Garn and 1 1/4" Pex vs 2- 1" Pex?

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sawyer

Minister of Fire
May 17, 2008
608
Northern WI
Sorry if this has already been discussed but I have read everything I can find by searching the archive and still can't find the answer. Why isn’t everyone using two 1” pex rather than one 1 ¼” pex since two 1” pex have more internal volume than a single 1 ¼” pex, and the fittings and 1" pex installation are much less expensive?

I have to order my pex for the Garn 2000 which I have to run 175” to the house. I calculated the 2300 sq./ft house, with finished basement to need 90,000 Btu which may be a little high as I have Applegate blown insulation in the walls and ceiling and Slant Fin does not allow for this insulation.

Thanks, George
 
Hot Rod discussed this a while back. Can't remember it all but I think the 1 1/4 was the preferred method. Try searching posts by member. He posted this under his old id, master of sparks.
 
Here's the series of discussions on it, where I'd asked a similar question:

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/19503/

there's also some useful stuff here on tubing sizes and how they interact with circulator choice at

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/18383/P0/

Somewhere, I remember someone pointing out that two parallel 1" pipes don't really flow the amount that you'd think if you added the cross-sections, because in addition to the additional cross section, you're picking up more relative wall surface than you would if you just went with a larger single pipe. I can't re-find that set of discussions, wish I could, because I think it also had some interesting idea from someone on how you tie the "duals" together at each end in a way that flows OK and isn't too bulky or fitting-intensive. But on your basic point, I do think that Hot Rod basically "blessed" running equal length paired 1 inch tubing as an OK work-around instead of 1 and 1/4

PS a Garn 2000 sounds like a _honkin_ big boiler for the size house and heat loss you're talking about- I understand some of the reasons why a Garn is attractive with the built-in storage, but why did you move to the 2000 over the 1500?
 
Thanks for the leads and links, if anyone has additional information to digest it will also be appreciated. I will start reading as soon as I finish hauling my lumber to the kilns. With the heat requirement for the house I would think I could make the dual 1” work and save a bundle of money. Being 80 miles from a “big box” store makes things a bit more expensive locally.

Trevor, I chose the 2000 because I also heat my 1200 sq./ft workshop also. I wanted to heat both at –20* without re-firing for ten hours. The 2000 gives me that storage capacity and the ability to replace the stored heat rapidly while still providing 125k to the buildings. I hope my reasoning is not flawed.
 
Sawyer said:
Trevor, I chose the 2000 because I also heat my 1200 sq./ft workshop also. I wanted to heat both at –20* without re-firing for ten hours. The 2000 gives me that storage capacity and the ability to replace the stored heat rapidly while still providing 125k to the buildings. I hope my reasoning is not flawed.

makes sense- similar to why I picked an econoburn 150 over the 100- so that I can charge up my storage quickly and also have the option to use a new fire/boil to start heating the house and maybe start recharging the storage at the same time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.