# Garn Install 15 mos. and winding down!



## rvtgr8 (Oct 1, 2009)

In my never ending quest to get my Garn installed, I am now to the point of going through the wall with my intake and exhaust pipes.  I have been okayed to convert my garage into a Garn den.  This will cause me to build a garage next year that is unattached to the house.  The problem that I have run into is one of placement.  The Garn's (1500) exhaust must remain 12" above the intake pipe if it is going straight out and blowing downward into a sand filled container that manages cinders.  My question is how critical is it that the intake be offset from the exhaust?  Would it be a problem to have them both come out of the wall with the intake directly below the exhaust pipe?  The problem is that I have a natural stone wainscot on the the outside of my house.  I have taken out a floor to ceiling window for the exhaust, but the intake would have to go directly through the stone.  I would like to flush mount the intake 12" directly below the exhaust, keeping in mind that the exhaust continues out another 24 to 30 inches.  Any thoughts?

Robert


----------



## heaterman (Oct 2, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> In my never ending quest to get my Garn installed, I am now to the point of going through the wall with my intake and exhaust pipes.  I have been okayed to convert my garage into a Garn den.  This will cause me to build a garage next year that is unattached to the house.  The problem that I have run into is one of placement.  The Garn's (1500) exhaust must remain 12" above the intake pipe if it is going straight out and blowing downward into a sand filled container that manages cinders.  My question is how critical is it that the intake be offset from the exhaust?  Would it be a problem to have them both come out of the wall with the intake directly below the exhaust pipe?  The problem is that I have a natural stone wainscot on the the outside of my house.  I have taken out a floor to ceiling window for the exhaust, but the intake would have to go directly through the stone.  I would like to flush mount the intake 12" directly below the exhaust, keeping in mind that the exhaust continues out another 24 to 30 inches.  Any thoughts?
> 
> Robert



A determining factor for our installations is what is on the ground in line with the vent. Green grass? bare dirt? pine needles?  Flammability is the key here. I have a customer about 3 miles from my house that just vents it straight out the side of the pole barn. Nice white steel that is still white 2 years after installation.  I have only had one instance where the exhaust was pushed back against the building on a -10* night and the water vapor iced over the intake screen.


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 2, 2009)

Thanks for responding Heaterman,

The wall is natural stone up 36" from the ground up.  The ground is covered with grass, but that could easily be replaced with gravel.  Flammability is not a real issue, but I was wondering if there was an issue other than that?

Robert


----------



## larry4406 (Oct 2, 2009)

Probably not applicable, but on HVAC equipment (gas furnances) there is typically a 10' separation distance between fresh air intake and exhaust.  This is often in the manual as well as Code.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 2, 2009)

larry4406 said:
			
		

> Probably not applicable, but on HVAC equipment (gas furnances) there is typically a 10' separation distance between fresh air intake and exhaust.  This is often in the manual as well as Code.



True but not applicable in this case. The separation you are referring to applies when the intake serves the dwelling or another appliance. In this case the Garn is a direct vented appliance and that separation does not apply. In fact, using gas furnaces as an example, the vent and intake must be on the same wall and most manuals specify that they be located no more than 1' from each other. The issue there is that the manufacturers want both intake and exhaust to "see" the same atmospheric pressure for proper operation. This is not a factor with a Garn because of the volume of air it moves and the vent pressure it's able to develop.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 2, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Thanks for responding Heaterman,
> 
> The wall is natural stone up 36" from the ground up.  The ground is covered with grass, but that could easily be replaced with gravel.  Flammability is not a real issue, but I was wondering if there was an issue other than that?
> 
> Robert



If it were me, I'd vent it straight out and see if it works satisfactorily for you. If you have problems of some type you can devise plan B later but I doubt if you will.


----------



## Tattooz (Oct 11, 2009)




----------



## Tattooz (Oct 11, 2009)




----------



## Tattooz (Oct 11, 2009)

Here are a few photos of mine, it's not right under but it's close. No probs so far!


----------



## Jim K in PA (Oct 13, 2009)

Tattooz!  Yer alive?  Welcome back . . .


----------



## Tattooz (Oct 14, 2009)

Summers are crazy time for me!!
Just getting the garn up and running had to do my first drain and filling her back up!


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 14, 2009)

The fact that I have now been down with the flue for 9 days coupled with our first two snows and 16*F temps has me really behind on my schedule.  Thanks for the pics Tat.  I really don't think it will be a problem either.  My next phase is wiring in my controls.  Cross your fingers for me.

Robert


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 22, 2009)

Over the flu, I got a call to come and get four live bee hives.  If you have ever kept bees, you do that kind of thing at night.  I had a suit malfunction in the dark and got stung about 15 times.  That put me out for even a longer period of time, enough time for yet another storm.  

The photos here show my current progress including the venting solution.  The bags by the door are my compressed vermiculite which I will install as soon as I leak test the main lines.

Comments about the system? Being stupid enough to get stung 15 times?  Use of vermiculite?  Getting older and having the flu?  Kyle Orton?


----------



## heaterman (Oct 22, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Over the flu, I got a call to come and get four live bee hives.  If you have ever kept bees, you do that kind of thing at night.  I had a suit malfunction in the dark and got stung about 15 times.  That put me out for even a longer period of time, enough time for yet another storm.
> 
> The photos here show my current progress including the venting solution.  The bags by the door are my compressed vermiculite which I will install as soon as I leak test the main lines.
> 
> Comments about the system? Being stupid enough to get stung 15 times?  Use of vermiculite?  Getting older and having the flu?  Kyle Orton?



I take it the white stuff is snow and not spilled vermiculite.. Install looks very well done....Had one of my guys get diagnosed with H1N1 today. The doc says that 99.999% of people with it suffer no more than with any other bug going around and the press is blowing it ALL out of proportion....so...big deal on the flu.....as to getting stung 15 times because of a wardrobe malfunction...........hmmmmm   no comment on that


----------



## sdrobertson (Oct 23, 2009)

Looking real good...the install is getting close which is good seeing as you have snow already.  Keep it up and your almost to the fun part when you just throw in wood and sit back and enjoy the heat.  Glad your feeling better.


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 23, 2009)

Never done night moves on a hive myself, but my bee supply lady has, and she is one of those crazy people that generally works with just a veil - I've done a hive inspection, me in a "space suit" and her in a t-shirt and short shorts...  She does tell about one time her and a friend were doing a night move with a hive lifter, and had the bottom board fall off...  She said it was wonderful telepathic coordination - 1,2,3, Put hive down, RUN!

Me,  I've always had a fantasy of throwing a hive in the sidecar and moving it to a new location in my bee suit - see if there would be any cops dumb / brave enough to try and pull me over and give me a helmet ticket... :coolsmirk: 

Good luck on finishing up the install, looks good so far.

Gooserider


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 25, 2009)

Okay,  there is no way around it, I am now at the point in time where I must wire the Garn into the existing system.  For those of you that that are keeping score, I have a Burnham Series II boiler (low pressure/164K btu Model 206 PI – TEID) hooked into an high mass radiant system.  There are five heating zones and a sixth zone runs a sidearm domestic water heating unit.  The zones are controlled by Honeywell 40004850-001 valves that get their marching orders from thermostats in each zone of the house or from the sidearm. I have installed a Garn 1500.  I have installed a fifty plate heat exchanger between the old Burnham system and the Garn.  The Garn will be the primary heat source through the winter, with the Burnham only firing when the Garn drops below a certain set temperature.  The Garn will also be heating a well insulated hot tub room with an old cast iron radiator and the 500 gallon tub.  The smaller Grunfos 15-58 will be controlled by the hot tub HX thermostat. I have a Tekmar 356 controller and although it might be a future consideration, the outdoor temperature reset is not a priority.

What Do I Want? -

Plenty of hot water for my wife.  Lots of it.  When she has hot water, I am her hero.  The colder the water, the colder the shoulder.

I  want  the simplest control system I can implement and have the Burnham be there to kick in if for some reason we are called away.

I want to be past the installation stage and on to the tweaking stage.

Can anyone share with me their vision on just how to get to this point?


----------



## Jim K in PA (Oct 25, 2009)

Robert - read Tom's recent post on his piping setup.  Here is the thread: https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/44168/

A couple of points:

1.  Your hot tub is on the GARN circuit, which is non-pressurized.  Is this what you intended?

2.  It looks like you have the HX between the boiler and the GARN set up as a secondary loop, but you have no pump on the boiler side.  No pump, no flow.

3.  Per Tom's thread above, you have a choice as to setting up the flow through your existing boiler all the time, or to bypass it.  As you have drawn it, you are pumping through it all the time.  Is this what you want?

Your getting close.  Keep plugging.


----------



## RobC (Oct 25, 2009)

To keep the Burnham off you could use something like the Tekmar 256 with an outdoor reset. They make others with out the outdoor reset. Have not finished my set up but that's what I'm planning on using. Tekmar 256 has 2 sensors. 1 goes to a supply on tank or a pipe so when it see low temps it turns on Burnham. You might place it near your heat exchanger. Outdoor reset monitors the outside temps and adjusts supply water temps. 
Rob


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 25, 2009)

Jim,

You are right on so many levels.  The corrected drawing (which also may be flawed) is included in this post. The boiler side has my Taco 007-5f. The thing that I did not include in my rushed drawing was the fact that there is a HX at the tub.  No fluids will co-mingle with my Garn.  Unless there is a significant heat loss associated with the constant sharing between the two systems I am okay with it.  My logic may be flawed here though.  If the propane boiler is always on and the Garn is not, it seems to me it would burn all the time because it would be losing heat back to the Garn through the HX.  But my intention is to use the Garn nearly 100% of the time.  Am I way off base?

I understand you redid some of your system...was it anything to do with this same situation?  Is my drawing any clearer?


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

Rob,

Thanks for your comments.  I have a Tekmar 356 that does the things of which you speak.  I am not familiar with the 256, but because I am a rookie, that means very little.
I hope that you spend a lot of time on this site talking with all of these good people.  Without the group here I would have installed a system, but I am not sure it would have been remotely associated with a working system.

Robert


----------



## Donl (Oct 26, 2009)

Both HX need to have two pumps. One on each side of HX.


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 26, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Jim,
> 
> You are right on so many levels.  The corrected drawing (which also may be flawed) is included in this post. The boiler side has my Taco 007-5f. The thing that I did not include in my rushed drawing was the fact that there is a HX at the tub.  No fluids will co-mingle with my Garn.  Unless there is a significant heat loss associated with the constant sharing between the two systems I am okay with it.  My logic may be flawed here though.  If the propane boiler is always on and the Garn is not, it seems to me it would burn all the time because it would be losing heat back to the Garn through the HX.  But my intention is to use the Garn nearly 100% of the time.  Am I way off base?
> 
> I understand you redid some of your system...was it anything to do with this same situation?  Is my drawing any clearer?



The Garn side looks OK, I don't see any real issues with the hot tub being on the Garn side as long as you don't mind the tub getting cold if the Garn does...  If the tub was in series with the house HX, I'd be worried about it possibly stealing to much heat from the house, but since it's a seperate loop with it's own pump, no problem as the controls can be set to give the house priority as appropriate.

Where I still see a problem even with the pump relocated, is on the house side of the HX.  You don't have anything keeping the Garn heat from going through the boiler, which I assume you don't want, and even more impotantly, you don't have anything that would make the water flow through the house side of the HX - there are two closely spaced tees, on the HX loop, with no pump to make water flow through them.

I see two possible options that might fix this...

1. Put a pipe across the radiant load so that you are making a pure load house radiant loop, and leave the existing pump on the load loop.  Tie the Burnham to the load loop with a pair of closely spaced tees like the HX is, and put a small pump with a flow check on each of the resulting heat source loops.  If the Garn is hot the HX pump feeds the radiant loop, and the boiler pump is off with no flow through its loop.  If the Garn is cold the reverse applies.

2. Put one line of the HX house side on the other side of the Burnham so that the two sources are in parallel, and leave the house pump where it is.  Put a ZV or motorized ball valve in each of the boiler and HX lines, (given your planned use, I'd make the boiler valve be NC and the HX valve be NO, just to save using the energy on actuating the valves most of the time).  Set up your controls to open the valve on which ever unit is supplying the heat, and close the one on the other and let the house pump push the heat through the load and the source.  EDIT - clarification - the house pump must be on the radiant load side of the circuit, not on either of the heat source parts, so in the drawing the house side of the HX would have to connect between the Burnham and the pump, not between the pump and the loads.

Either way, the idea is that you have isolated the source that isn't hot, and have circulation to the one that is...

Gooserider


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

I am becoming seriously confused.  My normal state, so not to worry.  Here is a drawing from a long while ago.  I realize that the Garn side has a few mistakes, but for illustrative purposes, this drawing more accurately shows my existing house system.  Are you guys suggesting major modifications to the house side in terms of adding circulators?


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

In this diagram you have the heat exchanger as part of the main loop(vs. connected with two closely spaced tee's which would require another pump).
This is how I would plumb it with the exception that I would cut the burnham out of the main loop and tie it in with two tee's and a circulator. That way
if you rarely use the burnham you will not be keeping it hot for no reason, which will lower standby losses. This will require 2 pumps running when heating 
with the burnham so there is a trade off depending on the percentage of time the burnham will be used.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 26, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Jim,
> 
> You are right on so many levels.  The corrected drawing (which also may be flawed) is included in this post. The boiler side has my Taco 007-5f. The thing that I did not include in my rushed drawing was the fact that there is a HX at the tub.  No fluids will co-mingle with my Garn.  Unless there is a significant heat loss associated with the constant sharing between the two systems I am okay with it.  My logic may be flawed here though.  If the propane boiler is always on and the Garn is not, it seems to me it would burn all the time because it would be losing heat back to the Garn through the HX.  But my intention is to use the Garn nearly 100% of the time.  Am I way off base?
> 
> I understand you redid some of your system...was it anything to do with this same situation?  Is my drawing any clearer?



What are you using to make the return of the house side of the system flow through the main HX?


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

Heaterman,

According to this drawing the answer to your question is simple...magic!  But since magic is on backorder at Pex supply, it looks as though I need to add a circulator (Grundfos similar to HX pump on Garn side) to the legs of the closely spaced tee.  I will add another couple drawings shortly.  Thanks for looking.


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

If this had proper valves, could this be a solution?  Also, running back through the boiler is bad because it represents an additional loss of heat?


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 26, 2009)

Hmmm...  I think I like the earlier drawing a little better for our purposes.  Let us start with the drawing you had in post #19, that I also quoted above....

In that drawing, I don't see ANY serious issues with the Garn side of the house HX...  You could play with where the pumps are at, and how you have the hot tub plumbed in, but what you have drawn should work fine...

Where I saw issues is on the HOUSE side of the HX.  As drawn in that picture, you would send all your circulation through the Burnham, and nothing through the HX, because you are tieing into the house loop with a pair of closely spaced tees, and don't have anything in the HX loop to make water flow through it.

For the purpose of this discussion, that entire ladder looking structure of the radiant flooring and sidearm exchanger could be considered as one big blob called "load" with two pipes coming out, supply and return...  I don't see a need to change anything in the blob, but you need to do something to connect the HX and the Burnham to it, the question is what?  The Burnham and HX can also be thought of as blobs that function as heat sources, with two pipes, one that gets cold water in, and the other hot water out.

Now in the picture you just posted in #23, you have the HX drawn in differently, so that it is in the main loop along with the Burnham, so the water comes out of the pump, goes into the Burnahm, (I'm going to call it the BH after this...) out of the BH to the expansion tank and load supply (per the standard "pumping-away" guide this is wrong BTW, as the pump should be pushing AWAY from the ET, not towards it) through the load, into the HX, and from there back to the pump.  This works, and would do the job, but you will be wasting a fair bit of energy keeping the BH hot, and pumping water through that added resistance when you don't have to.  * IF* the Garn and the BH were both running at the same time, you would also be pulling heat out of the house loop and sending it to the Garn; but if the Garn pump was off, as it should be if the BH is on, you shouldn't have any flow on the Garn side of the HX, so you shouldn't lose a lot of heat there, but it puts extra pumping load on going through the HX when you don't need to.

I don't know which drawing reflects what you are actually doing, (I would note that the Garn side in the two drawings is also significantly different, but I am not going there in this post!), but since both drawings have problems, and either the fixes I'm proposing would solve both drawings, it doesn't matter...

Let me go over the two ideas again....  Draw them both out and see if they make sense to you, if either or both don't, post what you came up with so I can make sure that you are drawing what I'm describing...

#1 Is to convert the house side into a primary/secondary system, with the load as the primary loop, and the BH and HX as independent secondary loops.  To do this, disconnect the BH, and tie the supply and return of the house load together, moving the existing pump to the other side of the expansion tank while you are at it.  Put in two pairs of closely spaced tees as well.  Connect the BH and a second pump w/ flow check in a loop to one of the pair of tees, and the HX and a third pump to the other.  These two new pumps can both be pretty small, size them to provide adequate flow around a loop consisting only of the BH or HX, the two tees, and the connecting pipes.  Set up the controls so that when you have a call for heat, the load circ and the circ for whichever heat source is being used comes on, with the unused circ staying off...  

#2 Is to put the two loads in parallel, so that you only have one pump on the house side, and add control valves so that you only get flow through the heat source that is being used.  To do this one, move the pump to the other side of the expansion tank so that it pumps away from the tank into the house load.  Put a T on the supply and return sides of the house load, and connect the cold water in sides of the BH and HX to the return of the house load, and the hot out sides to the supply side.  Your pump now sends water through the house load and then splits the flow with some going through the BH and some through the HX, then brings them back together at the expansion tank to go back to the pump.  Now, in order to choose which heat source you use, either put one zone valve in each of the lines to the HX and BH, or an A/B selector valve at either of the tees.  Set the controls up so that on a call for heat, the house load pump turns on, the zone valve for the source you want is open, and the other closed (or the selector is in the right position), and you turn on the appropriate heat source...

Does that help?

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 26, 2009)

Now what are you guys doing posting stuff while I'm busy typing???   :cheese: 

Your drawing in #27 approaches what I was suggesting in my #1 idea above, you just need to make the BH connection a pair of closely spaced tees, and move one of those two pumps off the HX loop and onto the house load loop...  If you do that, you shouldn't need any extra valves, though it would probably be a good idea to put a flow check on the HX and BH pumps just to make sure you don't get any ghost flow... Edit - turn that BH pump around as well!

That help any?

Gooserider


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

I did a quick hack job with MS paint on your drawing. This may be the cheapest route, no zone/ebv required.
As goose points out there are soooooo many ways to do this......

pump 1 and 2 run when heating with garn, pump 2 and 3 run when heating with burnham


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 26, 2009)

kabbott said:
			
		

> I did a quick hack job with MS paint on your drawing. This may be the cheapest route, no zone/ebv required.
> As goose points out there are soooooo many ways to do this......
> 
> pump 1 and 2 run when heating with garn, pump 2 and 3 run when heating with burnham



That is another way to do it, and it would work, but you are still pumping through the HX when runing on the BH.  Also you need to look at the pump flow directions, remember that you want counterflow through the HX...


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

another option, simple parallel circut only one pump needed when running burnham. flow checks are needed in both burnham pump and HE pump


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

keep in mind this was a quick hack, I made no atempt to change pump dir etc.


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 26, 2009)

kabbott said:
			
		

> another option, simple parallel circut only one pump needed when running burnham. flow checks are needed in both burnham pump and HE pump



Very nice...  A variant on what I was doing with my suggestion #2,  except I was using zone valves and one pump on the house loop side.  I think your approach is better Kabbott as it gets rid of the zone valves, and thus would work a bit simpler on the controls, just run the pump for the desired source and leave the other off.

Gooserider


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

A few things to keep in mind:
1. No heat to hot tub when heating with Burnham.
2. Your drawing shows a side arm for DHW. My concern with this is side arms(at least the one I have) take a long time to heat x amount of water
compared to an indirect tank with a coil inside. This means you will have 2 pumps running for a long time even when no house zones are calling for
heat. Prolly not very efficient for heating DHW.
I will let some of the heating pro's debate that one.

I suspect it is getting a little "chilly" out west esp at your elevation. I am sure you will love that beast when you get it in service.

Kris


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

Kabbot, 

Hack away!  I can do your drawing.  Goose, what do you think, will this work with a modicum of efficiency?  I read _pumping away_ after I got conned into pulling water into the boiler rather than the other way around.  The system works well, but I know it would work better if done as you suggest.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 26, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> If this had proper valves, could this be a solution?  Also, running back through the boiler is bad because it represents an additional loss of heat?



Yes but you would need only one circ on the system side of the HX.  You could also do it really simply by adding a ball valve inbetween your closely spaced tees going to/from the HX. When you want heat from the Garn simply close the valve which would divert system side flow through the HX and back through the Burnham. When You want to run the Burnham only in shoulder seasons simply leave the ball valve open and allow the flow to go directly to the gas boiler, bypassing the HX. Depending on the flow required in the system and the head added by the HX you may be able to get away with the circ you presently have on your system doing all that work. I think that I would at least try it that way unless you want to have some type of mechanical/electrical control doing the thinking for you.


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 26, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Kabbot,
> 
> Hack away!  I can do your drawing.  Goose, what do you think, will this work with a modicum of efficiency?  I read _pumping away_ after I got conned into pulling water into the boiler rather than the other way around.  The system works well, but I know it would work better if done as you suggest.



Not sure which idea you mean by "this" but I think any of either my ideas or Kabbots would work very nicely once tuned up a little.  Heaterman's idea of putting a ball valve between the tees of your first drawing would work if you didn't want the automatic switchover between the two sources.

If you do want the switchover, I think Kabbot's idea in Post #32 is the simplest and neatest once you get the pump directions and such fixed properly.

Gooserider


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

Here is my latest drawing based on Goose and Kabbot's ideas.  Is this a possible solution and does this provide for an option to use my Tekmar 356 to control the Burnham as a backup?  Also, am I correct in my belief this corrects my "Pumping Away" problem?


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

This looks better! 
You should add where your expansion tank is located so we can give input on PONPC.(pumping away)
Also you still show both sides of heat exchanger flowing the same direction. Minor change, one side should flow the opposite direction.(counter flow)

House side 26-99 on heat exchanger needs flow check.

Kris


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

Kris,

Does this help?


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

Couple things, the E/T should be on the other side of the burham pump. This will put PONPC at the inlet of both pumps.
Other thing is that the flow checks should be after the pumps I think( if there not built into pumps) That way they will not
restrict the inlet of the pumps.

Not familiar with your tekmar control but when the garn is to cool for heat you want to switch to the burham pump and turn on the 
burner. Lots of ways to do that too.that may be a whole-nuther diagram :ahhh:

Lets see what heaterman and the others think.......


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 26, 2009)

Kris, Is this what you had in mind?

Robert


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

Yes


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 26, 2009)

Yes, diagram in post #43 looks pretty good.  Only change I might make is to put the ET on the line going into the BH in order to put the PONPC closer to the HX pump, but that is relatively minor - it might be worth asking the "guys that get paid for this stuff" about that...  It might also be worth putting an air and / or dirt separator on the house loop some place that always gets flow - say on the red line between the lowest "L" Tee, and the Tee where the HX and BH come together.  

The custom is usually to put a spirovent or equivalent at the junction with the ET, and that usually works well enough, but with this setup, the ET is only going to get actual flow past it when the BH is running...  The other option might be to put the ET on the blue line between the "L" and HX tees - that way it would always see flow, and would work in terms of pumping away, but I don't know if it's the best for air separating...

Gooserider


----------



## kabbott (Oct 26, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> Yes, diagram in post #43 looks pretty good. Only change I might make is to put the ET on the line going into the BH in order to put the PONPC closer to the HX pump, but that is relatively minor - it might be worth asking the "guys that get paid for this stuff" about that... It might also be worth putting an air and / or dirt separator on the house loop some place that always gets flow - say on the red line between the lowest "L" Tee, and the Tee where the HX and BH come together.
> 
> The custom is usually to put a spirovent or equivalent at the junction with the ET, and that usually works well enough, but with this setup, the ET is only going to get actual flow past it when the BH is running... The other option might be to put the ET on the blue line between the "L" and HX tees - that way it would always see flow, and would work in terms of pumping away, but I don't know if it's the best for air separating...
> 
> Gooserider



I thought about moving the E/T but when running the H/E pump there is no flow through the Burnham and therefore no pressure drop. If 
it is already installed at the Burnham I would not worry about it. If you have to install/move it anyway then you could put it where Goose suggested.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 27, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Here is my latest drawing based on Goose and Kabbot's ideas.  Is this a possible solution and does this provide for an option to use my Tekmar 356 to control the Burnham as a backup?  Also, am I correct in my belief this corrects my "Pumping Away" problem?



You will want to wire up the 99 feeding the HX to run only on a call for heat otherwise it will be deadheaded when all zone valves are closed in that piping arrangement.  But otherwise, I'd run with that one if you add the air scoop/xpn tank right below the circ coming off your burnham........if possible.


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 27, 2009)

Kris, Gooserider,

I want to thank you both for helping me with this.  Hearth.com provides a remarkable service for so many people in difficult times.  My wife and I moved out here from the Denver area twelve years ago.  We are retired and on fixed incomes.  We invested in the Garn to be able to remain out here only to find the installation cost was nearly as much as the WHS itself.  We have no choice but to learn and do for ourselves.  We aren't poor mind you, but being able to eliminate a gigantic propane bill is the difference between living in our dream home and not.  I taught public school for 25 years and I never take education for granted.  It means a lot when strangers, with expertise such as yours, reach out and share.  Thanks again

Robert


----------



## Jim K in PA (Oct 27, 2009)

The Grundfos pumps should have FCs built in, BTW.


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 27, 2009)

Okay, if I can make all of this plumbin' come to pass,  what are the chances I can wire this up and have it work properly?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/4050755216_c0e33046f8_o.jpg


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 27, 2009)

I would tend to say pretty good...  There are lots of control options, all of which will work pretty well, depending on just what you want to have happen...  Probably one of the biggest things to decide is just how "seamless" do you want the switchover from the Garn to the BH to be?  We've been working on the assumption that the switchover is automatic, but there is a little more to it than that...  Assume the Garn has cooled down, would you want Option 1 - The BH comes on as soon as you get your normal call for heat anywhere in the system, so that the only way you could tell which unit is giving you heat is to look?  
Option 2 - The house gets chilly and the BH comes on just enough to keep the pipes from freezing?  
Option 3 - Something in between? (The BH comes on at a comfortable temp, but one that's lower than where the Garn would keep it)

There are arguments for each approach, which one you pick is a matter of lifestyle choice, but will have some impact on how you wire stuff up.

Presumably you will want to have the house loads connected to a controller for their zone valves, and then from that controller some sort of hookup to the Garn HX pumps and the BH and it's pump (actually I'd just connect the BH to the control, and let it control it's pump)

Not sure on the details of how to go from there though...

Gooserider


----------



## kabbott (Oct 28, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> I would tend to say pretty good... There are lots of control options, all of which will work pretty well, depending on just what you want to have happen... Probably one of the biggest things to decide is just how "seamless" do you want the switchover from the Garn to the BH to be? We've been working on the assumption that the switchover is automatic, but there is a little more to it than that... Assume the Garn has cooled down, would you want Option 1 - The BH comes on as soon as you get your normal call for heat anywhere in the system, so that the only way you could tell which unit is giving you heat is to look?
> Option 2 - The house gets chilly and the BH comes on just enough to keep the pipes from freezing?
> Option 3 - Something in between? (The BH comes on at a comfortable temp, but one that's lower than where the Garn would keep it)
> 
> ...



No doubt this group will get you going, as you know there is a wealth of info here. I fall into the "jack of all master of none" class but some of these 
fellows really know there "stuff"


As far as the wiring I would tend to prefer option #3 above.
The most simple way would be to add a second thermostat set at a much lower temp that would control the burnham boiler. This would go like...garn goes cold
.... house temp falls.... second TT calls for heat from burham.

I skimmed back over this thread and found the post where you mention a "tekmar 356" and I am not familiar with tekmar controls.
A quick look shows that is an injection mixing control with outdoor reset? Is this in service now, part of the original system with the burnham boiler?
If so I will look over the control and give it a go but no promise on myself figuring it out.
Not sure what if any controls are incuded with the garn. 

Anyone with knowledge of this control feel free to jump in on this........ :red:

Really need some input from you to determine the transfer from one boiler to the other. Biggest question would be how often will the burnham be needed?




I see you were a teacher. I hope you did not teach English, if so you probably cringe when you read my posts. Not my strongest subject. :cheese:


----------



## rvtgr8 (Oct 31, 2009)

Alright, it is time to fix the house side of my heating system.  Kris and Gooserider have been a real help pointing out several of my shortcomings in design.  I now have a new drawing and a fish-eye phot of what already exists in my radiant system.  The old picture shows that I was not *'Pumping Away"* as I should be.  The system runs on a single Taco 007-5 circulator that pulls cold water back from the in slab radiant loops and pulls water through the BoilerMate sidearm.  My drawing shows that I will switch that problem by moving the Taco to the other side.  The new drawing shows my new Grundfos 15-58 (3 speed, flo check) circulator, which is a new model designed to replace Taco 007 and 008 models.  It is now pushing the water through my fifty plate HX in a reverse flow to the Garn side plumbing.

My questions:

Is this Taco 007-5 flo protectected or will I have to put one in the line on the discharge side of the pump?

Should I be worried about the Taco experiencing any mechanical anomalies due to the change from pull to push?

Does this drawing appear consistent with Kris and Gooserider's advice.

Will I be able to control this with my Tekmar 356 so my old system will back me up if the Garn drops below its low end delta temp?


----------



## Gooserider (Nov 1, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Alright, it is time to fix the house side of my heating system.  Kris and Gooserider have been a real help pointing out several of my shortcomings in design.  I now have a new drawing and a fish-eye phot of what already exists in my radiant system.  The old picture shows that I was not *'Pumping Away"* as I should be.  The system runs on a single Taco 007-5 circulator that pulls cold water back from the in slab radiant loops and pulls water through the BoilerMate sidearm.  My drawing shows that I will switch that problem by moving the Taco to the other side.  The new drawing shows my new Grundfos 15-58 (3 speed, flo check) circulator, which is a new model designed to replace Taco 007 and 008 models.  It is now pushing the water through my fifty plate HX in a reverse flow to the Garn side plumbing.
> 
> My questions:
> 
> ...



Going by the drawing, Looks to me like the boiler pump possibly needs to be on the other side of the boiler, and the expansion tank *EMPHATICALLY* needs to be on the blue return line rather than the red hot line as it is now...  Currently with the return tank on the supply line, you have both pumps pumping *towards* the tank, not away from it!  Move the ET to the return line, and both pumps will be pumping away from it, the HX pump directly, and the BH pump after going through the boiler.  Also moving the BH pump to the supply side of the boiler would make that pump  be pumping directly away from the ET, but depending on how much flow resistance the BH has, it might not make a big difference.  The other advantage to putting the ET and the pumps on the return side is that makes them see cooler water, which can be a good thing in terms of component life...  (There are some that claim ET diaphrams don't really like hot boiler water...)

Define what you mean by "flow protected"?  If you are talking about a flow check that will prevent reverse flow through the system when the other pump is working, it may depend on the exact pump model, I know some Taco pumps have built in flow checks, but not sure if they all do.  I know many times, just to reduce the number of different parts a service guy needs to carry, the pump makers will put the built in flow check in the box for all the pumps and you get to decide whether to install it or not.  With your layout, you definitely need a flow check in BOTH pump loops to force the water to flow through the loads rather than taking a shortcut back to the ET by the non-working pump and it's plumbing...

The pump shouldn't care about reversing the flow direction - It is still moving water through it in the same direction, and that is all the pump cares about - sucking it in one side and pushing it out the other...

As drawn it's not quite consistent with what I was suggesting, but it isn't bad...  See above on how to fix it.

Not sure on the control question, but IMHO the simplest fail safe control setup would be to have a second thermostat that will turn on the BH if the house temp drops significantly below your desired setting on the Garn thermostat.  Use the pump controller on the BH to turn on the BH pump, and as a fail safe, also have it trigger an NC relay on the HX pump so as to ensure that the HX pump can't turn on when the BH pump is running...

Gooserider


----------



## rvtgr8 (Nov 1, 2009)

Goose,

I guess I need to go back and read that book again.  "Pumping Away" seems to be beyond my comprehension level.  Is this closer?


----------



## brad068 (Nov 1, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Goose,
> 
> I guess I need to go back and read that book again. "Pumping Away" seems to be beyond my comprehension level. Is this closer?



And you taught public school for 25 years? I think that book is about a 3rd grade level comp.

Boy , this is like explaining to a customer how to rebuild an engine over the Internet. There's a "paper" trail right now so I'd be careful you guys if the plumbing you explain maybe right but doesn't get assembled right... Well this is how he told me to do this! see right here!

Well sorry, maybe I'm the only one thinking this.


----------



## Gooserider (Nov 1, 2009)

This is one of the reasons I make the "student" draw the pictures...  If he gets it right, I can give him a virtual sticker (little kids will do just about anything for a sticker...)  :cheese: , if not I will tell him what is wrong in my opinion, and to try again...  

If he draws it right, and plumbs it the way it was drawn, then everything *should* (famous last words) work.  If it doesn't work, first question is where does the way it was plumbed differ from the drawing...  If what he built matches the drawing, well, oops,  :red: sorry, never said I was a licensed / degreed pro, why are you listening to me, just because I post alot?  Also why are you looking for free advice on the 'net instead of cutting a check for Siggy or one of his pals? (That said, I DO try to do my best to give the best advice I can, and I feel sure that so do most all of the other posters on the Hearth)

I could be wrong, but I beleive there is some pretty strong precedent that says free advice given on a site like this doesn't impose much liability on the giver, as it is the job of the person receiving the advice to determine it's wisdom, applicability and so on...

Gooserider


----------



## kabbott (Nov 1, 2009)

I don't want to confuse you more than you are so before I give any more advice.......In the picture in post #53 is the pump on the hot outlet or the
cold return?

The reason I ask is because this can be done more than one way and it is not mandatory that the pump be on one side or the other.
No need to move it and create unnecessary work.

The basic idea is to keep the expansion tank as close to the INLET side of BOTH pumps. This can not always be achieved and it is fairly forgiving.
The best place for air removal is generally at the HOTTEST point. 
In your case these will be two different places. This is not the end of the world.


----------



## rvtgr8 (Nov 1, 2009)

Garnification,

I have no idea why you would insert such a caustic remark into this thread, but since you have, I think it deserves a few comments.  I am not now, nor have I ever claimed to be a plumber, a heating contractor, a gifted fabricator (which I believe you are) or an engineer.  One thing I did learn in my 25 years of public school teaching is that making demeaning comments never leads to a positive outcome.  I have had the good fortune of having many talented people on this site share their opinions and advice with me.  I have expressed my gratitude over and over in this and many other threads.  I can only assume that you have gained a sense of superiority by putting me down.  If that is the case, so be it.  But if you do not mind I will continue to try and educate myself so that I can improve my carbon footprint and stay warm on my fixed income.  I hold a couple of advanced degrees, but none in law or hydronic engineering.  That said, I have been a public advocate who has worked on several issues regarding internet, water law, and the environment.  I can assure you that there is no liability on giving opinion on this forum.

I get up every morning and I learn.  It is how I became a beekeeper, a newspaper columnist, a woodworker, a gardner, a political candidate, a webmaster, a mentor, a mechanic, etc.  I am no genius, but I am a life-long learner.  I may not be a master at any of these things but I work hard to accomplish every thing I do.  Heaterman, Slowzuki, Gooserider, Jim K., Kris, Eric and so many more have done so much to help me and I am eternally grateful.  I will not be dissuaded by your remarks.  Like it or not, I have even gained a ton of information from you in your threads, and no, I will not feel compelled to hold you responsible if the whole damned thing blows up in my face.  Good luck to you and may all your learning be as fruitful as mine.

Robert


----------



## rvtgr8 (Nov 1, 2009)

Kris,

My last drawing is an attempt on my part to gain a clearer understanding of the "Pumping Away" principle.  You know how in the book where the old plumbing guru suggests that he just "knew it" and he explained it to the author through the haze of cigarette smoke.  Well I am in the smoke and can't seem to grasp the detail.  This is due in part to the fact that I did not design the original system.  I was able to garner all of the information to plumb the Garn side and did not consider that the system I had in place in the house might have some serious flaws.  Not only am I trying to match the Garn side up, but I am also trying to fix what appears to be a major flaw or two in the existing system.  Unfortunately, the guy that did design this moved away and cannot be reached.  As it is with most things in life, I know that there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat.  That being the case, I am trying to understand every solution that is offered, but with my limited expertise, it takes much longer for me to understand.  Like most novices, I would like a single and definitive answer, yet the teacher in me knows that it is not possible.  Drawing #53 has the expansion tank in the wrong leg according to Goose.  I am just trying to take the photograph and draw a viable solution before cutting into my system.  I do not have the money for an engineer and will just have to get as close as I can on paper before making the physical commitment.  We have had two major snows already and I am not wanting to make any huge mistakes.  Thanks again for looking.


----------



## Rick Stanley (Nov 1, 2009)

Robert,
Not that you need any more, but here's a suggestion. Look at what you have in front of you and hook the thing up. Get the heat from the garn into the zones the quickest and easiest way, using the least amount of pipe and fittings and build a fire in your new garn. Run it for a while and then you can evaluate how it behaves. I wouldn't change a thing on your existing system, it works doesn't it? Leave the damned expansion tank where it is for now. At least you can get some heat while gathering hard data (not from a book or cyberspace) that is pertinent to YOUR system, not only theories. Agonizing over the exact positioning of every fitting and component can be frustrating, I found out and you are too, but it becomes easier to understand when you see it run.  You will also find that it's not that big of a deal to not get it perfect the first time.
    Mine is up and running and many things about the set-up are theoretically wrong but work just fine. I plan to change some things based on what I see happening, that will no doubt improve performance. But in the meantime, my needs are being met, my oil burner doesn't fire, ever, and that was the goal. I'll see what happens when it gets colder and plan adjustments/changes accordingly. 

I think after getting varied and often conflicting advice from here and other places, there comes a time to make a move and find out for sure what's what. Everyone I talked with about my system, here and elsewhere, had advice and some were waay too focused on promoting snazzy controls, some wanted to talk at me about replacing part or all of my existing system. These guys wanted to sell me stuff, imho. Others wanted to talk about theories and books and were, as far as I'm concerned, trying to impress me with their great knowledge. Others were just showing off in trying to butt heads with other contributors here and/or their competitors out in the field and it got ridiculous. 

Hook her up and find out for yourself!! It's snowing out


----------



## sdrobertson (Nov 1, 2009)

Rick Stanley said:
			
		

> Robert,
> Not that you need any more, but here's a suggestion. Look at what you have in front of you and hook the thing up. Get the heat from the garn into the zones the quickest and easiest way, using the least amount of pipe and fittings and build a fire in your new garn. Run it for a while and then you can evaluate how it behaves. I wouldn't change a thing on your existing system, it works doesn't it? Leave the damned expansion tank where it is for now. At least you can get some heat while gathering hard data (not from a book or cyberspace) that is pertinent to YOUR system, not only theories. Agonizing over the exact positioning of every fitting and component can be frustrating, I found out and you are too, but it becomes easier to understand when you see it run.  You will also find that it's not that big of a deal to not get it perfect the first time.
> Mine is up and running and many things about the set-up are theoretically wrong but work just fine. I plan to change some things based on what I see happening, that will no doubt improve performance. But in the meantime, my needs are being met, my oil burner doesn't fire, ever, and that was the goal. I'll see what happens when it gets colder and plan adjustments/changes accordingly.
> 
> ...



There is a point when you just have to grab the wrench and go to it.  Your already farther along with your understanding than I was when I started...use a couple more unions which will make changing a few things easier if need be.


----------



## brad068 (Nov 1, 2009)

Robert, sorry for my comments eariler. Your story has been wonderful to follow and I am glad that you chose the Garn its is a wonderful invention. However I agree 100% with the two posters above my post here. A time comes when you just have to grab the tools and go to work.


If you are getting to confused then maybe you should hire a professional HVAC tech. and have them hook it up. 15 months and winding down, This thing should of been up and running 10 months ago. I don't have that much patients knowing that I spent that amount of money and not having a return on my investment yet! I myself work for the public sector but have the mindset and work ethic of a small business owner in the private sector, and believe me sometimes those two don't mix well!! :red:


----------



## rvtgr8 (Nov 1, 2009)

Garnification,

No apology needed.  I know that for many on this site, the idea that any project that might take fifteen months is beyond reasonable.  I need to clarify that I have not been working solidly for that period of time.  I have a number of projects going, all of which are seasonal in nature.  Gaye and I both do side work to afford to be able to live out here.  When I learned that it was $8k to install the Garn, we just accepted the notion I would have to learn my way through it and buy the materials as we went along.  I do like to be frugal, but I can't bring myself to buy cheap parts or cut corners on such a fine machine.  That, coupled with the fact that I work with all the speed and dexterity of a glacier just makes patience a virtue.  Thanks for writing back and I also apologize for being so sharp in my tone.

Robert


----------



## slowzuki (Nov 2, 2009)

Robert I'm with you.  Most things that I just do quickly to get it done need redoing and I regret not doing it right in the first place.  I think you're doing great and agree with the pay as you go.


----------



## DaveBP (Nov 2, 2009)

> I know that for many on this site, the idea that any project that might take fifteen months is beyond reasonable.



What? Only 15 months? My building permit for my house was pulled in 1990 and we just got the last plumbing inspection on the septic system done this month.


----------



## heaterman (Nov 2, 2009)

DaveBP said:
			
		

> > I know that for many on this site, the idea that any project that might take fifteen months is beyond reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> What? Only 15 months? My building permit for my house was pulled in 1990 and we just got the last plumbing inspection on the septic system done this month.



How in the world did you get them to keep the permit open that long.? Around here they are calling within 3 months, threatening to cancel the permit and make you buy another one.


----------



## DaveBP (Nov 2, 2009)

> How in the world did you get them to keep the permit open that long.?



I did have to renew my permit this year to get the inspections for the septic and plumbing. Permits are good for 2 years here. The CEO here is a good enough guy I felt safe in joking that I thought they were good for 2 decades, not 2 years.
 In the intervening years we have cleared 12 acres of pasture, built a 2-story barn, put up a mile of fence, and cleared more land and put in a 45 tree orchard,and landscaped a bunch of boulders and stumps into the semblance of a yard populated by a bunch of Asian trees and shrubs that weren't supposed to be hardy here (well they were right about some of them). Not everybody's order of priorities but we're now getting around to finishing the house. Been living in the summer cabin these almost 30 years.

So to answer your question, they left if open because it got lost in the process of computerizing the town records and they didn't catch it until I brought it up. Won't be able to get away with that again.


----------



## Jim K in PA (Nov 2, 2009)

Robert,

I have stayed out of the discussion so as not to add another "cook in the kitchen".  I concur with both notions recently expressed that you can correct anything you do incorrectly after you see how the system runs, AND you can do things in a manner that will REDUCE the likelihood of having to re-engineer everything.  At times like these I usually put down my sketches, grab a beer, and go work on my truck . . .  :coolsmirk: 

FWIW - I would leave your existing system 99% as is for now.  Forget pumping away for the moment (actually until next summer).  My suggestion to get you started in the least amount of time with the least amount of likely rework is as follows:

Cut into the existing manifold SUPPLY leg down stream of your existing TACO 007 before the first loads (of course).  Install a pair of closely spaced Tees.  Now install your Grundfos 15-58 on the firsy Tee (leg CLOSEST to the Burnham).  Pump counter-flow through your HX as you have drawn it, and return the flow to the second Tee.  Done with plumbing, and you are sending the hottest water (transferred from the GARN) to your loads.  This method has the coolest water going back through your Burnham, rather than heating up that standby furnace any more than necessary.  You will likely have to set your low temp cut in on your Burnham aquastat a bit lower to prevent it from firing if the return temps dip a bit lower than they did previously.   I would use an additional aquastat (surface mount) to control power to the Grundfos so that if the GARN temps drop below your threshold, you stop sending water to the HX.  We can tackle that wiring after you get the plumbing done.  It's not hard.

Of course I will not be at all offended if you ignore my suggestion and choose to follow another path.  It is my opinion that the above is the simplest way to get your GARN integrated AND keep the Burnham as an automatic backup.

Keep us posted.


----------



## kabbott (Nov 2, 2009)

rvtgr8 said:
			
		

> Goose,
> 
> I guess I need to go back and read that book again. "Pumping Away" seems to be beyond my comprehension level. Is this closer?



I would say go with this setup but don't worry about moving the BH pump if it's on the cold return side now leave it there, better actually.
The expansion tank should be on the suction/inlet side of the pumps as shown. If it is not now That looks like the only modification you would need to make on the
original system.

This is about as easy as it can get, cut two tee's in, one on the hot/supply side to the loads and one on the cold/return side of the loads.
Treat the house side of the heat exchanger as another boiler, mirror the plumbing of the BH.
Burnham is not heated by garn and the original system is hardly changed.

I don't subscribe to the "we do it right cause we do it twice" group but I think I WOULD leave as much of the original system intact as possible.

This is similar to the one in post 47 that heaterman already said to run with, just a matter of where the expansion tank is located. ;-)

Kris


----------



## rvtgr8 (Nov 4, 2009)

Okay, it is in place and this is the design that I decided upon.  While I have not tested the Garn side, the house side is running and running well.  There are a couple of questions that I have though.  I replaced the Taco 007-5 with the three speed Grundfos 15-58.  I started the system with the Grundfos on low speed.  Is that okay?  It seems to be running very well, but the weather is nice.  Now I need to work out the controls.  This appears to improve my "pumping away" issue. Am I correct in thinking that?  Thanks for all the input over the past few days.


----------



## DaveBP (Nov 4, 2009)

Your diagram in post #71 (last post from where I'm viewing) looks like a good place to start running. 

"Perfection is our ideal, not our goal"... If I had a buck for every time I've said that out loud to myself I could afford to hire someone to do the work for me. 

My wife has said to me more times than I care to hear,  "You're building a house, not a piano".

But I just can't help the nagging thought that the HX to the Garn would be better counterflow if the hot from the Garn came in at the bottom and flowed up (as the arrow shows) and back to the Garn from the top. That would make the colors blue-to-blue and red-to-red and not  'look' intuitive but if I'm right that's a small easily implemented detail that would give some significant improvement.

Maybe by the time I find the bottom of this coffee cup it will look different but someone double-check me here, huh?


----------



## kabbott (Nov 4, 2009)

Good catch, the arrows are correct. The house side is correct, The Garn side needs the red on the bottom blue on the top.
Remember the Garn side red is inlet, blue outlet. House side red is outlet, blue inlet

The flow is shown correctly just the hot and cold is backwards on Garn side.


----------



## Rick Stanley (Nov 4, 2009)

“You’re building a house, not a piano”.

Haha, I love that. 

A carpenter ,I once worked for, would often say to me with a deep voice, when he'd catch me fussin' with a miter joint on a piece of baseboard going into the back of a closet or something, "you ain't buildin' a watch Stanley"


----------



## rvtgr8 (Nov 4, 2009)

I made an error in my last drawing.  This is how the flow works on the HX.  The work cutting up the old system took all day yesterday, but my barn cat learned a few new cuss words and so it was well worth it.  :bug:


----------



## Gooserider (Nov 4, 2009)

Dave, Kabbot...  Good catch.  Since the Garn is a heat supply, the colors on that side are backwards, as your input side will be the hottest water.  As drawn in # 71, the Garn side is getting heat from the HX instead of supplying heat to it.

Counter-flow is sort of counter intuitive, but the rule in any heat exchanger is that your best results will come when the flows run OPPOSITE each other...  The flow arrows are right, and the house side is drawn correctly, but the Garn side colors are definitely backwards.

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (Nov 4, 2009)

Yes, that corrected drawing does look better...  And don't start worrying until the cat starts using it's new vocabulary on you!  :lol: 

Gooserider


----------

