Circulator - flow variation with Termovar

[jebatty]

I learned something this morning which I have not seen in any post and which, as the data shows, results in an area of automatic variable flow circulator operation in conjunction with the Termovar return temp protection valve. This may be especially interesting for those who operate their systems with a system return to the boiler below about 155F. It likely will not be important for those who operate their systems with return temps above 155F.

I changed my system over from a plate hx system to direct system operation. Reasons would be another discussion. I let the system cool down to depressurize for draining the boiler, which had antifreeze, and re-filling with water. Tank is horizontal 1000 gal LP. Piping is 1" steel between the boiler and tank. For this test the boiler was feeding only the storage, no other heat draw. I installed a flowmeter on the line to determine gpm.

The first interesting thing is the effect of the Termovar on boiler output to system vs feedback to boiler to maintain return temp. The data clearly shows that below about 150-155F system return to boiler, the Termovar is diverting substantial boiler output in the feedback loop back to the boiler, and as system return rises above this, the Termovar is diverting little if any boiler output in the feedback loop to the boiler. Initial boiler output to system was only 3 gpm at 96F system return to boiler, and boiler output to system maxed out at 8 gpm as system return to boiler reached about 155F.

The second interesting thing, although I did not record this for each data point, is actual Tarm output to system as related to stack probe temp. The burns during this data collection ranged between 400-500F stack temp (near the end, not included in data points, stack temps rose to 600F before coming back down). Stack temps closer to 500 produced the higher btuh outputs, and stack temps closer to 400 produced the lower btuh outputs. The Tarm is rated at 140,000 btuh, and the data shows that this can be reached only with stack temps above 500F.

A third interesting thing is effect of change in speed of the Grundfos UPS 15-58 on gpm's. My install is a bit unusual as I have the 15-58 on the boiler return, as normal, and I also have a Taco 007 on the tank return to the boiler, two circs operating to supplement each other. With the 007 shut down, but flow through the 007, 15-58 output was: Lo - 3.3 gpm, Med - 4.75 gpm, Hi - 5.50 gpm. With the 007 turned on, output was: Lo - 7.0 gpm, Med - 7.6 gpm, Hi - 8.0 gpm. All data shown below was with both circs on and the 15-58 on Hi.

A fourth interesting thing is that at gpm's below about 7, very little mixing was occurring in the horizontal tank and a high degree of stratification was occurring throughout the tank. As gpm's rose above 7, it was evident that mixing was increasing. I measured tank temp at both ends, top and bottom. For others with horizontal tanks, it may be important to keep the flow gpm's below 7 to achieve maximum stratification benefits. I have a diptube near the bottom of the tank for return to system, and supply to tank is about 1 foot from the diptube with a horizontal injection into the tank along the top and away from the diptube.

The last interesting thing is that during this entire test, the boiler did not idle at all. I continued the test past the data shown. My last data point collected is the final entry below. The absence of any idling maximizes boiler performance.

I fired the Tarm and let it come up to about 160F temp before turning on the circs.

Initial return from tank: 96F Boiler output: 160
gpm to tank: 3.0 Boiler return temp: 130 Output: 96,000 btuh

Return from tank: 130F Boiler output: 164
gpm tank: 6.25 Boiler return temp: 140 Output: 106,250 btuh

Return from tank: 134F Boiler output: 165
gpm tank: 6.75 Boiler return temp: 145 Output: 104,625 btuh

Return from tank: 137F Boiler output: 167
gpm tank: 7.50 Boiler return temp: 147 Output: 112,500 btuh

Return from tank: 142F Boiler output: 168
gpm tank: 7.75 Boiler return temp: 150 Output: 100,750 btuh

Return from tank: 148F Boiler output: 172
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 152 Output: 96,000 btuh

Return from tank: 153F Boiler output: 176
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 157 Output: 92,000 btuh

Return from tank: 156F Boiler output: 183
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 160 Output: 108,000 btuh

Return from tank: 159F Boiler output: 181
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 160 Output: 88,000 btuh

Return from tank: 162F Boiler output: 183
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 1662 Output: 84,000 btuh

Return from tank: 165F Boiler output: 190
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 165 Output: 100,000 btuh

Return from tank: 168F Boiler output: 193
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 168 Output: 100,000 btuh

[break in data]

Final entry, as burn was ending and stack temp dropped to 350F:

Return from tank: 180F Boiler output: 190
gpm tank: 8.00 Boiler return temp: 180 Output: 40,000 btuh
Final tank temp: Top - 187F Bottom - 185F

 

[Nofossil]

Sounds like the Termovar is doing exactly what it should do, except that I'd want the control point closer to 140 than 155 degrees. Looks like pretty solid data. I vary the speed of the boiler circ to try and match the heat output - I run slow at the beginning and end of the fire, and fast when the outlet temp starts approaching the EKO idle temp.

 

[jebatty]

There is a substantial jump in gpm output to system at the 140 point. Different Termovars have different set points, so a person can select a Termovar to provide the level of return protection desired. Also I suspect that there is some variation in the thermostatic operation. I didn't collect too much data at the early stage of the burn (from 96F return to 130 return. I suspect that the 140 point holds for a fair while at low return temps to provide a fairly high output to system.

Regarding varying circ speed, I was a little surprised that no idling occurred during this entire cycle. In this situation I'm not sure what benefit there might be to varying circ speed, especially because entire output was going to storage.

 

[Nofossil]

Regarding varying circ speed, I was a little surprised that no idling occurred during this entire cycle. In this situation I'm not sure what benefit there might be to varying circ speed, especially because entire output was going to storage.

It's not a big deal, but there's no reason to circulate water really fast through the Termovar. If the boiler isn't cranking the heat, you don't need to push a lot of water through it. A lower speed under those conditions will give you a higher outlet temp sooner (lower GPM through boiler means greater temperature rise).

You were already running at high speed, so you wouldn't need to increase speed to avoid idling.

 

[DaveBP]

Jim,
Which temperature is your Termovar rated at?

Do I remember correctly that you burn primarily low MC softwoods? Was this all one firebox load? Looks like you got about 700,000 BTUs out of this run. Any idea how many pounds of wood altogether?

How much time elapsed between starting the circulators and boiler return reaching 140F?

You plan on trying this test again with the Taco turned off to see if the 15-58 alone can keep up with the boiler output without idling? And at which speeds?

How many questions can anyone ask in one post before being considered a royal PITA?

 

[jebatty]

Which temperature is your Termovar rated at?

I t is a 4440A-3 which is rated at 72C (160F), and I think the reason for the less than 160 return on an initial cold start with cold return is that I have the balancing valve set for very little feedback flow through the Termovar. This works really well when the boiler is at operating temp, but results in return a little low on cold starts with cold return. I thought before about increasing this, as I know the return temp goes up when I open the balancing valve bit by bit.

Do I remember correctly that you burn primarily low MC softwoods? Was this all one firebox load? ... Any idea how many pounds of wood altogether?

Correct, low MC softwood (all pine). I added wood from time to time to keep the firebox burning close to full burn the whole time as I wanted to determine whether or not the boiler would go into idle. I did not weigh the wood.

How much time elapsed between starting the circulators and boiler return reaching 140F?

I should have, but did not, log the time.

You plan on trying this test again with the Taco turned off to see if the 15-58 alone can keep up with the boiler output without idling? And at which speeds?

I am going to run the test again, and I will try it with the Taco off, Grundfos probably on HI, log time, weigh wood, and include tank temps with every log event. Probably will log every 15 minutes.

I measure tank temp by 2 thermocouples at each end of the 19' tank, one on top and one on the bottom, fixed to the exterior metal and well insulated. Hot water injection is into the top of the tank about at the 1/3 point from one end with a horizontal fitting to direct the hot water towards the 2/3 portion of the tank, with cold water output from a diptube just off the bottom and about 1' from the cold water injection.

I measure tank return temp and boiler output temp by two sensors fixed to the exterior of the respective pipes, about 8' from the boiler, with insulation over the sensors on the pipes.

I measure boiler return temp from a probe thermometer on the exterior of the boiler return line after the Termovar, and insulated again.

I'm thinking of logging the following data (feel free to make suggestions):

1) data measurements every 15 minutes
2) weight of wood at each load point
3) tank return temp
4) boiler output temp
5) boiler return temp
6) gpm
7) #1 end of tank: tank temp top and bottom
8) #2 end of tank: tank temp top and bottom
9) stack probe temp

Before running this test I may open a little the Termovar balancing valve to better approach 160 return temp from the start. I also will brush the hx tubes and clean the firebox of ash to maximize boiler performance.

PITA is my second favorite thing. The first is ... (from "One Night at McCool's")

 

[jebatty]

I implemented a variation on Nofo's advice. The 3-speed on the boiler I wired into my differential controller, differential being between boiler supply temp and tank return temp. I then installed an aquastat on the boiler supply to control the Taco on the tank. I'm thinking that setting this for "on" at 180 would be about right. Now I can try the different speeds on the boiler circ for rapid boiler heating to 185 with low flow to system, and then at 185 the tank circ kicks on to increase flow to handle the high temp boiler output with maximum delta-T from the system. I'll pick the boiler circ speed which best "just handles" boiler output to avoid idling, thus keeping the boiler at high temp as much as possible.

Maybe a poor man's approach to an ECM circ setup and controller.

 

[Jackpine Savage]

Jim, I'm just about to start my near boiler piping. I'll be using a Termovar for boiler protection. Awhile back you had brought up the idea of putting a zone valve on the balancing valve line, set up to close when the return from storage was high enough. I ended up with a spare 1" zone valve and was contemplating going with that approach.

Based on your experience do you think it is worth the added expense and complexity?

 

[DaveBP]

Maybe a poor man’s approach to an ECM circ setup and controller.

I think at their current prices ECM circs are out of range of not just poor folks. Except for those that have grossly oversized pumps to begin with their ROI might not be much shorter than their life span. I might be overly skeptical. And it depends on system configuration, I suppose. I'm hoping the small 3-speeds might be a reasonable second place.

I want to cheer you on, Jim. You're testing a setup that is similar to what mine will be. And actually MEASURING flow rates.

I've become very skeptical of reports of system performance based on 'estimated' flow. Reports of 5% efficiency improvements are very significant but of dubious value if they are based on assumed flow rates that might easily be off by 20%.

So what kind of flowmeter are you using? Is it 1"? The bigger ones that can take boiling water are pretty pricey from what I have seen so far.

And how is it piped in? Permanently?

The output on the Solo 40 is 1 1/4" pipe. Did you drop down to 1" to the tank for economy? Or some other reason?

The instructor of a Coast Guard class I took commended me for acing the final exam but especially (while rolling his eyes) for asking more questions than any other student he had taught. Good snicker from the class for the second comment.
Some people are not surprised at this story.

 

[jebatty]

So what kind of flowmeter are you using? Is it 1”? The bigger ones that can take boiling water are pretty pricey from what I have seen so far.

I's a Blue White 1" variable area rotameter. I'm pushing the max temp rating for what I have, but figuring I have a little bit of wiggle room. It is mounted on the return line from the tank so it is getting the lowest possible temp water from my system.

And how is it piped in? Permanently?

I have it installed on a temporary basis. It has up to a 2 PSI pressure drop, so while my measurements are accurate when it on line, when I take it off I have to do a calculation for change in pump head and increase in flow. I think I can get pretty close to what it will be without the flowmeter.

The output on the Solo 40 is 1 1/4” pipe. Did you drop down to 1” to the tank for economy? Or some other reason?

Yes - No. I initially had 3/4" line not knowing the high head and limited flow capacity of 3/4" pipe - ignorance is not bliss. I changed over to 1" due to economy plus I determined that I likely could get enough flow flow through 1" to handle the Tarm output with little or no idling. I think I'm going to be right on that. All my piping is indoors and the cost of changeover was not out of sight.

If you don't ask, you can't know. Or to be philosophical, to know and not do is not to know.

 

[jebatty]

Here are the results of a more complete test run on a cold start. During this burn I kept the firebox about 1/3 - 2/3 full, adding dry pine as necessary, to maintain a pretty consistent high burn. I did not weigh the wood, which I will do on a subsequent test to measure a full load burn, beginning to end. I have a flowmeter installed on the tank return line. Comments:

1) This was a cold start, and I starting logging when I started the boiler with kindling.

2) The Termovar return protection valve clearly does its job, and it "modulates" circulation to system based on boiler supply temp and return water temp.

3) I have the Termovar balancing valve set for extremely low feedback flow, as is evidenced by the 140+ boiler return temp, although the Termovar is a 160F valve. On the next test run I will increase the feedback flow to achieve something closer to 160 boiler return temp minimum. The data then collected will show the impact of this change.

4) It took about 3:30 hours to achieve the first storage tank "turnover," that is, it wasn't until 4:30 that storage return temp (draw from bottom of tank) rose above starting (12:56) top of tank temp. That matches closely to an average gpm of about 4.25 during this period and assuming a little mixing in the tank. Stratification remained excellent at this flow rate.

5) The aquastat to turn on the tank circ was set for 180, and it actually went "ON" at a measured 176. I think I only want the circulation boost from the tank circ to come ON at a high boiler supply temp, so I likely will increase this setting for the next test.

6) The Boiler Supply/Storage Return temps are measured with the digital differential controller sensors; the Boiler Return temp is measured with a probe analog thermometer on the outside of the pipe and well insulated; the Tank temps are measured with a dual input digital thermometer with Type K thermocouples. All readings are +/- as good as the devices and sensors.

7) The GPM reading is to "closest 1/4 gpm" that I could determine. A float rises in the flowmeter tube based on the flow rate, and the tube is calibrated in even gpm's. The last reading of 8.1 is only because the float was a little above the 8 gpm mark.

 

[jebatty]

Another test rust. Only change was to open the Termovar balancing valve a little more to achieve more quickly boiler return temp of 160F. As shown in the graphic, tank ended up at 190F. I burned 75 lbs of dry (est 7% MC) Jack pine. No idling occurred during the entire burn.

1) At 11:30 the controller turned "ON" the 15-58.
2) At 12:15 the aquastat turned "ON" the 007
3) At 3:15 the controller turned "OFF" the 15-58 as < 10F differential
4) Load burned out by 4:00

 

[DaveBP]

Jim, I assume your supply line into the tank points to the right end of the tank? That would explain how the bottom temps on that end are a little higher than the left end. But I'm impressed how even the top temps are left-to-right. If it's all 1" pipe, @ 7.5 gal/min. that water is coming in at over 2.5 ft./sec. Gives a good sense of just how buoyant that hot water is.

What shuts off the 007 tank circulator? When?

Little lower BTUH rates this run. Whyzat?

 

[jebatty]

Jim, I assume your supply line into the tank points to the right end of the tank? That would explain how the bottom temps on that end are a little higher than the left end. But I'm impressed how even the top temps are left-to-right.

That's right. I too was surprised at how even the temps developed and the degree of stratification that was maintained.

What shuts off the 007 tank circulator? When?

That I have yet to install. The current plan is for an open on rise aquastat on the tank return line that will shut off the 007 at return temp of about 185F or a little higher. I have to think through what to do when the 007 goes off and the 15-58 also goes off because the differential closes, while a burn continues. I'm thinking of lowering the setpoint for the overheat aquastat so the excess heat will be dumped into the overheat loop before the boiler itself shuts down due to overheat. Any ideas?

Little lower BTUH rates this run. Whyzat?

Two reasons, I think. Since I opened the Termovar balancing valve a little, flow rates were a little lower than before. Second, stack temps averaged a little lower. I'm going to do a couple of more tests with different conditions, and assuming I end up with some final settings a little different from what has been shown so far, I will put in another data table with the settings. In particular, after return temp rises above 160F, I want to close the Termovar balancing valve completely so that I can determine how much residual flow passes through the Termovar, as I assume there is some.

Anything else you would like to see?

 

[DaveBP]

So the Termovar never really shifts completely to tank return. There is always some boiler supply recirculation. I have wondered about that for a while.

Do I understand that's what you want to test? That would be good to know for sure. Always best to know where the fiddle factors lie.

I'll look this over in the morning. I just got home from work. Making gauges for the Navy has used up about all the attention span I have today. This is really fascinating, what you're doing. The pressurized storage crowd has not had the road-test attention it deserves on this forum.... Yet.

 

[DaveBP]

Jim,

I think the main reason you seem to be getting lower BTUH rates on your most recent run (I guess that's run #3, posted evening of March 10) was that the tank temp started higher and so your boiler return temp was 20F or more higher than the first couple runs. I think the Termovar wasn't really doing much this last run because the tank temps were already close to its opening temp. Even with the higher pump rates the BTUs just couldn't be sucked out of the boiler. I think you're right that as soon as the tank return is much above the 140F minimum it would be good to shut off the balancing valve completely.
But how do you remember to open it again next burn?

The first couple runs show brilliantly how keeping the boiler return temp a little above the 130F condensation zone can make for more efficiency. Higher delta-T and BTUH and lower pump speed and therefore less electricity.This is common sense but it's important to see it in action. And as you said in your opening remarks to this thread, little of this may pertain to folks who have primarily baseboard heat and might never get return temps so low as these.
So how come the dealers all seem to be supplying 160F units? I guess for the many installations that are not using storage and therefore idle regularly.

The flue temps are a little hard to draw a solid conclusion from. You have the chain turbulators if I remember correctly. With multiple fuel loadings the flue temp. oscillations start over and over again. They don't seem to swing wildly but recording loading times might reveal some pattern.

The next thing I'd like to see is a run from cold tank starting temps with the 15-58 only; leaving the 007 always off. To see if you NEED the extra flow to transport the highest temp BTUs out of the tank and keep up with the burn. Be fun to watch the flue temps. If they start to rise at this point when the boiler supply it at the highest temps and the burn is presumably tapering off it would suggest more flow might save some BTUs. Then you flip on the 007 and watch the flue temp to see if that's the case.

And if the Grundfos CAN do it all, at which lowest speed? If the Grundfos is adequate, with the 007 and the flowmeter inline, it might be adequate by a larger margin if those were removed to reduce the circuit head.

 

[jebatty]

I think you’re right that as soon as the tank return is much above the 140F minimum it would be good to shut off the balancing valve completely.
But how do you remember to open it again next burn?

My preliminary thought on this would be to have an Automag type valve on the Termovar feedback line controlled by an aquastat close on rise or similar controller installed on the boiler return line before the Termovar. This could be set at 160, for example, so that at system return temp less than 160, no power to Automag and Automag would be open, allowing Termovar feedback. When system return reached 160, the Automag would be powered and close, terminating all flow through the Termovar. As system return again dropped below 160 less differential, power to Automag would be cut, valve opens, and feedback continues, as well as valve being open on next boiler burn.

Some months ago mid-winter I did shut off the Termovar balancing valve when system return was up to 160, and I did forget to reopen it the next time I fired the boiler, and I left for the burn to run on its own, as normal. Not nice. The fire took off, overheated the boiler, draft fan of course shut down, but a near full load of wood smoldered in the firebox for quite some time at high temp. A lot of condensation, black liquid draining down the chimney, and a mess on the floor. The creosote in the firebox burned off OK the next burn or two. I did not try that again.

 

[DaveBP]

Some months ago mid-winter I did shut off the Termovar balancing valve when system return was up to 160, and I did forget to reopen it the next time

I could only do a manual shut-off setup by attaching a steel rod from the balancing valve handle to the firebox handle or something like that so that I could not open the door to load more wood without throwing the valve back. I call it "stupid-proofing" at work; trying to find a way to make it impossible to neglect a critical detail. It's a survival skill.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the "Loading Unit" that Termovar and Laddomat make might be the way to go for pressurized storage. Large dollars, but I think they do it all in one package. They have a balancing valve built in so when the tank return temp is about 11F or so above the opening temp they shut off all flow from the boiler supply. Hansson has the Laddomat 21 unit in his system. They are for pressurized storage only.

I'm seeing some confusion among readers of this forum (myself included sometimes) between rules of thumb for pressurized and unpressurized storage. Different criteria pertain to each. Hope it won't discourage people from experimenting and reporting.

 

[chuck172]

I once forgot to re-open the balancing valve like you did Jim, and had the same results. Seems like you're re-inventing the laddomat 21 like Dave is saying.
Maybe we could get together and have a group buy this summer and discount the price somehow.

 

[oldmilwaukee]

jebatty,

I am fascinated with your results. I have a similar setup, without the storage tank, and without enough instrumentation to get the hard numbers that you have. Please keep experimenting, so I can extrapolate your good data to my own system!

Although I have no storage, I can run my Tarm, fullbore with a load of dry hardwood and it will never idle (4+ hours), so long as I have all of my radiant zones (4000 feet of pex) in play. The Tarm will outrun (e..g go into idle) 3000 feet of staple up 1/2" pex with the radiant water mixed down to 150 degrees, but if I open the basement slab zones (another 1000 feet of 5/8" line in concrete), the Tarm will never go into idle. Maybe next winter I'll get all of that thermal mass up to temp and the Tarm can outrun even the basement slab, but so far, that has never happened. I am using primary-secondary plumbing, with a Grundfos 15-58 on the boiler loop, and a Wilo Stratos (ECM) on the radiant loops. I always keep the 3 speed grundfos on the middle or lowest setting. I suspect the lowest setting is plenty of circulation for the 40+ degree temp drops I usually see in the primary loop. (60 feet of 1 1/4" pipe with maybe 12 elbows and the thermovar). If the basement loops are not in circulation, I put the grundfos in the middle setting because the temp drop through the staple up pex is not as dramatic. (most of this is not automated... that will come next next season, based on what I learn from my own system and from you guys on this board)

For as long as I've had my system running (and especially at the beginning), I have been suspect of the Termovar. You data gives me some comfort that it's doing the right thing. Even without instrumentation though, I can tell that my primary loop is "stuttering" for a while when coming up from a cold start. It takes a while for that slug of cold water in the system to work its way through the thermovar... and the flow seems to start and stop at times, even though I am being very stingy with the opening on the balancing valve. I'd really like a setup that doesn't waste 50 watts trying to push water through an almost closed balancing valve and an almost closed thermovar valve every time the return water is below 140 (which can happen a lot with my radiant system).

Well, thanks for sharing the data.

 

[jebatty]

Probably my last test run, unless something really new comes up or someone has a great idea that merits testing.

This test involved another adjustment of the Termovar balancing valve. I have a 1-1/4" gate valve as my balancing valve. On the March 09 test the valve was open one full turn; the March 10 test 1-1/2 turns; and this test is 1-1/4 turns. I also tried to maintain a pretty consistent mid-500 stack temp.

Observations:

1) The 3 gpm entries of 6.25 are not actual but are an estimate. Actual gpm's were alternating between 4.5 and 7.75 as the 007 turned ON and OFF based on boiler supply temp (actual ON is about 180 and differential OFF is 172). Thus, when it turned ON the inrush of cooler water brought down the boiler supply temp and cycled the 007 several times before boiler output maintained above 172 after a 180 ON.

2) Boiler idled first at 12:32 and back on-line at 12:48. It idled again at 12:55 and the idle continued through the last data point. The wood was nearly burned out at this point.

3) The drop in gpm from 7.75 to 6 is caused by the 15-58 going OFF based on BS/SR differential closing.

4) When both circs were ON and flow was 7.75 gpm with the balancing valve at 1-1/4 turns open, and boiler return (BR) at about 170, I opened the balancing valve all the way and flow dropped to 7 gpm. I then closed it all the way and flow increased to 9.5 gpm. This evidences that the balancing valve should be closed as much as possible to maintain the boiler return temp that you desire (probably 150-160 minimum) to maximize system flow. It also is evident that the Termovar never completely closes boiler feedback.

5) Based on 4), and with my system, I'm not sure whether a means to automatically further shut down the balancing valve and thereby increase flow and btuh would be beneficial, as my boiler goes into idle only at near maximum storage tank temperature. My system is operating quite efficiently with the Termovar functioning normally. This is particularly true because my flow will increase when I remove the flowmeter, which has a 2 psi max pressure drop from its operation.

 

[DaveBP]

Jim,

I remember you mentioning fan-speed controllers for draft fans. Do you still use one to reduce your burn rate?

Does it work? Can you still maintain good gassification but at a slower rate?

Does it reduce the flue temps?

Do you get a longer burn time using your dry pine when you do reduce the burn rate?

With 1000 gallons pressurized storage is there any advantage to longer burn times since you capture all the heat to use later? I mean does loading fit the rhythm of your daily routine better.

Your latest burn data suggest a pattern. And like any good experiment it poses yet another question. Your first run you posted as a table was done with the tank temp much lower than the next two. The tank return temp on that burn stayed pretty low until near the end of the burn and then began to rise gradually. The last two runs showed the tank return temp gradually rising from much earlier in the run, not long after the circulators started.

This suggests that the water in the tank was not stratified as dramatically as the earlier run. Perfect stratification would result in the return temp staying at the same low temp until the very end and that will never happen. But the later 2 runs look more like gradation than stratification. If a tank is big enough to store enough water, at whatever mix of temps, to get your heating done and suit your daily loading routine then it is only academic to worry about how good your stratification is.

So just to get academic, the only pattern I see corresponding to the stratification pattern is the circulator flow rate. The last two less-stratified runs were done at much higher flow rates. And I wonder if there is enough mixing going on at those higher flow rates to mix up the water in the tank enough to make a visible difference in your experiment.

There, now I feel better. Haven't been using my "?" key enough lately.

 

[jebatty]

I remember you mentioning fan-speed controllers for draft fans. Do you still use one to reduce your burn rate?
Does it work? Can you still maintain good gassification but at a slower rate?
Does it reduce the flue temps?
Do you get a longer burn time using your dry pine when you do reduce the burn rate?

"Yes" to all questions. I use it just about only in cold winter weather (below about 10F) when I have an issue with excessive draft. As temps warm, I need full draft fan output to maintain good gasification. At times I reduce the speed of the draft fan really a lot and still maintain good gasification in the 450-550F stack temp range, which is where my boiler with my wood seems to work best.

With 1000 gallons pressurized storage is there any advantage to longer burn times since you capture all the heat to use later? I mean does loading fit the rhythm of your daily routine better.

I did the 3 tests under pretty optimum conditions to maintain fairly consistent stack temps and get data which should be reasonably repeatable. This meant I didn't stuff the firebox and I added additional splits from time to time, and shook down the burning splits to maintain pretty consistent gasification.

Under real world conditions, there would be a fair amount of variability over the load-burn cycle, from start, to high burn, then burn leveling down, then coals to finish. In the real world I don't pay too much attention to anything but the end temp of the tank and how much stored heat I needed based on outside temp, or whether I'm going to be gone for a few days, and I will run a full or partial second or third load if needed. My approach is fire the boiler, leave and forget it. Pine does not burn a long time, probably about 4 hours is close to maximum, with most of the load pretty well finished by 3 to 3-1/2 hours. Also practically no coals left to start another fire sometime later. So I just load and burn as needed, as is convenient for me to do so, and as required by outside temps.

...So just to get academic, the only pattern I see corresponding to the stratification pattern is the circulator flow rate....

I see your point, but perhaps there is a little different pattern than you suggest. First consider that this is a horizontal 1000 gal tank, about 39" diameter -- not much room for major stratification. But notice in each burn that, although storage return gradually rises during the early period, as gpm x hours starts to approach 1000, that is, when nearly a full load of hot water has been charged, the temp rises quite rapidly. Also notice how tank bottom temp, especially on the left end (opposite from the input direction of hot water), stays considerably under top temp except towards the end of the charge, when the whole tank is almost the same temp (Mar 10 and 15 tables).

The Mar 09 table probably would not represent a "normal" real world charge situation, as the tank start temp is really low (120-108) -- not much heat left here. And I did not continue this burn until the tank was fully charged.

The Mar 10 and 15 tables probably are closer to most real world operations, with tank start temps of about 160-142 (Mar 10) and 142-125 (Mar 15). This probably would be about the time that a person would consider charging the tank.

Glad you found this interesting.

 

[DaveBP]

My approach is fire the boiler, leave and forget it.

I can't imagine it can get any better than that.

Glad you found this interesting.

Now there's an understatement. It's been downright inspiring.
My hope is not to have the most efficient system in the world but, perhaps, one of the simplest and learn how to run it as efficiently as I can without futzing with it.

 

[jebatty]

I'm thinking about doing one or two more data collections, as a recent burn suggests that higher btuh can be achieved with the 15-58 on a speed lower than HI, with the 007 coming on at 180F boiler output. I may try a MED and then a LO setting. Trouble right now is that weather is warming, actually getting above freezing for a change.