maple1
Minister of Fire
Also, did you read this?:
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/underground-lines-not-the-place-to-skimp.50506/
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/underground-lines-not-the-place-to-skimp.50506/
Also, did you read this?:
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/underground-lines-not-the-place-to-skimp.50506/
OMG! Have you not read my horror story in the underground sticky regarding trying to do the underground on the cheap. I think I saw XPS mentioned above. Expanded polystyrene.... I seem to recall it not being closed cell and it being heavy and mushy when removed from being underground, meaning it sucked up water eventually like a sponge. If I didn't have the money to do the underground properly for this season, I think I'd temporarily use good split foam insulator and just keep it above ground like the large military bases and government facilities do. Energy loss due to hot lines being contact with wet dirt is a terrible thermal sink. I don't have time to do the math comparing good insulation but large temp difference above ground to less temp difference but terrible, wet insulation underground. My engineering instincts say well done temporary above ground is better than lousy underground.
This is a TRUE statement.... doing the underground once is miserable..... doing it twice.... well suddenly the price of propane becomes attractive.
Ok... I'll disappear again for a few months. Re-read the sticky.... years ago the topic of underground lines was my personal crusade to save the world. I've moved on to whirled peas.
The post about using XPS was about running it above ground, not burried, and using it to keep the cheap wrap pex in a pipe from ever contacting the ground, or having a larget delta between it and the airOMG! Have you not read my horror story in the underground sticky regarding trying to do the underground on the cheap. I think I saw XPS mentioned above. Expanded polystyrene.... I seem to recall it not being closed cell and it being heavy and mushy when removed from being underground, meaning it sucked up water eventually like a sponge. If I didn't have the money to do the underground properly for this season, I think I'd temporarily use good split foam insulator and just keep it above ground like the large military bases and government facilities do. Energy loss due to hot lines being contact with wet dirt is a terrible thermal sink. I don't have time to do the math comparing good insulation but large temp difference above ground to less temp difference but terrible, wet insulation underground. My engineering instincts say well done temporary above ground is better than lousy underground.
This is a TRUE statement.... doing the underground once is miserable..... doing it twice.... well suddenly the price of propane becomes attractive.
Ok... I'll disappear again for a few months. Re-read the sticky.... years ago the topic of underground lines was my personal crusade to save the world. I've moved on to whirled peas.
I have 83 feet one way, which figures out, using the normal rule of thumb, to be around 10 feet of head. Looking at my pump curve that will give me about 7 gallons per minute.Have you done any flow calcs - do you know what your gpm flow will be? That means matching to a circulator that will deliver what you need.
All kinds of cans of worms to consider up front when you start digging into it.
(Did the pipe seller fellow say anything about what GPM that 1.5 drop was 'good for'? If you flow less, you will see more temp drop, generally speaking - and less BTU being transferred overall).
Using Stevens Point climate data, and assuming your 35k BTU number is for your coldest month (Jan = 1614 HDD), your 3 cords per month would extrapolate to 15.6 cords per average (8385 annual HDD) year. That's a metric buttload of wood, but not nearly as bad as assuming you'll be at 3 cords per month x 9 months.OK, based upon your numbers...
I need around 35,000 BTUs per hour to heat my house on average. Using your number, I will need 3 cords of wood a month to heat my house?
Let's be charitable and assume you have a wood burner that will hit 40% efficiency
That seems really low. Is that 40% number correct? I thought the wood boiler guys were getting very high numbers.
The OP wouldn't disclose which boiler he is using....
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.