FB38 PRV's

tommyoil

Gents,
I'd like to know who does what with regard to leaving the supply valve open or closed. I know that the recommended procedure is to close for safetys sake. However I rarely if ever see it done. Personally, I close them and usually have to go back because the top floor has no heat ect...w/ zero pressure on the boiler.I catch a ton of flack for doing it. Getting tired of the callbacks but am chicken to leave them open. Lets hear from the masses now.Better safe than sorry? What say you all?

Unknown

We tell our customers

to leave it open if they're home , close it if they go away on vacation . Of course , only if there's a LWCO on the boiler .

There is a much greater potential of water damage with it left open , but even with the past cold winters it is an extremely rare occurence around here .

clammy

prv

In general every boiler i ever done i leave the valve on with the exception being manual feed steam boiler i,ve really never have encounter any promblems plus if you have no lwco you could be in for trouble and with a spriovent after a quick intinal purge i've yet to have to go back and bleed system with exception being mono flow rad jobs but with a pump on the supply only the last 1 or 2 rads and maybe second fllors with a good air elimator and your feed open and prv set as air leaves your feeder makes it up i hate going back bleeding for some one elses pump change out peace clammy

Ed_13

Boiler feed valve

Tommy,

Click the link below to the watts spec sheet on their 1156F. See section #1, Operation. It indicated the shut off valve prior to the feeder must be on whenever the system is in operation.

Some may argue that is should be left off to protect from water damage however if the specs call for it & you don't do it, you're on the hook for the results. Also I agree with the others, I would NEVER leave oneturned off without a LWCO on the boiler.

JMHO

Ed Carey




http://www.wattsreg.com/pdf/IS-1156F.pdf

Ed_13

Boiler feed valve

Tommy,

Click the link below to the watts spec sheet on their 1156F. See section #1, Operation. It indicated the shut off valve prior to the feeder must be ON whenever the system is in operation.

You stated that it is a "recomended procedure to close for safety sake". This is just a question not a challenge. Do you know of any other feed valve specs or boiler manufacturer's specs that instruct to keep the supply closed? It would be interesting to know if some equipment manufacturers instruct directly to the contrary of Watts.

Some may argue that the supply valve should be left closed to protect from water damage and there is merit to that statement, however if the feed valve specs call for the supply to be open & you don't leave it open, you're on the hook for the results. A small leak in a pipe low at the boiler can make for a problem when the boiler fires up for the first time in the fall. Good reason for a LWCO.

Also I agree with the others, I would NEVER leave one turned off without a LWCO on the boiler.

JMHO

Ed Carey




http://www.wattsreg.com/pdf/IS-1156F.pdf

Ed_13

Boiler feed valve

Tommy,

Click the link below to the watts spec sheet on their 1156F. See section #1, Operation. It indicated the shut off valve prior to the feeder must be ON whenever the system is in operation.

You stated that it is a "recomended procedure to close for safety sake". This is just a question not a challenge. Do you know of any other feed valve specs or boiler manufacturer's specs that instruct to keep the supply closed? It would be interesting to know if some equipment manufacturers instruct directly to the contrary of Watts.

Some may argue that the supply valve should be left closed to protect from water damage and there is merit to that statement, however if the feed valve specs call for the supply to be open & you don't leave it open, you're on the hook for the results. Without a LWCO on a boiler, a small leak in a pipe low at the boiler can make for a problem when the boiler fires up for the first time in the fall. Good reason for a LWCO on all boilers.

Also I agree with the others, I would NEVER leave one turned off without a LWCO on the boiler.

JMHO

Ed Carey




http://www.wattsreg.com/pdf/IS-1156F.pdf

Ed_13

Boiler feed valve

Tommy,

Talking only about FHW boilers, not steam.

Click the link below to the watts spec sheet on their 1156F. See section #1, Operation. It indicated the shut off valve prior to the feeder must be ON whenever the system is in operation.

You stated that it is a "recomended procedure to close for safety sake". This is just a question not a challenge. Do you know of any other feed valve specs or boiler manufacturer's specs that instruct to keep the supply closed? It would be interesting to know if some equipment manufacturers instruct directly to the contrary of Watts.

Some may argue that the supply valve should be left closed to protect from water damage and there is merit to that statement, however if the feed valve specs call for the supply to be open & you don't leave it open, you're on the hook for the results.

Without a LWCO on a boiler, a small leak in a pipe low at the boiler can make for a problem when the boiler fires up for the first time in the fall. Good reason for a LWCO on all boilers.

Also I agree with the others, I would NEVER leave a boiler water supply on a FHW boiler turned off without a LWCO on the boiler.

JMHO

Regards,

Ed Carey




http://www.wattsreg.com/pdf/IS-1156F.pdf

Big Idahoan

leave them

open. we always test are radiant systems prior to start up for at least 24 hrs w/ air. then fill them w/ water, start up the system, let the prv & spirovent do its job, come back and flush the system, add the glycol (if necessary) and let the prv & spirovent do there job again. never had call backs for lack of pressure, left the valves on and no problems so far.

Glenn Harrison_2

Bell and Gossett does condradict Watts.

I'm attaching the .pdf file with the instructions for the FB-38 PRV. They specifically say that a PRV is only for filling the boiler to the proper pressure, and once the system is filled, the inlet valve needs to be shut off. They also state that all systems need to have a Low Water Cuyt Off. I've been told that the reason B&G takes this stance is due to a lawsuit involving a boiler that exploded due to a leak in the system, and the PRV putting cold water into a red hot boiler.

tommyoil

I kind of figured...

Thanks Ed,( and everyone)
Considered it a question, not a challenge(even though I like a good challenge). No I suppose I do not know of anyone who suggests keeping the valve closed. Maybe I mis-interpreted the instruction sheet from B&G. Did I ? Mine in my own home is open, even when I go on vacation. Its open all the time. Thanks EVERYONE for their input. I knew I could count on you guys. I ALWAYS put LWCO's on all my H.W boilers and have been doing so since B4 it was required by code (here in N.J.) Believe me, I took alot of abuse for it as "a waste of money" because it wasn't necessary.Or better yet " it aint code" was the jingle everyone was singing. I was not referring to steam boilers here at all. I kind of figured what y'all were going to say. It pays to ask. Especially this bunch. Thanks again.

Ed_13

Feed Valves

Glenn,

Thanks for that B&G link. It answers Tom's question as to if any other manufacturer requires the feed to be closed. And obviously B&G does.

It is interesting that B&G is setting forth such a knee jerk reaction to a boiler explosion.
If that boiler had a LWCO, it would not have been able to dry fire and therefore an explosion would have been prevented.

As a result of that incident B&G wants the feed valve left off, which can still allow a boiler to dry fire. However, in their instructions they only "recommend", and they do not "require" the installation of a LWCO on a boiler that employs their valve.

Kind of Bass Ackwards if you ask me.

It also looks like their Lawyer wrote the I&O instructions for that feed valve as a CYA document, and only BRIEFLY passed it by their Engineering staff. If you ask me, B&G still has the same exposure that they had before, only now they put it in writing.

Thanks to all, this is an interesting thread.

Regards,


Ed Carey

Ed_13

Feed Valves

Glenn,

Thanks for that B&G link. It answers Tom's question as to if any other manufacturer requires the feed to be closed. And obviously B&G does.

It is interesting that B&G is having such a knee jerk reaction to a boiler explosion.
If that boiler had a LWCO, it would not have been able to dry fire and therefore an explosion would have been prevented.

As a result of that incident B&G wants the feed valve left off, which can still allow a boiler to dry fire. However, in their instructions they only "recommend", and they do not "require" the installation of a LWCO on a boiler that employs their valve.

Kind of Bass Ackwards if you ask me.

It also looks like their Lawyer wrote the I&O instructions for that feed valve as a CYA document, and only BRIEFLY passed it by their Engineering staff. If you ask me, B&G still has the same exposure that they had before, only now they put it in writing.

Thanks to all, this is an interesting thread.

Regards,


Ed Carey

Ed_13

Feed Valves

Glenn,

Thanks for that B&G link. It answers Tom's question as to if any other manufacturer requires the feed to be closed. And obviously B&G does.

It is interesting that B&G is having such a knee jerk reaction to a boiler explosion.

When a boiler dry fires and it is totally devoid of water, it can not explode, but it there is a quick addition of water, I agree that there can be a real problem.

If that subject boiler had a LWCO, it would not have been able to dry fire and therefore an explosion would have been prevented.

As a result of that incident B&G now wants the feed valve left off, which can still allow a boiler to dry fire. I have seen what damage a dry fire boiler can do, even when it does not explode.

In their instructions B&G only "recommend", and they do not "require" the installation of a LWCO on a boiler that employs their valve.

Kind of Bass Ackwards if you ask me.

It also looks like their Lawyer wrote the I&O instructions for that feed valve as a CYA document, and only BRIEFLY passed it by their Engineering staff.

If you ask me, B&G still has a problem, only now they put it in writing.

I wish a few of the boiler Mfg reps would kick in here and let us know what they "require" with the feed valves connected to their FHW boiler. It may govern what kind of feed valve are used on the respective boilers.

Thanks to all, this is an interesting thread.

Regards,


Ed Carey

Glenn Harrison_2

My appologies,

Your right, the instructions do not require, but a B&G rep at a class I went to said that when you turn off the fill valve, you must have a properly installed LWCO so that you don't dry fire the boiler. Same rep who told me the lawsuit story. It's amazing what a lawsuit will do to a persons or companies opinions of how things need to be done.

tommyoil

so... where do we go from here?

So where does this leave us on this subject. As you said, if I deviate from the manufacturers instruction and something should happen, I'm sure the assorted insurance companies( and maybe a few attorneys) will have a field day at my expense. Do you agree that I did not mis-interpret the instructions B&G sets forth? I'm still confused. I know EVERYONE leaves them open. I see it everyday. What to do?

Ed_13

PRV

Tom,

You were definitely right about keeping the valve closed, and others were definitely right about keeping it open. Glen’s post and link was also very informative. It was additionally interesting that the rep teaching the class told him that you MUST have a LWCO (which in that case just makes sense), instead as the instructions states, that it is “recommended”.

There is a big difference in terms like Must or Shall versus Recommended or Should. Those kinds of words are the stuff that can put us on the hot seat when things go wrong on a job. That is why, no matter how experienced one is, it pays to read the instructions.

The difference in the two Feed Valve manufacturer’s instructions is why I would like some of the boiler reps to come here and tell us want their boilers “require”. If a boiler rep says you must keep your feed valve open, you would have to use a Watts instead of a B&G on that install. If the rep says you must keep it closed, you would have to use the Watts, and you couldn’t use the B&G. If a rep says that they do not have an established policy then you can use ether valve, and follow that valve manufacturer’s specs.
That isn’t confusing at (yea right) : )

We are responsible to follow and comply with the instructions sent with the equipment that we install. If Mr. Lawyer someday asks you why you did something that eventually caused a problem, and you show him the instructions from the boiler and the feed valve saying that you followed the established industry standards and practices within these instructions exactly as they were defined by the equipment manufacturers, you are off the hook. That is why in my last post I said about B&G now having problems in writing.

Getting more interesting by the minute. I guess that is why we all come here, to find out stuff that we just can’t find anywhere else.

Regards,

Ed Carey

Ed_13

PRV

Tom,

You were definitely right about keeping the valve closed, and others were definitely right about keeping it open. Glen’s post and link was also very informative. It was additionally interesting that the rep teaching the class told him that you MUST have a LWCO (which in that case just makes sense), instead as the instructions states, that it is “recommended”.

There is a big difference in terms like Must or Shall versus Recommended or Should. Those kinds of words are the stuff that can put us on the hot seat when things go wrong on a job. That is why, no matter how experienced one is, it pays to read the instructions.

The difference in the two Feed Valve manufacturer’s instructions is why I would like some of the boiler reps to come here and tell us want their boilers “require”. If a boiler rep says you must keep your feed valve open, you would have to use a Watts instead of a B&G on that install. If the rep says you must keep it closed, you would have to use the B&G, and you couldn’t use the Watts. If a rep says that they do not have an established policy then you can use ether valve, and follow that valve manufacturer’s specs.
That isn’t confusing at (yea right) : )

We are responsible to follow and comply with the instructions sent with the equipment that we install. If Mr. Lawyer someday asks you why you did something that eventually caused a problem, and you show him the instructions from the boiler and the feed valve saying that you followed the established industry standards and practices within these instructions exactly as they were defined by the equipment manufacturers, you are off the hook. That is why in my last post I said about B&G now having problems in writing.

Getting more interesting by the minute. I guess that is why we all come here, to find out stuff that we just can’t find anywhere else.

Regards,

Ed Carey

Ed_13

PRV

Tom,

You were definitely right about keeping the valve closed, and others were definitely right about keeping it open. Glen’s post and link was also very informative. It was additionally interesting that the rep teaching the class told him that you MUST have a LWCO (which in that case just makes sense), instead as the instructions states, that it is “recommended”.

There is a big difference in terms like Must or Shall versus Recommended or Should. Those kinds of words are the stuff that can put us on the hot seat when things go wrong on a job. That is why, no matter how experienced one is, it pays to read the instructions.

The difference in the two Feed Valve manufacturer’s instructions is why I would like some of the boiler reps to come here and tell us want their boilers “require”. If a boiler rep says you must keep your feed valve open, you would have to use a Watts instead of a B&G on that install. If the rep says you must keep it closed, you would have to use the B&G, and you couldn’t use the Watts. If a rep says that they do not have an established policy then you can use ether valve, and follow that valve manufacturer’s specs.
That isn’t confusing at all,,,, (yea right) : )

We are responsible to follow and comply with the instructions sent with the equipment that we install. If Mr. Lawyer someday asks you why you did something that eventually caused a problem, and you show him the instructions from the boiler and the feed valve saying that you followed the established industry standards and practices within these instructions exactly as they were defined by the equipment manufacturers, you are off the hook. That is why in my last post I said about B&G now having problems in writing.

Getting more interesting by the minute. I guess that is why we all come here, to find out stuff that we just can’t find anywhere else.

Regards,

Ed Carey

Ed_13

PRV

Tom,

You were definitely right about keeping the valve closed, and others were definitely right about keeping it open. Glen’s post and link was also very informative. It was additionally interesting that the rep teaching the class told him that you MUST have a LWCO (which in that case just makes sense), instead as the instructions states, that it is “recommended”.

There is a big difference in terms like Must or Shall versus Recommended or Should. Those kinds of words are the stuff that can put us on the hot seat when things go wrong on a job. That is why, no matter how experienced one is, it pays to read the instructions.

The difference in the two Feed Valve manufacturer’s instructions is why I would like some of the boiler reps to come here and tell us want their boilers “require”. If a boiler rep says you must keep your feed valve open, you would have to use a Watts instead of a B&G on that install. If the rep says you must keep it closed, you would have to use the B&G, and you couldn’t use the Watts. If a rep says that they do not have an established policy then you can use ether valve, and follow that valve manufacturer’s specs.


That isn’t confusing at all,,,, (yea right) : )

We are responsible to follow and comply with the instructions sent with the equipment that we install. If Mr. Lawyer someday asks you why you did something that eventually caused a problem, and you show him the instructions from the boiler and the feed valve saying that you followed the established industry standards and practices within these instructions exactly as they were defined by the equipment manufacturers, you are off the hook. That is why in my last post I said about B&G now having problems in writing.

Getting more interesting by the minute. I guess that is why we all come here, to find out stuff that we just can’t find anywhere else.

Regards,

Ed Carey

jackchips_2

Hi Ed,

> Tom,

>

> You were definitely right about keeping

> the valve closed, and others were definitely

> right about keeping it open. Glen’s post and link

> was also very informative. It was additionally

> interesting that the rep teaching the class told

> him that you MUST have a LWCO (which in that case

> just makes sense), instead as the instructions

> states, that it is “recommended”.

>

> There is

> a big difference in terms like Must or Shall

> versus Recommended or Should. Those kinds of

> words are the stuff that can put us on the hot

> seat when things go wrong on a job. That is

> why, no matter how experienced one is, it pays to

> read the instructions.

>

> The difference in the

> two Feed Valve manufacturer’s instructions is why

> I would like some of the boiler reps to come here

> and tell us want their boilers “require”. If a

> boiler rep says you must keep your feed valve

> open, you would have to use a Watts instead of a

> B&G on that install. If the rep says you must

> keep it closed, you would have to use the B&G,

> and you couldn’t use the Watts. If a rep says

> that they do not have an established policy then

> you can use ether valve, and follow that valve

> manufacturer’s specs.

>

> That isn’t confusing

> at all,,,, (yea right) : )

>

> We are responsible

> to follow and comply with the instructions sent

> with the equipment that we install. If Mr. Lawyer

> someday asks you why you did something that

> eventually caused a problem, and you show him the

> instructions from the boiler and the feed valve

> saying that you followed the established industry

> standards and practices within these instructions

> exactly as they were defined by the equipment

> manufacturers, you are off the hook. That is why

> in my last post I said about B&G now having

> problems in writing.

>

> Getting more

> interesting by the minute. I guess that is why we

> all come here, to find out stuff that we just

> can’t find anywhere else.

>

> Regards,

>

> Ed

> Carey

jackchips_2

Hi Ed,

I'm confused and after reading your post thought you could help.

If the valve is left open and there is a leak how does the boiler "blow up"? Won't the open valve just let water run through the boiler as it is firing. It would have to be a very bad "leak" to allow a 1/2" feed valve to do that much potential damage.

It seems a fired boiler with the water off and someone opens the valve would be more cause for an explosion.

It's seems I'm missing something here and not sure what.

I've always left my valves open.

Jack

Phil_2

PRV's

Raypak copper fin boilers I&O Manual says to "Leave the valve open." Raypak also supplies a flow switch as standard equipment. The burner won't fire without proper flow. On low volume this works as well as a LWCO.

[Deleted User]

Why all the fuss?

The tag that comes w/ the FB-38 reads - "The fast fill lever must not be left in the fast fill position after the system has been filled."

If the lever is required to fill the system faster & B&G wants the hand valve left off anyway - why not save some money and leave the PRV out of the loop.

Should satisfy their lawyers & insurance company. If no one buys the product, there will be no liability.

Ed_13

PRV

Hi Jack, and all,

First, I agree and I too have always have left the feed valves on.

As for the explosion, that is not my opinion, nor am I saying it was Glenn's. I was paraphrasing what Glenn said in his post about B&G's explanation to him as to why B&G wants the supply to their feed valve closed after the system is full.
(See Glenn’s post above)

I too think it is strange. In the B&G case if the feed had been open and working, and if there was a leak in the system, that alone should not have anything to do with an explosion. If the feed was completely blocked and not feeding with the supply open, the boiler should have dry fired, in which case it would not explode.

I guess that B&G thinks that the supply was open, the boiler was leaking and dry fired, while the feed valve was blocked, and then the feeder somehow simultaneously opened abruptly causing the introduction of the water into a very hot boiler causing an explosion. That is not impossible, but it is a very unlikely scenario.

I honestly don’t know all of the details of the B&G case, but it obviously shook them up so as to write the I&O instructions they way they did.

All of the reasons for a boiler BLEVE can be for another time. But I would like to hear from some more boiler reps as to their thoughts.

Regards,

Ed Carey

Ed_13

PRV

Hi Jack, and all,

First, I agree and I too have always have left the feed valves on.

As for the explosion, that is not my opinion, nor am I saying it was Glenn's. I was paraphrasing what Glenn said in his post about B&G's explanation to him as to why B&G wants the supply to their feed valve closed after the system is full.
(See Glenn’s post above)

I too think it is strange. In the B&G case if the feed had been open and working, and if there was a leak in the system, that alone should not have anything to do with an explosion. If the feed was completely blocked and not feeding with the supply open, the boiler should have dry fired, in which case it would not explode.

I guess that B&G thinks that the supply was open, the boiler was leaking and dry fired, while the feed valve was blocked, and then the feeder somehow simultaneously opened abruptly causing the introduction of the water into a very hot boiler, causing an explosion. That is not impossible, but it is a very unlikely scenario.

I honestly don’t know all of the details of the B&G case, but it obviously shook them up so as to write the I&O instructions they way they did.

All of the reasons for a boiler BLEVE can be for another time. But I would like to hear from some more boiler reps as to their thoughts.

Regards,

Ed Carey

Ed_13

PRV

Hi Jack, and all,

First, I agree and I too have always have left the feed valves on.

As for the explosion, that is not my opinion, nor am I saying it was Glenn's. I was paraphrasing what Glenn said in his post about B&G's explanation to him as to why B&G wants the supply to their feed valve closed after the system is full.
(See Glenn’s post above)

I too think it is strange. In the B&G case if the feed had been open and working, and if there was a leak in the system, that alone should not have anything to do with an explosion. If the feed was completely blocked and not feeding with the supply open, the boiler should have dry fired, in which case it would not explode.

I guess that B&G thinks that the supply was open, the boiler was leaking and dry fired, while the feed valve was blocked, and then the feeder somehow simultaneously opened abruptly causing the introduction of the water into a very hot boiler, causing an explosion. That is not impossible, but it is a very unlikely scenario.

I honestly don’t know all of the details of the B&G case, but it obviously shook them up so as to write the I&O instructions they way they did.

As to all of the reasons that can cause a FHW boiler to BLEVE, that can be for another time. But I would like to hear from some more boiler reps as to their thoughts on this issue.

As to Ron's "Why all the fuss", you are probably right. There is no wrong answer here.(At least we have not found one yet). Just one of those things that I think that we all have some interest in.

And hey, It beats working


Regards,

Ed Carey

steve_29

Thanks Ron,

I agree with you, maybe B&G should be saying don't purchase this PR just use your shut off to fill boiler to 12# and shut off.

Why would they recommend this valve if it's gonna be disconnected? ya don't need it!!!

todd s

Why do

manufacturers think its more important to sell a boiler with the pump installed in the wrong location than including a properly installed lwco? I would much rather have the lwco installed on a packaged boiler and buy the pumps for the proper application.

tommyoil

Todd

Probably because the boiler would have to be sold w/ the supply piping pre-installed. Thats where I put my LWCOs. Good point though. They use to go through the trouble to pre-install the return, chrome plated and all, complete w/ the circ. Haven't seen that in awhile though. Do any manufacturers still do that? I agree w/ you but think thats the subject of a whole different thread. I believe initially it was a packaging matter. Circs on the returns so the whole thing would fit in the crate. Imagine that? It dont matter if it runs right,but it sure fits in the crate? Some logic. I bet that was the engineers idea.( not to disparage the engineers).

Mike Kraft_2

My Boiler

I did a rough change two winters ago.(my house so I can)I have plans for a panel in the future...I'll get to it:)My point is I have no feed at all.I filled it,purged and left it alone.Filled through a draw off hanging between the purger and the expansion tank.Pressure has been dead nuts on 12 psi until fire.

If your floors are getting air bound perhaps there is trouble elsewhere in the system.Cause if it's purged etc. wheres the air coming from?Pump seals?old packings?Something isn't kosher.

cheese

Robert O'Connor_5

Mike..

I did the same thing. I do not have water connected to my boiler, I filled it with a hose. I did however in conjuntion with the LWCO installed a pressuretrol that breaks on the drop with a goofy looking primitive alarm on it...Also a work in progress but when the wifes got other ideas for your honeydo list things just seem to get backburnered, its safe and better than most but yet unfinished but hey, who's gonna inspect it....me? he,he,..Robert O'Connor/NJ