Replacing draft regulator or draft control on a residential fuel oil boiler

either one will work

Actually that existing draft regulator is in the wrong location.  You should probably replace all the sheet metal vent connector pipe (smoke pipe) and install the draft regulator properly. 

After collaborating with some of the world's foremost experts in the study of combustion, the highest self proclaimed authority in the land,  and an intensive discussion about the proper ways to install barometric draft control devices in all different types of fossil fuel burning appliances I have learned that the manufacturer may not always be absolutely correct when detailing the DOs and DON’Ts of their product in actual field applications.  This has led me to retract my original recommendation to redesign the flue pipe connector.  Your barometric damper’s location is an acceptable location.  The following illustration from Field controls has Five “Not Here” locations indicated.  Four of those locations are not considered to be a proper location.  The one that I have indicated with a red arrow IS an acceptable location.  There is no need to change your vent connector.  

And I like the RC better also.

I have noticed many barometric draft controls installed the way also. The question I have is: why would Field Controls and other manufacturers specify that as a wrong location? Do you know something that the folks that make the item don't know? ( a kinder response might be to just say yes) Could it possibly be that the barometric is less accurate when placed there? Have you ever placed a draft manometer in the over fire position and watched the over fire draft under different drafting conditions when in that position versus the recommended position? I know that I have not since the time it would take was not available when on a job site to monitor that type of test.

So I just take the manufacturer's recommendation since they have the time and laboratory to do such testing.  I would hope they know better. But that is not always the case as Honeywell and other manufacturers have proven in the past.  I am not doubting your expertise on this subject.  I know that you and @bobharper are the go to guys for this info and would like to know if I was wasting my time all those years when I could have used that Tee configuration many times , but took the time to incorrectly “Do It Right” by the manufacturer’s I/O sheet.   

Inquiring minds want to know!

Hoping for a cordial response and learn something

Einstein once said: The unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

No offense but I have never seen anyone from a manufacturing company with field experience that can address situation that aren't lab created.

Field Controls is well aware of my understanding of venting more than anyone. They were in the field with me when we did a study with AGA and they observed this type of installation and were amazed.

If I had followed every manufacturers recommendations or even Code, there would be a lot of dead people. Some people get away with guessing and assuming or letting others think for them. Testing in the field taught me that manufacturers are clueless when it comes to actual field operation. When I called them it was quite enlightening.

Ed you are brilliant when it comes to mechanical issues but quite unskilled with combustion issues.

Einstein once said: “It is the art of the teacher to make the difficult appear easy, but not the easy appear difficult.”

@captainco said: Ed you are brilliant when it comes to mechanical issues but quite unskilled with combustion issues.

Thanks for the complement (I think) and I agree that I may not know as much as you about combustion. That is why I defer to you and Bob at times when I am not sure of certain points of combustion. But I believe that I am more skilled than the average technician when it comes to all things combustion. I posed the question after you contradicted manufacturers directions regarding my comment about the barometric location.  Knowing your background and that you have performed more experimentation and field studies that “Testing in the field taught me that manufacturers are clueless when it comes to actual field operation“ is common. I was looking for your insight.  There was no insult intended by my questioning your comment.  I was just interested in learning something that I might not have direct knowledge of that you do have direct knowledge of.   Thanks for the clarification.  I will edit my previous comment regarding the recommended redesign. 

Ed,

Thanks for the reply. I did mean it when I said you were brilliant on mechanical problems.

When someone is told to do something that is not necessary that would cost additional money I try to pitch in. I could talk for hours on how many manufacturers called me for help. Many factory reps told me to help their customers but don't tell their company they did.

I guess solving a problem that no one else could solve led to some different methods in the field that had never been tried could be considered experimentation. But if a combustion analyzer wasn't used then it was a no no.

I was told in the 80's when I first started to help or train techs, that oil didn't make much carbon monoxide, mostly smoke. The highest level of CO I measured was on oil equipment with no smoke. One the first condensing oil furnace was produced the manufacturer sent their field service man to my town to find out why my customers weren't having trouble like everyone else. He found out I wasn't following factory specs. Not because I wanted to but because that was the only way to get them to operate properly. They ended up redesigning the furnace based on my input but it was too late.

While I am still able, I think I am older than you Ed and probably more senile, I just want to help people to learn. As a few techs on here that have been to my training they know everything I have done and teach is real. It is unfortunate that they are too afraid to do things mechanically correct versus political correct. The people that make equipment are artists, but the people that make them run correctly are engineers - YOU!

Bob Harper and I are friends, and he is the smartest person I think I have ever met. I even taught him something he didn't know - I think?

One of the first things I caught from Jim that caused me to highly respect him was his unabashed recognition that blind adherence to some codes, standards and mfrs. instructions can kill or at least result in subpar performance, shortened equipment life, and operating malfunctions.

I sit on multiple cmtes. that write national codes and standards. I have grown weary of the ignorant peacocks who get on these boards and don't know which end of a chimney to light. In general, I find codes, stds. and mfrs. roughly 20yrs behind the times- at minimum. They promulgate ideas that are not only unproven but, more often, proven bad or contrary to the intent. Sounds like our government?

I have a reputation of teaching and preaching codes, stds., and mfrs. instructions. Much of that was born out of my work for a major hearth appliance mfr. as a regional quality assurance mgr. I worked in the test labs, met with inspectors and investigators on cases and dealt daily with corporate attorneys and risk reduction cmtes. Here are a few points to ponder:

If you violate codes, stds. and PMI, it's not a problem until its a problem

If there is an Oops!, someone will try to pin it on you.

To provide negligence, you must prove all 4- duty to act, loss, act or omission, and proximate cause.

To prove failure to warn, you only need to show the contractor failed to fully communicate the hazard, the risk of not confronting that hazard, the consequences of failure to mitigate or correct and the sequelae of that failure. Failure to warn relies on sentiment much more than facts. It's a subjective issue whereas negligence is based on facts and circumstances.

If you are trained, certified, and experienced in a field but fail to warm over a hazard that is clearly visible or should be expected under the conditions of use, REGARDLESS of what you're there for, you're toast.

If you follow The Rules but there is still a loss, you still incur liability.

So, the bottom line I've come to recognize is to follow the rules to the extent reasonably possible but in ALL cases, doing what works trumps what you "should" do. If you set the manifold pressure on a gas combination valve to 4.0 wci. instead of 3.5 but nothing goes wrong, there is no premature failure of the equipment and no one gets hurt, is it a hazard to the public trust? Compare that to setting at 3.5wci, testing and recording high CO but leaving it in service because you set it pmi? Can you live with someone losing their home or life because you "followed the rules"? THAT is why we all should be testing to prove we're leaving stuff in a condition suitable for continued use under the intended conditions and application.

I never met an appliance that could read a damned code book, std. or mfrs. instructions. I've met many that are going to do what they want under the conditions of use. I figured out it was up to me to take control of those conditions and not leave it up to a machine that can and will eventually fail.

The oil furnace was Yukon out of Minnesota. They used Wayne and/or Beckett burners.

I did help some contractors on the Blue Flame burner. When the flame was blue the CO was high. They got recalled because of the poisonings they were causing. Setting them for zero smoke was useless in evaluating their safety or proper operation.

Thanks Bob. I don't look as stupid or reckless when you chime in.

All excellent and informative. But to get back to the original break in this thread about the location of the baro in the run of the tee.

It’s great that Jim tested it extensively and proves it works fine, but what’s going to happen to a tech or company should a baro be installed that way and there is a problem. Say unrelated, the unit soots up, smoke and mess. Soot comes out of the baro. The HO sues. In court his lawyer questions the last tech out and shows the court the baro is installed 'incorrectly per the manufacturer’s instructions and diagram'.
For $20 in material and 15 minutes of time, I’d rather just change it and avoid that whole scenario.

I guess if your smart enough you can go against the MFG or product listing and do whatever you want.

Smart is not the solution. Experience, confidence and caring are the difference. For some mediocre is just fine.

Code specifically states it is up to the user to make decisions. Manufacturers rarely provide any operational data that is functional. Ever notice every blower chart is a mathematical calculation and not actual measured data. What measurement determines the best blower speed on a furnace?