Dry Steam Is The Goal

My old steam boiler is leaking I am adding water twice a day so I’m guessing that it’s venting steam out the chimney. Of course it’s thanksgiving weekend so I’m not going to get any answers until Monday or Tuesday.
How do I find a contractor who understands Dan’s work with steam heating? I have read lost art of steam heating. I have read articles about steam heating near boiler piping venting.
How do you tell the contractor what you need without making him feel resentful?
Everyone has been doing the work day in and day out so of course who wants to take on another know it all ahole customer?
My previous contractor did the best job he could. I’m a homeowner and I have done some reading and went to see Dan’s presentation two or three times so the steam is wet and the fuel
bills are high and that’s what I keep trying to learn about to prevent making the same mistakes this time. I know that I have 800 square feet of EDR I know that the system used to be coal because the pipes are around the perimeter of the basement. The asbestos is good in some areas and not good in other areas.
Probably have to remove everything first then install the new boiler then replace the insulation

@everybodyduck

Post your location if you can't find anyone. Even if a contractor is not listed on this site someone may have a recommendation.

Money. why would you install another device that adds cost to a job when if piped correctly you can get the dry steam you so desire

everybodyduck said:

I know that the system used to be coal because the pipes are around the perimeter of the basement.

If it's that old, I guess it's probably time to replace the system. The good news is that even with it venting steam through the chimney, it should get you through the winter.

ethicalpaul said:

You mean replace the boiler, I assume, Max

Mostly, yes, but a steam system that old would need new near boiler piping, pressuretrol, insulation, etc. as well - not advocating moving to a hydronic or split, no.

I have read that, thanks! I would love to know more about those tests and what that steam looked like both before and after the 80s. Does anyone know what mechanism was used to test this?

My boiler presents zero visible water at a few inches above the boiler so it seems like it would easily pass. There is no mist, no cloudiness, no droplets. It's perfectly clear, like air.

From my reading, the industry definition of wet steam is steam as it is produced directly above the boiling water, so all steam produced by every residential boiler is "wet steam". Then it becomes "dry steam" when the droplets separate.

This reference is a little dodgy looking, does someone have better?



From https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definition/420/dry-steam

And then this from wiki:



(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#Types_of_steam_and_conversions )

Thanks again Dan. I wonder if there is some wet steam that is also invisible, or if (in residential systems) wet steam is always noticeable by eye.

I'm leaning toward the idea that if you can see it, it's wet and if it's invisible it's dry (enough), but I'd love to know what was the standard. It may be the standard (visibly speaking) wasn't well known because all the steam was behind iron and steel.

Oh OK, that one is easy

So I threw this question into grok this morning:

Dryness Fraction of a Steam Boiler. How did or do boiler manufacturers measure it? Do they use an optical sensor with a laser in a transparent sight glass or do they use some sort of dynamic calorimeter to measure the enthalpy and calculate dryness fraction from the known quantities for steam and water?

FWIW here is what it says: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_527e6ee4-22a3-4988-a483-d57226f1e653

End summary for those afraid to click:

In summary, the reliable, code-accepted approach has always been (and largely still is) calorimeter-based enthalpy or separation measurement, not optical laser systems in sight glasses. Manufacturers recommend regular calorimeter testing (or modern monitor equivalents) plus upstream separators to maintain high dryness fraction for efficiency and equipment protection. If you need details on a specific boiler model, test rig, or modern sensor datasheet, more context would help refine this.

Beginning statement:

Boiler manufacturers (and industrial testing labs) have historically measured and still primarily measure steam dryness fraction (also called steam quality or dryness fraction, denoted as x ) using calorimeters. This is the established standard method during boiler performance testing, type approval, efficiency verification, and commissioning (e.g., per guidelines like ASME PTC standards or equivalent codes). It directly aligns with your second suggested approach: a dynamic (continuous-flow) calorimeter that determines enthalpy and back-calculates x from known saturated liquid and vapor properties.

@ethicalpaul Don't feel bad. I doubt any youtubers or forum denizens have the ability to measure dryness fraction either.

It is more important in those cases that the expense of dynamically measuring it would be considered cost effective. But you know you are sidestepping the point I was making which is this is how difficult it is to measure, whether it is in low pressure situations or high pressure. And it goes towards @ethicalpaul questions of @DanHolohan earlier in this thread as to how it would be measured by the boiler manufacturers.

"I have read that, thanks! I would love to know more about those tests and what that steam looked like both before and after the 80s. Does anyone know what mechanism was used to test this?"

Then how did the commercial and residential steam heating boiler manufacturers do it if not through separation plus dynamic calorimetry? This doesn't just apply to "high pressure superheated steam" (superheated equals by definition no moisture by the way) which needs to have no moisture; not at all. You are now claiming that there is no need to measure the dryness fraction of wet steam and that calorimetry wouldn't do it? We are all ears and eyes. Illuminate us please. I don't question what Dan has written without evidence. We only have your question in this thread. We do not have your evidence that backs up your disbelief. Do you want to take the time to disprove the "AI slop"? You might want to look into it since you are so interested in steam.

I think the manufacturers knew about carryover. I think they designed piping that was pretty good at sending a lot of that carryover back into the boiler and letting the steam separate from it as it went to the mains.

At some point someone started calling steam without carryover "dry steam", which I consider a careless mistake that has caused much confusion since.

It is obvious that all you need to prevent carryover is decent water quality (even boilers without a header can make it), but the header piping pattern lets the water quality get pretty bad and still work OK so the manufacturers liked it and specified that piping. It kept systems working and kept customers happy because I'm sure customers tended to blame the manufacturers for everything bad that happened in their systems.

Of course even perfect installation of the manufacturers' piping diagrams doesn't prevent all carryover from getting to the main.

But none of this has to do with wet steam vs dry steam.

All the steam was in contact with splashing water in the boiler, then it goes past a couple fittings and you think it's suddenly dry? It has no water droplets in it that matter (as you can see in my videos with no visible droplets) and that's good enough.

That's my position, and no one has shown otherwise. All that stuff you wrote in the above two messages is not comprehendible by me. Whether that's some failure on my part, or some statement on the sense of the writing I will leave to everyone to judge for themselves.

I said it was AI upfront. The only thing I said I wrote was the question, over a cup of coffee. I have not been unkind. It is a simple discussion, not an argument and disagreement is not unkind. Also not off topic. I made the point I wanted to make which SOME people might even find interesting and that was the primary reason for posting. Were you or Paul arguing with me or being unkind when you refuted what I (slop) posted?