effecta lambda boiler performance

  • 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.
Greetings all members!

I have been busy evaluating my new effecta lambda 35 boiler in detail and wanted to share the attached temperatures readings with everyone.

I have almost 800 hours of operation on it and it continues to impress me (and everyone who has seen it operate firsthand) on qa daily basis.

The data was gathered using a Dent data logger a few days ago.

I look forward to feedback regarding this data and how it compares with other boilers as I have not seen this type of detailed data from any other boiler user/manufacture.

Also, I am asking for feedback on my efficiency calculations page that I have created and attached. What are others using as a BTU energy amount for one lb. of seasoned hardwood?

Take care

EBU
 

Attachments

  • effecta burn data graph 3_6_11.jpg
    effecta burn data graph 3_6_11.jpg
    74.8 KB · Views: 934
  • effecta lambda efficiency study 03_06_11.jpg
    effecta lambda efficiency study 03_06_11.jpg
    150.4 KB · Views: 919
Another avenue of efficiency rating is to have your areas degree days overlaid on your graph. Also would help if people knew your heat loss calc for the home.

Will
 
Effecta Boiler User said:
The data was gathered using a Dent data logger a few days ago.

I look forward to feedback regarding this data and how it compares with other boilers as I have not seen this type of detailed data from any other boiler user/manufacture.

Also, I am asking for feedback on my efficiency calculations page that I have created and attached. What are others using as a BTU energy amount for one lb. of seasoned hardwood?

These are great results from a great data logger connected to a fantastic boiler, but I'm a little disappointed in the efficiency number.

Normally we would expect an Effecta or a Froling to reach 103%-105% due to the advanced flue gas sensor technology, and stepper motor technology that adjust both primary and secondary air flow.

I think I see where your problem is, the 31000 btu per hour house load needs to be adjusted to about 38000 btu per hour to get your efficiency up there closer to where it rightfully belongs.

Nonetheless, this is the most compelling evidence we've seen so far to demonstrate that non-lambda boilers are as obsolete as their OWB cousins. Nice job!

Cheers --ewd
 
I have not calculated my homes heat loss using mathmatical formulas but rather have determined it using the following method:

The Azel DP60 gages on my water tanks capture the min and max. temp readings and thus after a full burn I record the max tank temperatures from the 4 different gages on my stacked horizonatal tanks ( top of top tank, bottom of top tank, top of bottom tank and bottom of bottom tank).

I then record the average outside temperature for the day.

Finally, after a specific # of hours (usually 10-12 hours) for the day I record the ending tank temperatures to get the delta T for all 4 tank locations. I then average the 4 delta T values to get a good # (at least I am thinking that this is a good #). You can see this on the document I have attached to my first post.

Using the standard formula for BTU with water storage (which is delta T x amount of storage x 8.333 constant) I calculate the amount of energy/BTU that has left the water storage tanks.

I then simply divide this total amount of lost BTU by the # of hours it took to loose the BTU and come up with BTU/Hr heat loss.

I have tried to calculate the heat loss of my house using the finite calculations available on the internet but from my experience these can be a bit tricky (and can be performed in such a manner so as to get the #'s one is looking for rather than the REAL, accurate heat loss values).

Thus, I am confident that by using the method above I am getting the most accurate heat loss results possible.

Also, to calculate just the heat loss from the tanks through the insulation around the tanks, I simply record the same delta T #'s for the tanks and hours for the evaluation period but this time I turn off my controller for the pumps and zones valves supplying heat to the house. By doing so I am able to isolate the tanks by themselves.

I plan to do the same heat loss measurements at different ambient temperatures so as to see how it changes based on the outside temps.

I have attached a few photos so that you can see how I am data logging the effecta lambda 35 boiler.

Being both a mechanical engineer and US effecta boiler distributor, I always try to be an engineer first and a salesman second. Having said this, I will take some photos of my data logging setup and post them tonight.

Awaiting some more feedback and comments!!!!

EBU
 
Sorry about that!

I will post the data logging set up photos tonight.

EBU
 
Thanks for the data-based info. I don't have a means to measure temperature in the secondary chamber of my Tarm, but wish I did. Where exactly did you place the sensor?

Instantaneous combustion temperature, I believe, may be considerably higher than temperature a short distance from the point of combustion, as the gases cool quickly as they mix with air in the secondary chamber. EDIT: Your chart shows sustained secondary temperatures right around 1800F, which based on what I have learned is exactly where they should be; excellent performance. DELETE: Since I have no data to back this up, FWIW, I would surmise that sustained secondary temperatures, except during the very beginning and end of the burn, should be well above 1000F. Your chart shows some spikes, but the average shows pretty close to 1000F, so maybe my thinking is incorrect. Perhaps this relates to the actual measuring location. Does anyone else have any data to compare with this?

From 1000-2000F, especially into the higher range, is where gasifiers really perform their magic. The highly combustible CO, H and formaldehyde are vigorously generated in this range, as well as methane formation/combustion and consumption of carbon. CO spontaneously ignites at about 1200F, H at about 1100F, formaldehyde at about 800F, and methane up to 1400F, while carbon is consumed at 1800F and above.

An efficiency calculation has some key assumptions and variables, but that's often as close as most of us can get, unless we follow laboratory procedures. Those include assumed moisture content, as well as calculated home and tank heat loss in your situation. What are your specifics on these heat loss calculations? Outside temperature, wind, sun, and much more impact home heat loss. I wouldn't know how to calculate actual heat loss from a structure (except from a known BTU source, like a storage tank, which was drawn down to maintain a constant structure temperature), and that heat loss calculation would change with any change in the influencing factors. I also don't know how to measure heat loss of a tank, except in a static situation, because again it would change with any change in the influencing factors.

What types of sensors did you use?

So far I have found only two ways to reduce the variables and keep the assumptions to a minimum. 1) do a controlled burn with boiler output only to a storage tank, no other heat draw on the system, and then measure the BTU gain in the storage tank over the burn period; or 2) do a controlled burn and measure supply/return temperature and gpm flow, and then calculate the BTUh over the burn period. The second method reduces heat losses variables, but determining actual gpm flow can be quite difficult, and small errors can result in large changes in the final calculations.

Are you able to do shut down all draws on your system, do a controlled burn and only charge the tank? When I did this with my Tarm Solo 40, I calculated 86% efficiency based only on temperature rise of the tank, which is quite well insulated. That did not include heat loss from the tank, boiler and piping, which if I could have measured would have yielded a higher efficiency.

For those of us who try to rely on data, we struggle with actual BTU content of the wood. That too is a big assumption, if high accuracy in the data is important. I have used 6,050 BTU/lb at 20% MC and 400F flue temp. Regardless, an assumption has to be made, and at least the data has some relative accuracy, even if it lacks absolute accuracy.

Keep up the work. It helps all of us.
 
great data,being a long time proponent of o2 control, this shows first hand what wood burning can and will be readily available. What does suprise me the flue temp being consistently the limiting factor to higher effiency. this could be attributed to 3 things, flue tubes need cleaning, or hx design not transfering enough heat, or o2 setpoint too low. So to eliminate, when were the tubes cleaned in reference to the test and what is the target o2 setpoint and can you datalog the o2% as you did the temps for a burn.Overall this and the froling are great boilers, hopefully more manufacturers will follow suit.
 
jebatty said:
Thanks for the data-based info. I don't have a means to measure temperature in the secondary chamber of my Tarm, but wish I did. Where exactly did you place the sensor?

Instantaneous combustion temperature, I believe, may be considerably higher than temperature a short distance from the point of combustion, as the gases cool quickly as they mix with air in the secondary chamber. Since I have no data to back this up, FWIW, I would surmise that sustained secondary temperatures, except during the very beginning and end of the burn, should be well above 1000F. Your chart shows some spikes, but the average shows pretty close to 1000F, so maybe my thinking is incorrect. Perhaps this relates to the actual measuring location. Does anyone else have any data to compare with this?

From 1000-2000F, especially into the higher range, is where gasifiers really perform their magic. The highly combustible CO, H and formaldehyde are vigorously generated in this range, as well as methane formation/combustion and consumption of carbon. CO spontaneously ignites at about 1200F, H at about 1100F, formaldehyde at about 800F, and methane up to 1400F, while carbon is consumed at 1800F and above.

An efficiency calculation has some key assumptions and variables, but that's often as close as most of us can get, unless we follow laboratory procedures. Those include assumed moisture content, as well as calculated home and tank heat loss in your situation. What are your specifics on these heat loss calculations? Outside temperature, wind, sun, and much more impact home heat loss. I wouldn't know how to calculate actual heat loss from a structure (except from a known BTU source, like a storage tank, which was drawn down to maintain a constant structure temperature), and that heat loss calculation would change with any change in the influencing factors. I also don't know how to measure heat loss of a tank, except in a static situation, because again it would change with any change in the influencing factors.

What types of sensors did you use?

So far I have found only two ways to reduce the variables and keep the assumptions to a minimum. 1) do a controlled burn with boiler output only to a storage tank, no other heat draw on the system, and then measure the BTU gain in the storage tank over the burn period; or 2) do a controlled burn and measure supply/return temperature and gpm flow, and then calculate the BTUh over the burn period. The second method reduces heat losses variables, but determining actual gpm flow can quite difficult, and small errors can result in large changes in the final calculations.

Are you able to do shut down all draws on your system, do a controlled burn and only charge the tank? When I did this with my Tarm Solo 40, I calculated 86% efficiency based only on temperature rise of the tank, which is quite well insulated. That did not include heat loss from the tank, boiler and piping, which if I could have measured would have yielded a higher efficiency.

For those of us who try to rely on data, we struggle with actual BTU content of the wood. That too is a big assumption, if high accuracy in the data is important. I have used 6,050 BTU/lb at 20% MC and 400F flue temp. Regardless, an assumption has to be made, and at least the data has some relative accuracy, even if it lacks absolute accuracy.

Keep up the work. It helps all of us.

Looks to me like the average temp was 1800F.
 
ewdudley said:
Effecta Boiler User said:
The data was gathered using a Dent data logger a few days ago.

I look forward to feedback regarding this data and how it compares with other boilers as I have not seen this type of detailed data from any other boiler user/manufacture.

Also, I am asking for feedback on my efficiency calculations page that I have created and attached. What are others using as a BTU energy amount for one lb. of seasoned hardwood?

These are great results from a great data logger connected to a fantastic boiler, but I'm a little disappointed in the efficiency number.

Normally we would expect an Effecta or a Froling to reach 103%-105% due to the advanced flue gas sensor technology, and stepper motor technology that adjust both primary and secondary air flow.
Cheers --ewd

How could you go >100% with anything other than perhaps a heat pump? And how could you even approach 100% with anything other than a condensing boiler, which is territory that, as far as I know, has not yet been commercially explored with wood fueled appliances?
 
pybyr said:
ewdudley said:
Effecta Boiler User said:
The data was gathered using a Dent data logger a few days ago.

I look forward to feedback regarding this data and how it compares with other boilers as I have not seen this type of detailed data from any other boiler user/manufacture.

Also, I am asking for feedback on my efficiency calculations page that I have created and attached. What are others using as a BTU energy amount for one lb. of seasoned hardwood?

These are great results from a great data logger connected to a fantastic boiler, but I'm a little disappointed in the efficiency number.

Normally we would expect an Effecta or a Froling to reach 103%-105% due to the advanced flue gas sensor technology, and stepper motor technology that adjust both primary and secondary air flow.
Cheers --ewd

How could you go >100% with anything other than perhaps a heat pump? And how could you even approach 100% with anything other than a condensing boiler, which is territory that, as far as I know, has not yet been commercially explored with wood fueled appliances?

That's the beauty of the Lambda technology as it is applied to solid fuels combustion, which Effecta has perfected and brought to market.

I hate to date myself, but as others of a certain age may recall the whole science of combustion control was revolutionized by the Swedes and the Germans when Volvo and Bosch introduced the Lambda Sond K-Jetronic system in the late seventies.

The secret of how to attain greater than 100% thermodynamic LHV fuel combustion efficiency has been closely guarded by the Swedes and the Germans/Austrians ever since, and that is why these groundbreaking boilers are only available from Effecta and Froling.
 
ewdudley said:
pybyr said:
ewdudley said:
Effecta Boiler User said:
The data was gathered using a Dent data logger a few days ago.

I look forward to feedback regarding this data and how it compares with other boilers as I have not seen this type of detailed data from any other boiler user/manufacture.

Also, I am asking for feedback on my efficiency calculations page that I have created and attached. What are others using as a BTU energy amount for one lb. of seasoned hardwood?

These are great results from a great data logger connected to a fantastic boiler, but I'm a little disappointed in the efficiency number.

Normally we would expect an Effecta or a Froling to reach 103%-105% due to the advanced flue gas sensor technology, and stepper motor technology that adjust both primary and secondary air flow.
Cheers --ewd

How could you go >100% with anything other than perhaps a heat pump? And how could you even approach 100% with anything other than a condensing boiler, which is territory that, as far as I know, has not yet been commercially explored with wood fueled appliances?

That's the beauty of the Lambda technology as it is applied to solid fuels combustion, which Effecta has perfected and brought to market.


I hate to date myself, but as others of a certain age may recall the whole science of combustion control was revolutionized by the Swedes and the Germans when Volvo and Bosch introduced the Lambda Sond K-Jetronic system in the late seventies.

The secret of how to attain greater than 100% thermodynamic LHV fuel combustion efficiency has been closely guarded by the Swedes and the Germans/Austrians ever since, and that is why these groundbreaking boilers are only available from Effecta and Froling.



If he is showing numbers that are 87% efficiency, where are we getting performance over 100%.
Lambda or not, how are we getting there?
 
Tom in Maine said:
If he is showing numbers that are 87% efficiency, where are we getting performance over 100%.
Lambda or not, how are we getting there?

The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... and Azel... and Lambda... and Effecta.

These go to eleven.
 
Please forgive me for being numb,
where is this information? All I am looking at is the data in the first post.
 
If I am understanding this right, the only way you get to over 100% is if the exhaust temp is less than boiling, since you are
extracting heat by condensing the water vapor in the flue gas.
 
I think the exhaust gas would also have to have a temperature below the input source air.

Actually there's a somewhat lengthy expression to calculate this. The temperature would have to be below the dew point for the water vapor concentration in the exhaust. If the exhaust temp is above the temp of the primary air then you'd have to subtract a value for that heat.
 
ewdudley said:
Tom in Maine said:
If he is showing numbers that are 87% efficiency, where are we getting performance over 100%.
Lambda or not, how are we getting there?

The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... and Azel... and Lambda... and Effecta.

These go to eleven.

Are you invoking Nigel Tufnel as an authority on Thermodynamics to explain how efficiency can surpass 100% :) ?
 
Eliot's just being a wiseass.

It seems logical that if the boiler is able to adjust the secondary air intake based upon the amount of fuel being consumed, then it should be able to get more complete combustion without introducing excessive amounts of air. With average secondary chamber temps around 1800 F, I assume that combustion of the fuel is nearly complete. The Effecta's average flue gas temps well below 400 F indicate that a large percentage of that heat is being transferred to the boiler water.

I'm sure that the efficiency numbers that manufacturers provide are calculated under ideal conditions and in most cases aren't an average for a complete burn cycle. In many cases they are gross exaggerations. At least in the case of boilers like those made by Effecta and Froling it seems reasonable to expect that they are capable of obtaining and maintaining high efficiency throughout an entire burn cycle.

Eliot's Attack DP 45 claims to be up to 86% efficient. With flue gas temps listed as 260 C (500 F) in their brochure, clearly there is more heat going up the flue than there is with the Effecta boiler.
 
Here's a graph from a non-lambda EKO form one of our really cold days. My combustion temp sensor is located well away from the 'blast zone' since I ruined the first one.

Both combustion and flue temps are divided by 10 before being graphed so that they fit on the same scale as other temps.

One significant difference is that the Effecta maintains a very stable combsution temp over the course of the burn, while the EKO hits a high temp right after fresh wood is loaded, but the combustion temp fluctuates a lot more (as wood settles, I expect) and it drops off over the course of the burn.

In this case, there are a couple of reloads at about 5:20, 7:00, and 8:40. No idea what happened at 11:00.

You can see the controller switching loads to maintain the outlet temp.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.gif
    Untitled.gif
    162.8 KB · Views: 522
Nofossil,

What equipment is involved in obtaining and recording all that data? That's really slick.
 
alean1 said:
pybyr said:
ewdudley said:
Tom in Maine said:
If he is showing numbers that are 87% efficiency, where are we getting performance over 100%.
Lambda or not, how are we getting there?

The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... and Azel... and Lambda... and Effecta.

These go to eleven.

Are you invoking Nigel Tufnel as an authority on Thermodynamics to explain how efficiency can surpass 100% :) ?
Its impossible to get performance over 100% unless you use a washing machine full of oil.


I hope I can do that with a Top Loader! :lol:
 
Looks to me like the average temp was 1800F.

You're right - the resolution in my screen cut off the top half of the digits, and I didn't look below that. Sorry. Good data.
 
Eliot,

I hope that you don't take offense to me calling you a wiseass. I appreciated your satirical response, but I'm not sure that you were being entirely fair to the original poster. I'm a big fan of Christopher Guest films by the way.
 
Pete Schiller said:
Nofossil,

What equipment is involved in obtaining and recording all that data? That's really slick.

That's the nearly-world-famous 'NoFossil Control System" logging data to a remote database along with some web based graphics. I now have over four years of data recorded at 30 second intervals.

I love to see actual data. This thread is great, an jebatty has contributed a lot over time as well.

My sig has a link to more information on my setup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.