When I played it in 1971 if you dropped more than half the system just seemed to chase itself.

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Odd balls

Represent the radiation.

When I dropped one there was a lot of clack but not much movement. The sound IS the radiation.

When I dropped more than half there was lots of movement but not much sound. The movement IS the conduction.

Mike T., Swampeast MO

1029 balls on appropriately long strings

drop one and Spot will hear it but you won't see movement in the 1027.

Eric Taylor_23

Simple VS Complex

I frmly believe that the Veissmanns and the Munchkins are good products even though I have never seen either, however I have a hard time believing that they are just as reliable as the older, simpler technology. Just look at all of the components that have to work everytime the newer units light off. Combustion fans, flow sensors, microprocessors, intermittent ignition, etc. The more complex a piece of equipment is the more chances for failure. I've seen standing pilot gas boilers that haven't been serviced in decades merrily chugging along. Not as efficiently mind you, but like that bunny we know so well they keep going and going.....

I'm not bashing the new technology. Quite the opposite in fact. I would LOVE to try a Vitodens or a Munchkin in my own home when my cast iron sectional needs replacing, but I have a feeling it will be years and years waiting for it to quit.

Eric