# Systemic dreaming...



## Gooserider (Apr 23, 2009)

The mortgage on the GF's house goes away shortly, and we are thinking about trying to do a number of improvements on it, including siding, insulation upgrades, and so on.  Probably bump out a couple of spaces to increase the amount of livable space as well.  I have also been seriously thinking about trying to do a hydronic heating / DHW system, using infloor radiant driven by a combo of a solar water heating and a wood burner, along with about 1kgal storage.

The house is a contemporary style, built circa 1980, frame construction, and (I think) 3.5" fiberglass insulation in the walls, rafter depth blown cellulose in the master bedroom ceiling (with plywood decking over the rafters for storage) and most of the other accessible ceilings.  The living room has a cathedral ceiling (24' floor to peak!) with wood board panelling on the underside, and some amount (not sure how much) fiberglass between the panelling and the roof deck.  

Current heating / cooling is a fairly new forced air HVAC system, blowing into the original ductwork.  This works reasonably well, but not great. Hot water is tanked, with everything running on Natural Gas.  In addition we have been heating the first and 2nd floors with a VC Encore wood stove - If I keep it fed, it will keep the HVAC off down to about 25* or so, and helps a lot below that, as long as we are willing to be comfortable at ~65*F  I'm guessing it probably does about 30-35Kbtu/hr the way I run it.  The stove doesn't do anything for the basement, which stays about 55* or so.

I have attached a floor plan of the 1st floor.  The basement is about the same footprint, minus the laundry room, garage and porches.  The 2nd floor is about 20' wide centered on the first floor except for the living room, and has the master suite.

We also have an approx 16kgal inground pool, currently not heated at all, and part of the plan would be to use the surplus solar power to heat the pool in the summer and shoulder seasons, plus the GF has expressed fantasies about hot tubs...

According to the Slant/Fin Hydronic explorer program, I have a current heat loss of 87,269 BTU/hr using an outside design temp of 0*F, indoor of 70*F and using a design hot water temp of 120*F By floors, I have 
Basement 39,912
1st  Floor  39,140
2nd Floor    8,740

Now for the questions...

1. If I design a system with the current heat loss figures, then improve the insulation on the house, will that cause me problems?  I am assuming that it would just mean running the floor to a lower temperature, and getting longer times between burns - not a big deal...

2. We have an existing 6" double wall chimney, formerly used by the gas furnace, and DHW heater - could it be used with a wood boiler if I got rid of the water heater, or would I need to replace it with an HT103 chimney?  If I did have to replace it, would the replacement have the same dimensions and clearance requirements as the current gas chimney?

3. If I were to put a boiler where it could connect to the chimney above, I would have to work around the through the wall PVC venting for the existing HVAC furnace (which I want to leave in place as a backup, and to enable us to keep the lower gas billing rate for having gas as "primary heating") - how much can one move that venting around - i.e. right now it comes out of the furnace and almost immediately angles over to the wall, can I go up higher so it isn't pitched as steeply?

4. Most of the rooms in the house are fairly standard, and I would imagine that there would be no problem getting enough tubing into the floors to heat them, though I haven't tried to work out the math on that yet.  However I'm worried about the living room - with the extreme high ceiling, it seems like a real challenge - I have calculated that it will have a 15,663 BTU/hr heat loss, for only 261 sq ft of floor area, or about 60 btu/sq ft.  According to Fred Seaton's website, it isn't good to run a floor at over 85*F,  which is only going to give about 30btu/sq.ft...  Is this a problem?  If so, how would you fix it?  Or can I just not worry about heating the upper areas that much (the lower parts of the room are only about 6,000BTU/hr loss rate)  It is also worth noting that I would still be having a wood stove in that room, so I could always just heat what I could with the radiant, and fire up the stove when it got really cold out.

5. Storage - The basement is full, with the only access being either down the stairs from the kitchen, or outside via a bulkhead stair, so I don't see any way to do pressurized storage inside, and I am NOT interested in outside storage for a number of reasons...  However the room where the boiler would be is currently unfinished with concrete walls (I believe 8" thick).  Like all of the basement, it is roughly 4' above grade and 4' below.  The room is about  10 ft wide.  Would it work to build a 4-5 foot high concrete block wall across the room (I am assuming with plenty of rebar to tie it into the walls and floor) and use it and the other three walls of the cellar to make a storage tank?  (obviously with plenty of insulation and an EPDM liner...)

Gooserider


----------



## Como (Apr 23, 2009)

How would you access the floors to install the piping?

Perhaps Radiators would solve the problem, or a combination of UFH and Radiators? I would have to run at 60btu/sq ft for the whole of my property, and access would be difficult to say the least.


----------



## overshot (Apr 23, 2009)

I would rework the heat loss numbers to your finished design specs. If you start at 87,269 BTU/hr loss then add insulation - your loss will go down. Also, keep in mind that at 0°F your stytem will run 24 hrs/day with a designed heat loss of 87kbtu/hr.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 23, 2009)

Durango said:
			
		

> How would you access the floors to install the piping?
> 
> Perhaps Radiators would solve the problem, or a combination of UFH and Radiators? I would have to run at 60btu/sq ft for the whole of my property, and access would be difficult to say the least.



The basement is not a problem - I would presumably need to put down a layer of insulation foam, tubing and a secondary slab, but that's doable.  What I would have to decide is whether or not to strip out the existing finished walls, and how to get up the indoor/outdoor carpet that's on most of the floor - not a big deal at this point.

More of a question is if I do take out the walls, what to do to insulate them back again - seems most of the stuff I've seen talks about basement walls that are below grade, or slabs on grade, but not much about houses like ours that are half above and half below grade.  (BTW, the water table is at or just above the existing basement slab level part of the year - we have to run the sump pump pretty steadily in the spring, but as long as the pump runs, it stays dry...)

First floor is also not a huge problem - the ceiling in the basement is finished w/ sheetrock, but that wouldn't be a big problem to remove in order to do staple up radiant.

Second floor would be a bigger problem - it would take major demo to do underfloor, so presumably I'd have to do the above floor wooden spacer method - again, doable...

I don't think traditional radiators would fit the house style, and baseboards seem to me like a problem with needing hotter water than I think makes for an efficient system.

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 23, 2009)

OverShot said:
			
		

> I would rework the heat loss numbers to your finished design specs. If you start at 87,269 BTU/hr loss then add insulation - your loss will go down. Also, keep in mind that at 0°F your stytem will run 24 hrs/day with a designed heat loss of 87kbtu/hr.



Problem is, I don't really have a good handle yet on the finished design specs...  There are a lot of different options on what to do for added insulation, and I'm not sure where the best cost effectiveness point is.

Gooserider


----------



## DaveBP (Apr 23, 2009)

Guzzi, 
You're talking about spending some large dollars and many hours of your and GF's time and effort ( Caution! The only thing as hard on a relationship as building or remodeling a house is living on a small boat). Have you thought about consulting with a radiant/solar design professional? I have no idea what they charge in Mass. these days but it would be really nice to feel confident you were working toward a system that was pretty close to the best for your situation. They know the codes, too. 
I hired one to design my radiant floors and controls and distribution system for it a couple years ago and he saved me more money than his fee compared to what I thought I would need. He was very willing to work with a DIYer and accomodate some of my eccentric plans. He can't be the only one out there.
It was a real challenge to my pride to sub that out as I am trying to do everything myself ( I even logged out and sawed my own lumber for this 3000ft. project) without a bank involved. 

Just a thought. Might see you in Bangor.


----------



## tom in maine (Apr 23, 2009)

Boy, there is a lot here to talk about.
If you are considering re-siding, consider removing the old siding and installing a layer of 2"(or even more!) polyisocyanurate on the exterior before re-siding.
Vinyl or Hardiplank over that would keep maintenance to a minimum. This would be the time to replace windowsand doors, if you were considering it. They would then be installed in the proper position with the new foam. I would strap the foam to make it easier to hang the siding. Interior trim details are not as difficult as some might think when doing this.

Unless you were using the basement for living space, I would not add a new slab over the old one. I would suggest using spray foam to insulate the walls , especially the area that is above grade, to a couple feet below grade, since this is where all the major basement heat loss is. Then you can finish the basement if you want to and if you want heat, install some radiant panels.
Basements do not need to be heated, especially if they are insulated with foam and are mostly below grade.

I would, of course, lobby for a nice pre-made square tank that might fit into a basement corner ;^)

Some pictures might help do this online. I echo the suggestion about using a local energy auditor/designer to help guide you on site.

Tom


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 24, 2009)

Well, since you want pictures...

The first shot is as you are coming down the street towards the house

Those three big windows stacked up are the living room - the bottom windows are 6' square.

On the left is the back screen porch that overlooks the swimming pool - I suspect it doesn't have much in the way of footers under it, I'd like to fix that and 3/4 season the space.

Sort of in the center there are some stairs going up to a narrow porch - that is a combination laundry room and hall going from the house to the garage - I'd like to move the steps over about 4 feet, and bump the laundry room wall out to the edge of the roof, and make the entry into the front door a bit more of an airlock.

The second shot is a closer view - you can just barely see where the front door is to the left of the stairs.

As you can see from both shots, I have a LOT of 12/12 pitch roof - feels to me like it is just crying out to have solar panels put on it...  I don't see the payback on solar electric making sense yet, but solar hot water???

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 24, 2009)

Next we come down the driveway - two car garage, mostly full of stuff...

The galvie garbage cans under the electric meter are my ash dump in the winter.  On the other side is the regular trash.  

I have a portable garage to the right, and between it and the house you can see one corner of my big woodshed.

The hatch above the garage door gives access to one of the FIVE attic spaces in the house, namely the one over the garage and laundry rooms.  

The garage door is in sad shape.  I'd love to make the attic space useable, but not sure that is practical since the joists are only 2x6's so it would need a LOT of reinforcing.

Moving around to the back of the garage (on the opposite side of the laundry room) we have what used to be a porch, until it got "avalanched" by snow off the roof and collapsed...  I dismantled it earlier this spring, and much of the porch is now making up raised beds in my garden patch - nothing like recycling...  :coolsmile: 

What I want to do is put an addition space in where the porch was, extending the basement so that I can put a "wood elevator" in so as to ease the present challenge of getting wood up to the first floor for the living room stove, and down to the basement to feed whatever I end up with for a boiler (and the basement stove)

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 24, 2009)

This is a view of the same area from a bit further back - in the foreground you can see some of the other leftover porch material.  I was thinking of doing the basement addition / extension to the far side of that bulkhead.  the first floor would extend the kitchen, and probably give us more of a south facing window than that bay window you see sticking out does (That bay window is a MAJOR problem area - desperately needs to be replaced by SOMETHING...)

The second shot shows most of the east side of the house...  The GF's office is on the corner closest to the camera, my office is on the other corner where the door is (that door is a total waste as far as I'm concerned) 

The window above the doghouse is the bathroom, the dog run itself is legacy from the previous owners, and hasn't been used since...

If you look just to the right of the dog run, you can see the intake and exhaust vents for the furnace and the outside central AC unit.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 24, 2009)

Going around to the north side of the house, we find the pool area - you can see the edge of the pool cover in the foreground.

The box next to the stairs holds the pool plumbing

And yes, that porchlet on the left (the unused door to my office) IS falling apart....  (Unless code doesn't allow it, I'd like to get rid of that door and porch both...)

That's it for most of the outside...

The second shot goes down to the basement, and into the utility room.  This is the existing HVAC system - return air on the right coming down, going back up through the furnace (with PVC intake and exhaust plumbing) and AC condensor.  

Hanging down on the left is the old chimney, formerly used by the old furnace, now used only by the DHW heater.  The brown box under it is a dehumidifier, which I've automated by running it's drain into the condensate pump for the furnace...

A second shot with more closeup of the old chimney,

And finally a shot of the water heater...

My thought is that if I were to get rid of the water heater (put it on the other side of the room or something) the boiler could go between the existing furnace and the wall.  Only possible other obstruction is there are some drain pipes in that area, which I think would be a problem to move.

Thoughts?  Other things you'd like photos of?


----------



## tom in maine (Apr 25, 2009)

The pictures help. Thanks.
I agree with the idea of solar thermal over PV's they are much more cost effective. The combination of a gasifier with a solar system is a great fit.--If the budget allows!
A nice aspect of this concept is that the pool can act as a heat dump for excess solar in the spring and summer, if necessary.

One issue with the concept of adding a layer of foam over the exterior, is the idea that there is no overhang on the gable ends.
The roof would need to be extended, which would be a good time to add on metal roofing, if that was on the radar screen.
You can frame out over the extra wall thickness on the gables and shingle it in. We have done this, it is not a nightmare, but the shingles might not match up.

Since at least some of the windows need replacing anyway, the idea of bumping up the thermal envelope with foam is a simpler one, especially since you have T111 siding. This would also allow changes in window design if desired.

The area on posts can be insulated underneath with fiberglass in between the floor joists and then should be enclosed with 2" foam also on the bottom of the floor joists.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 25, 2009)

Tom in Maine said:
			
		

> The pictures help. Thanks.


 Glad to hear it...  The house is pretty, but it is a nightmare to work on in many ways, far worse than a standard two story colonial or something like that...  It also has a lot less square footage than it's footprint and height would suggest.



> I agree with the idea of solar thermal over PV's they are much more cost effective. The combination of a gasifier with a solar system is a great fit.--If the budget allows!
> A nice aspect of this concept is that the pool can act as a heat dump for excess solar in the spring and summer, if necessary.


True - indeed, that is one of the reasons I'm thinking solar hot water - I was going to heat the pool deliberately, not just use it for a heat dump  :coolsmile:  Right now it isn't heated at all, and so for most of the year I call it "refreshing" while the GF calls it something four lettered.....   %-P The idea of warming the pool is one of the things I think will help sell the idea of solar.



> One issue with the concept of adding a layer of foam over the exterior, is the idea that there is no overhang on the gable ends.
> The roof would need to be extended, which would be a good time to add on metal roofing, if that was on the radar screen.
> You can frame out over the extra wall thickness on the gables and shingle it in. We have done this, it is not a nightmare, but the shingles might not match up.


I hadn't been planning on re-roofing, as we had put on a second layer of shingles about 10-12 years ago, using 25 year rated shingles.  However at least some of the people that I've talked to about solar are saying that I would need to do a peel and re-roof as the load on the deck w/ two layers of shingles plus panels would be excessive.  I'm somewhat nervous about the idea of doing a metal roof though as it is scary enough trying to deal with that 12/12 slope with shingles.  I'd hate to have to go up there to service panels with an even slicker metal roof (not to mention the "avalanche" concerns which again, are already pretty bad with the existing shingles)



> Since at least some of the windows need replacing anyway, the idea of bumping up the thermal envelope with foam is a simpler one, especially since you have T111 siding. This would also allow changes in window design if desired.


I only WISH that siding was T-111, the house would be in a lot better shape if it were.  It is actually a vertical "shiplap" siding, with boards that are dadoed on opposite sides, and overlapped.  Not a bad idea if used horizontally, but the original builders that decided to use it vertically should have had their heads examined...  Essentially we have a house tall vertical crack in the wall every 6" - can you say water entry points?

We have already had to make extensive repairs a few years back because of water getting behind the siding,  and I hate to think about what we may find when we start stripping off the old siding - but the woodpeckers like our house - especially early in the AM   

We will be replacing with some sort of vinyl - I don't like the looks (or the price) of Hardi-plank or some of the other wood substitutes, and am not about to put up more wood...  What I am not so sure about is whether we should go with the wooden shake look stuff with foam under it, or the "Polarwall" style with foam built into the siding (with or without extra foam under it...)



> The area on posts can be insulated underneath with fiberglass in between the floor joists and then should be enclosed with 2" foam also on the bottom of the floor joists.


Agreed, and essentially what we were planning to do with it.  The big issue that I see though is that I'm pretty sure that the posts holding that porch up don't have the proper "below the frost-line" footings.  I know there are some supports way under the porch that don't, and I've had to jack things up a time or two in order to get the porch door to close properly.  The notion of trying to dig a big enough hole while crawled under there doesn't exactly thrill me, but I'd want it done right before I started trying to enclose the space and put windows and so forth in it.

Getting back to the boiler, any thoughts on how best to deal with that chimney?  If you look back at the photos, you can see where it sticks up on the north side roof above my office  (there is also a stink pipe almost in line with it a little lower on the roof)  If you go way back to the floor plan, you can see where it comes through between the closet in my office and the bathroom.  It does a similar passage through the closet in the master suite upstairs, then puts in a brief (about 6" worth) appearance in the uppermost attic, before going through the roof.

Would I need to replace it with an SS woodstove type chimney?  And does that chimney have the same sort of outside dimensions and clearance to combustibles requirements?  (it would be a real pain if the requirements were greater, as my network cabling goes up through the same chase, and BARELY has enough clearance to be "legal")

Gooserider


----------



## tom in maine (Apr 25, 2009)

I get the impression that there is some minor movement on the posts. I assume they are sonotubes, which most people use. Sonotubes are usually not installed very well and then tend to move around. You might be able to insulate around the perimeter of the post with 2" Styrofoam, with the post coming up in the middle.
This might help keep the area around the post from freezing and lifting the post. 
IF there is a large area of post above grade, this tends to suck more heat out of the ground, since it acts as a very effective radiator. This gets to be more of a problem.

I am not sure about the chimney. Are you running out of flues? If you need an extra flue, because you are keeping a woodstove, then an insulated metal chimney can be added. They still usually require 2" clearance to combustibles. As to sizing, that is a function of the boiler. Would not look as nice as that brick chimney.

No problem with vinyl. Hardiplank is a nice product, but it does take longer to install and will cost more. It's an option. Vinyl will shed water!


----------



## tom in maine (Apr 25, 2009)

Looking at the pictures again, if the porch is closed in with a skirting wall, you can insulate the floor, lay plastic down on the ground under the porch and then close it in again, with some insulation around the posts (on the ground). And also insulate the outside perimeter wall, to help cut any losses from the sonotubes, which I have to guess are a bit above grade.
I would extend some insulation on the ground outside the perimeter wall, about 6-12" below grade, and cover it with soil. This should extend out about 4' and will help keep frost from getting under the posts.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 25, 2009)

Tom in Maine said:
			
		

> I get the impression that there is some minor movement on the posts. I assume they are sonotubes, which most people use. Sonotubes are usually not installed very well and then tend to move around. You might be able to insulate around the perimeter of the post with 2" Styrofoam, with the post coming up in the middle.
> This might help keep the area around the post from freezing and lifting the post.
> IF there is a large area of post above grade, this tends to suck more heat out of the ground, since it acts as a very effective radiator. This gets to be more of a problem.



There are two sets of posts, more or less, the ones under the porch, and the ones around the outside edge.  All are wooden, roughly 4x4's.  The posts under the porch have no footings that I can find, the one on the corner near the door into the porch which seems to sag the most, I've shoved a patio block under, and then added some additional shims once or twice.  The posts around the outside edge appear to be sitting on the concrete pool deck, which is more substantial, but I'm not sure just how thick it is, or how much of a footing there might be under it...  (If I was to put in footings, I'd probably be using sonotubes...)



> I am not sure about the chimney. Are you running out of flues? If you need an extra flue, because you are keeping a woodstove, then an insulated metal chimney can be added. They still usually require 2" clearance to combustibles. As to sizing, that is a function of the boiler. Would not look as nice as that brick chimney.



I'm not exactly running out of flues, but it's a question of alternatives...  There are two flues in the brick chimney, one for the stove in the upstairs living room, and one in the finished basement main room - which everyone seems to say is not someplace I'd want to put a boiler.  There are very few places where one could stick in a new flue without going through the middle of either the first or second floor living space, and I'm opposed to going up the outside wall both for aesthetic reasons, and because of the general evil nature of outside chimneys...  

However there is that existing insulated gas chimney in the utility room which is basically unused.  The only thing connecting to it at present is the gas hot water heater, which is nearing end-of-life based on it's install date, and which wouldn't be needed if going with a solar / boiler system.  It's a 6" ID unit, with an existing chase, etc.  Obviously it would be ideal if I could use the existing chimney, but it wouldn't be terribly difficult to replace it with a different unit if necessary, as long as I had about the same outside dimensions and clearance requirements.  Looking at specs, at least some of the possible boiler candidates have 6" flue outlets, so it seems possible to use that flue if it can be made to work with the rest of the room's layout.



> No problem with vinyl. Hardiplank is a nice product, but it does take longer to install and will cost more. It's an option. Vinyl will shed water!



That's my feeling as well - and IMHO the better grade vinyls look really nice as well.

Gooserider


----------



## tom in maine (Apr 27, 2009)

Since these posts are not in the ground, you can fix them without having to crawl too much like a reptile underneath the porch.
The routine is to use the patio block, which is usually one square foot. Place one of the premade footers that they sell at Home Depot that
accept a 4x4 post on  top of the paver. Place a 2' square of styrofoam under the paver, to help keep frost out from underneath it.

I would dig out a little bit, about 6" and get this whole affair on un-disturbed soil. Then cover the foam with some soil.

Should be fine. We do this a lot in Maine. People have built vacation houses on it. Of course, it will not stand up to a hurricane if a house is on it, but this
is great for a porch like yours.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 27, 2009)

That would be great if it's acceptable...  I thought code these days required proper below the frostline footers - I know we had a guy up the street put a big deck on his house and he was doing the sonotube footing routine, so I'd thought it was required...  Will have to check.

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 27, 2009)

ARGGHH  I seem to have confirmed my fears that I've expressed earlier - I had gotten the impression that Mass. required an ASME kickback payement (err.. Stamp) on boilers, but I hadn't actually confirmed that...

However, I did just look at the code, and have found the following - (with non-relevant sections trimmed and bold added)



> 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE
> 780 CMR 6007 SOLID FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES
> 6007.3.11. Every boiler, pressure vessel or pressure relief device *must be stamped in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. ASME stamping shall also be required for boilers, pressure vessels and pressure relief devices produced outside the United State of America*. Where required by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ASME stamping may be affixed directly to the appliance in lieu of on the data plate.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like most of the possible boilers are out of consideration based on the above?

Gooserider


----------



## sdrobertson (Apr 27, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> ARGGHH I seem to have confirmed my fears that I've expressed earlier - I had gotten the impression that Mass. required an ASME kickback payement (err.. Stamp) on boilers, but I hadn't actually confirmed that...
> 
> However, I did just look at the code, and have found the following - (with non-relevant sections trimmed and bold added)
> 
> ...



Most of the used propane tanks here in Michigan have the tags removed by the propane companies when they are put out of service so they cannot be used for propane. That would probably rule out those also if they were to check the tanks themselves.


----------



## tom in maine (Apr 27, 2009)

I guess ASME stamps are required in Maine also. I spoke with someone in the Oil and Solid Fuel board a while ago.
Am not sure how much they enforce it. If you were selling them, it is an issue.
Becomes gray when you sell the house with a boiler and/or propane tank minus labels.


----------



## Gooserider (Apr 30, 2009)

Well I have limited access in the basement, essentially just a precast bulkhead stair unit, or the inside staircase.  This pretty much rules out any kind of pressurized storage for me as, quite aside from any labeling issues, there is no way I could get large tanks into my basement.  As I mentioned earlier, I'm thinking in terms of building a block wall (w/ lots of rebar) across one end of the utility room to use it and the existing three poured concrete basement walls as the sides of an EPDM lined tank.  The room is about 13' wide, so if I was to build the wall about 4-5' high, and about 4' out from the existing wall, I should end up with about 1,000 gallons or a bit more after allowing for lots of insulation, plumbing, etc.

Another question that comes to mind is zoning and loop coverage if doing infloor radiant.  I see different answers from different people as to the maximum length of a radiant loop - Fred Seton and his Radiant Design site seems to say use 500' of 1/2" and a slightly larger pump, most everyone else seems to say 300'...  Opinions on that?

As a ballpark, about how big an area of floor does that translate to?

What about zoning?  From what I've been reading, it seems like it costs about $150-200 extra per zone for valves and plumbing, over what it would cost for just having a single manifold w/ lots of loops - is this about right?

I am thinking the zoning for our house should be something like the following...

1. 2nd floor - master bedroom and bath

2. 1st floor - living room (note extreme high ceiling, big windows, etc.  Presumably much higher heat loss than rest of floor.

3. 1st floor - kitchen/dining, GF's office, and main bath, (and possibly addition & laundry room)

4. 1st floor - 3 / 4 season porch? (might not happen right away...)

5. 1st floor - My office (which would be directly above boiler / storage tank.... might want a LOT less heat...)

6. Garage - unit heater, intermittent use, probably a seperate glycol loop

7. Basement - main room, 1/2 bath, storage room (no radiant in boiler room itself!)

8. DHW

9. Swimming pool.

Does that seem about right?  Or should I break up or consolidate some of them?

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (May 14, 2009)

Just as an update on the ASME thing.

When I was up in Maine at the Boiler (and other cool stuff) Show, I met Piker from Econoburn, and he told me about the upcoming meeting of the Mass. Board of Boiler Rules, aka the "Boiler Committee" which is the body in MA that appears to have the most authority over making the rules about boilers and such - though it is a very confusing situation at present, there are seeming conflicts in the codes that make it difficult at best to figure out just what the rules are, and who is in charge of them.

I went to the meeting, which was relatively interesting as such things go - I would say that this was probably the biggest area of discussion at the meeting, with more time spend on the topic than just about everything else combined.

There were two people from BioHeat there, Chris Hoskin and Scott Nichols, along with another fellow that was wanting to get into the boiler making business, and felt the ASME requirement was running him out of the state, a couple of dealers, along with myself as a potential consumer...  We all testified and pointed out the ways in which the current situation hurt our respective interests.  

My testimony focused on the fact that there are about nine companies making gasification boilers that I'm aware of - and held up the thick stack of literature I'd picked up in ME.  But because of the ASME requirement, there are only TWO (hold up much thinner stack) that I could deal with - and that it would cost me about $15-1700 extra to get an ASME version Econoburn, or $500 extra for a Wood Gun (Normally 2K, but they are having a sale)

Of the seven companies that didn't offer an ASME option, at least six were certified to meet the European EN 303-5 standard, plus others in many cases.  (I couldn't find anything about certs on the ATTACK DP boilers)

BioHeat went into much greater detail about the three brands that they carry, as they have been dealing with the Boiler Committee folks for longer - as a part of the information requested at the previous meeting, they had gotten a report done that compared the requirements of the ASME code to those of EN 303-5.  It is an impressive item, I've gotten a copy, and been told that it's OK to post it here, but need to find a way to so so - it is a PDF and I get an error message when trying to post it.  I have managed to post it HERE on the Hearth Wiki (but for some reason it doesn't seem to be showing up in the Wiki TOC or search...) 

It is worth reading if you have ever wondered about what kinds of testing a boiler gets...  

Seems to me like the Boiler Committee is "stonewalling" on the issue a bit, but hopefully one of these days consumers in MA will have the freedom to choose the boiler they want, not just the ones the state feels like allowing...

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider (Jun 6, 2009)

Another update on the boiler problem in MA...

I got a note from the Board of Boilers secretary with a link to the minutes of the meeting.  I sent the following in response...



> Thank you for the link to the minutes.  I would appreciate it if you could
> keep me informed about any further meetings or discussions of the Board
> concerning the issue of accepting wood gasification boilers that have been
> certified in accordance with the E.U.'s EN-303-5 standard as an alternative
> ...


----------



## DaveBP (Jun 6, 2009)

Fine example of making a precise argument in very diplomatic terms, Gooserider.


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 27, 2009)

Bringing this thread back up as I've finally gotten my initial layout diagram done...  Figured I'd post it and see what people thought.  The attached is a .png file that I hope is legible - it looks nice as a .dxf, but I can't post those...  (If you want that version, send me a PM w/ an e-mail address...)

I know it is complex, but let me see if I can explain it - if any one sees any glitches, please let me know.

SOLAR LOOP:

Our house has several attic spaces due to it's design, and one is in the lower half of the roof, which allows the use of a closed "drainback" type system with the tank mounted just below the collectors, minimizing the "lift height" required to fill them.  It will slightly reduce the maximum size of the array that I could use, but it will allow me to avoid using glycol in that loop, and reduces the potential problems caused by stagnation, as the collectors would be filled with air in such a condition, rather than water.  It is something I've seen in both Siegenthaler articles and on the Caleffi website.

P1 and P2 are in series, both operate at startup, but once the system is flowing, one can carry the load so the other is shut down - It may be worth making one of them speed controled to better match the panel output.  The water to fill the array comes from the drainback tank, and the air in the array is displaced into the tank.  Note that this system is sealed and pressurized to avoid O2 issues.  When the circs shut off, the solar collectors drain back to the tank, and the air goes up to the array.  The drainback tank also does duty as an expansion tank and air separator.

If the house is calling for heat, and the array is hotter than the house loops require, Z-A switches to force flow through the plate exchanger, which feeds the house loops via P3, Z-F and Z-H, otherwise it bypasses.
If the house loops don't need the heat, and / or if the return is warmer than the bottom of the thermal storage tank, Z-B sends water through the storage tank coil, otherwise it bypasses.
(I may add a third loop to the hot water storage tank, using a similar logic - not sure if it would be justifiable)
If neither load is cooler than the solar array, shut it down or modulate the circ for a lower flow rate / higher temp.

The idea is to send the solar output to the lowest temperature demand that can use it, as the lower the operating temperature, the more efficient the array is.

By having heat exchangers going to both the house loop directly and the storage tank, I can still use the solar array for house heating, even if the storage tank is hotter than the array.  My theory is that I would mostly be building fires in the late afternoon or at night, when the array is shut down, and doing house heating and storage charging.  In the day, the boiler would be burned out and cold, so by heating off the array and leaving the charged storage alone, I should get more time out of the storage before needing to build the next fire.

BOILER LOOP:

The boiler loop is pressurized by an OPEN expansion tank in our highest attic space - between 20 and 30 feet above the boiler room.  This should give a 10-15psi working pressure at the boiler, but as the system is "open" avoid the stupid MA requirement for an ASME "H" stamp boiler.  :coolsmirk:  (This per Chris @ BioHeat) 

If heat is being supplied by the boiler, or the solar heat exchanger, P3 runs, sending the heat to the house loops (controlled by Z-H), the DHW indirect (controlled by Z-J) or the main storage tank coil (controlled by Z-K).  If running off the storage tank, P4 runs reversing the direction of flow in the main branch.  P3 and P4 should probably be speed controlled.  If P3 especially is speed controlled low enough, then it avoids the need for a Termovar or other boiler return protection - the pump won't pull more heat out of the boiler than it's making...

Note that right now I am showing the house loops as a single set of radiant loops controlled by Z-H - this is mostly because I haven't really tried to get the house side down on paper yet...  In practice, I'm sure there will be many house circuits, each with their own zone-valve - however I don't think this will change the basic concept any.

DHW LOOP:

I'm swiping NoFossil's idea here of using dual mixing valves in order to get the most out of our hot water - when there is a hot water call, the makeup water to the indirect tank and the mix water to the first mix valve is pre-heated by a small coil in the storage tank, thus reducing the amount of peak temperature water pulled from the indirect tank.  The second mix valve adds in cold DHW to give the final 120* output.  (In theory if the storage tank were hot enough, there would be NO draw on the indirect...

GARAGE LOOP:

Simple standard style glycol loop to feed an occasional demand to warm up the garage - If I have to work out there I don't want to freeze my a(natomy) off...  The heater will probably be a "Modine" style, but again the concept doesn't change...

POOL LOOP:

The place I have in mind for the storage tank is very close to our pool - it seems ideal for a gravity loop from the storage tank to the center of a sidearm type exchanger, with the outside tied into the swimming pool filter circuit...  Z-X would control this loop during swimming season, when the pool is closed, simply opening the valve at the top of the loop will let it drain and shut off the flow.

So how does it look?

Gooserider


----------



## Nofossil (Aug 28, 2009)

I think it all makes sense. P4 has no check valve and you flow backwards through it when charging storage?


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 28, 2009)

nofossil said:
			
		

> I think it all makes sense. P4 has no check valve and you flow backwards through it when charging storage?



Exactly...  P3 doesn't have one currently, but it could, and that might even be an improvement...  No need for heat to get into that area when running off the storage.

Right now as it's drawn, I don't have any check valves anywhere in the system.  I've just been reading a bunch of Siggy articles from PM magazine (great resource BTW) and have realized I need to go back and stick them in.  

Gooserider


----------



## Nofossil (Aug 28, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> nofossil said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From my experience, the built-in check valves in circulators are better than external check valves. All the external ones that I've found have too much back pressure OR leak backwards OR both.


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 28, 2009)

nofossil said:
			
		

> Gooserider said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That matches with what I've heard in terms of the flow resistance - which seems mildly odd given that we are also told to keep other sources of turbulence (like the external checks) a few diameters away from the circ inlets and outlets...  

I hadn't heard about the leaking backwards issue, though it doesn't totally surprise me, as it seems like there is always a conflict between easy operation and leak resistance...  However do they resist the backwards leaking at least enough to stop the ghost flow - that's all they are supposed to do after all...

Gooserider


----------



## pybyr (Aug 28, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> nofossil said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Last year when I called and spoke with a tech at Wilo North America to try to find out whether they yet had any moderate cost residential-scale ECM circulators (which they didn't quite yet have to market then) I happened to ask about the check valve in pump issue and the paradox that you mention above.  According to him (and he seemed informed, practical, and thorough) putting a check valve within the pump body is not the best idea from the standpoint of how it interacts with/ affects flow and efficiency in and by the pump-- he said that it's done more in response to installers' or designers' desire to kill two birds with one stone.


----------



## in hot water (Aug 28, 2009)

A couple thoughts.. Check that basement load again, sounds awful high even if some is above ground.  same for the load on that great room 60 BTU/ sq foot sounds more like a snowmelt load number 

It may be worth getting an architect involved, even for an hour consultation.  They see and know things that could save you money, hassle, and provide a better end product.  Same with a GC just to get code compliant input.

I agree focus on the building envelop, additions, etc first, then redo the load calc, room by room is best.

Checkout Siggy Heat Load Pro software, it has a basement calculator which helps a lot, may be a trial version at www.hydronicpros.com.

 hr


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 28, 2009)

pybyr said:
			
		

> Gooserider said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting, and I can sort of believe it - except that the curves I've seen from Taco and Caleffi seem to show that while there IS an impact on the pump curve, the circ plus internal check has less of a problem than the total of a circ plus an external flow-check.  I think I've seen the same thing from some of Siggy's articles...


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 28, 2009)

in hot water said:
			
		

> A couple thoughts.. Check that basement load again, sounds awful high even if some is above ground.  same for the load on that great room 60 BTU/ sq foot sounds more like a snowmelt load number
> 
> It may be worth getting an architect involved, even for an hour consultation.  They see and know things that could save you money, hassle, and provide a better end product.  Same with a GC just to get code compliant input.
> 
> ...



I got the numbers I mentioned from the Slantfin calculator, but I did have to fudge around with it a bit as it doesn't have choices that fit a lot of our house - especially for the living room and basement - However I suspect that both numbers aren't that far off - the basement is poorly insulated and the living room has a LOT of exposed walls - essentially it is the 1/3 of the house with those big windows - 23.5 feet from floor to the center of the ceiling - when the ceiling fan died, I had to rent and build a scaffolding tower in the middle of the room to get up to change it...

I will try to figure out a way to post my worksheets from the Slant-fin program - I'm running it on Linux under WINE, and haven't really figured out how to get it to print to a PDF or other uploadable format.  I will take a look at Siggy's stuff again, but it looked like everything he has runs on Microsoft  :sick: - however a friend just gave me his old PC, with a copy of XP on it, so I might see if I can get that to run properly...

Gooserider


----------



## Nofossil (Aug 28, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> That matches with what I've heard in terms of the flow resistance - which seems mildly odd given that we are also told to keep other sources of turbulence (like the external checks) a few diameters away from the circ inlets and outlets...
> 
> I hadn't heard about the leaking backwards issue, though it doesn't totally surprise me, as it seems like there is always a conflict between easy operation and leak resistance...  However do they resist the backwards leaking at least enough to stop the ghost flow - that's all they are supposed to do after all...
> 
> Gooserider



Having spent some time studying flow and turbulence, I can see a small argument for reducing turbulence at the pump inlet. I'm a bit more skeptical that there's ANY difference in having an elbow or check valve 3" vs. 3' from the outlet.

Interestingly, the circ manufacturers seem to put the check valves on the inlets.......

Maybe an old wive's tale. I suspect that there are many 'rules' that make sense in some class of system - perhaps larger commercial installations - that don't actually matter much in residential scale systems. For instance, flow in residential hydronic systems is virtually always going to be way past the laminar / turbulent boundary no matter what you do.

I've had really bad problems with ghost flow through swing check valves. Maybe they work with higher pressures and flows, but I found that they don't seal reliably in my system.


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 28, 2009)

nofossil said:
			
		

> Gooserider said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm....  Hate to suggest this to one with your expertise, but are you possibly using the wrong valve type?  Siggy makes a big deal about using FLOW CHECK valves, as opposed to SWING CHECK valves for stopping ghost flow.  


> Install a flow check valve near the outlet of the heat source. The flow check has a weighted plug that sits over the orifice in the valve. The plug's weight is sufficient to prevent the plug from lifting it off its seat until the circulator starts. This detail prevents hot water in the boiler from using the primary loop as a cooling device during off-cycles.
> 
> Never substitute a swing check valve for a flow check valve in any situation where gravity flow would move in the forward direction of the valve. The flapper disc in a swing check is not heavy enough to prevent gravity flow. Been there, tried it - it doesn't work.


 - from THIS P.M. Mag article...

He did imply that you might be able to use a swing check if the gravity flow would be in the direction that would push the valve closed, but...

I wonder if part of the reason is they want to have at least a little bit of leakage to handle any kind of pressure changes due to water expansion / contraction by making sure that there is a path back to the expansion tank via the leakage...

Gooserider


----------



## Nofossil (Aug 29, 2009)

The problem with flow checks is that they seem to present a good deal of back pressure. For me swing checks work sometimes, but not always. The instructions are explicit about mounting them horizontally, but I'm tempted to try them at an angle. What I really want is something very much like the check valve in the circulators - something that is held closed with some positive pressure, but which opens easily at low pressure and doesn't present much flow restriction when open.

BTW - I'm using swing valves to prevent reverse flow, not ghost flow. The ghost flow that I referred to is essentially reverse flow leakage through the valve. Swing valves definitely won't stop FORWARD ghost flow at all.


----------



## brad068 (Aug 29, 2009)

Guys I am also wondering about swing checks.  There are ones that look like the can be used horz. and vert, and then there are the ones that are strictly horz. with the flapper seat machined @45 degree. I used an either way one on my closed loop solar with the fill on one side and the purge on the other about 1.5' from the pumps suction.  Seems to be working OK.  Worked great for filling the system.

 I discussed the placement of swing checks on lift station pumps with a manufacturing company.  On a wetwell/drywell setup with the pumps located in the dry side with the checks right out the pumps discharge.  I questioned why not try the checks on the suction side that way you could pump the station down to break suction and the pump would automatically prime its self.  The air would rise as the wetwell filled and pushed the air out filling the pump casing and impeller.  I was told to find something else to do.


----------



## in hot water (Aug 29, 2009)

low "pop" spring checks are the best way to check flow in hydronic systems.  The checks that come with pumps nowadays are 1/2" psi pop. 

 Off the shelf spring checks may have to stiff of a spring pressure for small circs.

The shape of the check is important, a typical "plumbing" spring check has a flat faced check, some with an o- ring seal.  The check should be of a "soft" material to prevent that clattering noise, also.  The cone shape has a better flow pattern and seals better.  

Here is an example of the Grundfos version.  They have increased the size of these checks, the first versions were quite a bit smaller diameter.  They had to increase the volute discharge casting to use a larger check.

You do pay a small penalty for having the check installed, most of the pump curves show performance with and without the integral check.  I see Grundfos ships the check un-installed with the Alpha circs.

Taco tried the check on the inlet for a few years and took them off the market.  Any restriction at the inlet of a pump can encourage cavatation, best to have them downstream.

Yes there is a trade off having the check in the discharge volute, but it has fixed so many ghost flow, overheating, high energy consumption, reverse flow problems that it is worth the performance penalty.

 hr


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 30, 2009)

in hot water said:
			
		

> low "pop" spring checks are the best way to check flow in hydronic systems.  The checks that come with pumps nowadays are 1/2" psi pop.
> 
> Off the shelf spring checks may have to stiff of a spring pressure for small circs.
> 
> ...



Those little checks you show are the ones that they put in the pumps, correct?  They look pretty reasonable for the job.  However are they available for other places in the system?  If one is trying to avoid ghost flows it seems that they often want checks in places other than just at the pump, is there a good solution for these other locations such as where loops return to the mains and so on?

I wasn't questioning the use of the in-pump checks as I agree that checks are needed - my comment was the seeming conflict with the advice that I've seen saying to avoid putting checks or other turbulence makers to close to the discharge of a pump; yet seeing pump makers put a check right in the discharge volute and claim lower head losses doing it that way than with a plain pump and a downstream check installed with a "proper" space between it and the pump...  Seems a bit paradoxical, but it sounds like you are saying it is because of design differences between the in-pump checks and the in-line versions.  From what you are saying it sounds like what is needed is either some sort of "holder" that would let you install the pump checks w/o the pump or a check with a similar design...  The other thought that occurs to me is that maybe they should come out with an "adjustable resistance" check that would allow you to set the resistance to just enough to stop the ghost flow, while minimizing the opening flow resistance.

Gooserider


----------



## Nofossil (Aug 30, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> Those little checks you show are the ones that they put in the pumps, correct?  They look pretty reasonable for the job.  However are they available for other places in the system?  If one is trying to avoid ghost flows it seems that they often want checks in places other than just at the pump, is there a good solution for these other locations such as where loops return to the mains and so on?
> 
> I wasn't questioning the use of the in-pump checks as I agree that checks are needed - my comment was the seeming conflict with the advice that I've seen saying to avoid putting checks or other turbulence makers to close to the discharge of a pump; yet seeing pump makers put a check right in the discharge volute and claim lower head losses doing it that way than with a plain pump and a downstream check installed with a "proper" space between it and the pump...  Seems a bit paradoxical, but it sounds like you are saying it is because of design differences between the in-pump checks and the in-line versions.  From what you are saying it sounds like what is needed is either some sort of "holder" that would let you install the pump checks w/o the pump or a check with a similar design...  The other thought that occurs to me is that maybe they should come out with an "adjustable resistance" check that would allow you to set the resistance to just enough to stop the ghost flow, while minimizing the opening flow resistance.
> 
> Gooserider



You are right where I am on this topic. As far as I can tell, you can't get an independent check valve that has the near ideal characteristics of the valve that the circ manufacturers build in. My guess is that built-in works better for two reasons: 1) it's a better design of check valve for the purpose, and 2) there really isn't a distance related flow penalty for devices downstream of the circ. Certainly the pump curves show very little impact.

Speaking of built-in things that I'd like to be able to buy as separate devices - how about the flange / washer disconnects that I've seen on Taco and Honeywell mixing valves? Fast and easy to connect and disconnect, cheap to make, and I've never seen one leak. I'd love to buy those as unions to allow disconnection at other points in the system, but I've never seen them for sale. Any ideas?


----------



## in hot water (Aug 30, 2009)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> in hot water said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Watts and Combraco still offer inline, low pressure drop spring check valves.  

Anytime you run piping vertically from a boiler or piping loop you really need a check on both supply and return side.  Hot water can actually go up a return pipe and overheat a zone.

Same with an indirect water heater, without check protection on both supply and return they tend to over-heat just from hot to cold convection movement.  Some old timers still use a pump AND a zone valve when piping indirects to assure a 100% shut off of flow.i

B&G;offers iso flange valves with that same check built in.  It does move the check an inch or so away from the discharge.

Really discharge side is not a bad place for a check, you never want ANY flow restricting device on the inlet side of a circ, too much potential for flow restriction to start cavitation.

hr


----------



## in hot water (Aug 30, 2009)

Flanged gasketed fittings are very common in Europe and we are seeing more of it over here, especially in the solar industry.

The company I work for, Caleffi, manufacturers thousands of brass flanged fittings.  If you need something special let me know.

But the real key to the excellent seal on those flanged fittings is that green gasket.  Once some fluid hits them they swell and glue to the surfaces.  When you disassemble one you end up scrapping the gasket from the fitting faces.  Often times hand tight is enough with those gaskets.

Notice this other fitting.  It looks scared from a wrench.  But that is actually a hemp fitting.  In Europe they use straight threads on all their piping.  They wrap the fittings or pipe with strands of hemp.  This fitting grabs the hemp to keep it in place.  All the plumbing and hardware stores over there have wads of hemp on the shelf.

This is a dual purpose adapter for hemp or gasket connections.

 hr


----------



## chuck172 (Aug 30, 2009)

I didn't know that European pipe threads weren't tapered! You would think that would be a big time disadvantage. I like to use wicking, that also swells to tighten the joint.


----------



## pybyr (Aug 30, 2009)

I've done little work with the straight-taper threads as compared to US-norm NPT/ tapered threads (except for my Caleffi expansion tank which HR was kind enough to point me to a proper euro-fitting for)(tank rated for solar temps, which apparently minimizes the odds or speed of a failed bladder- which seems to happen more often/ rapidly than one would hope when using 'regular' tanks).

That said, I can see one big advantage to the non-taper--  when putting together various lengths, and when turning any sort of corner, you aren't stuck with the either-or dilemma of having some fitting "just shy of tight" or "almost a full turn beyond tight."


----------



## Gooserider (Aug 30, 2009)

Really excellent info - maybe we should start a thread with such "nuggets" of information about products that hit above the average from different vendors...  It seems to me like one of the things that is a problem for us DIY types is not having the same level of experience and exposure to info about what products work best for a given application as the "industry guys".  

I haven't made a big effort to search manufacturer sites, but it seems from the looking that I have done, that each manufacturer sells some flavor of pretty much every sort of fitting and hardware item out there.  While it might be possible to build an entire system with products from only one or two companies, it seems quite reasonable to me that each company might have a particular set of products that it excells at, with the other products being "me-too" items added to fill out the product line, but not having the same outstanding properties...  Thus the best system might well be one built using a "Chinese Menu" approach of using the best products from each company mixed together...  The problem is us DIY types may not have the expertise to pick the optimal products, or even know they exist...

Gooserider


----------



## dogwood (Aug 31, 2009)

Gooserider, an ongoing thread like that would be an excellent idea.


----------



## pybyr (Aug 31, 2009)

dogwood said:
			
		

> Gooserider, an ongoing thread like that would be an excellent idea.



Excellent idea indeed; the one thing I'll note is that enthusiastic and curious DIY'ers sometimes do have the advantage of not operating by as much of the 'we've always done it that way, or used X product for Y purpose,...  etc.' that are pretty darn common in most lines of work (whatever the field).  

That said, the guidance from some of the 'pros' around here is invaluable, and _much_ appreciated; it's be great to pool eclectic products, and sources from which to get them, in a running thread (perhaps a sticky) unto itself so that they are not as scattered about through various threads on other topics.

I'll start a topic/ nomination for such a thread (though I'll stop shy of creating it- Goose, can you?) by asking HR who/ what might be a relatively-full-line source of Caleffi products on a non-special order basis, and that'd be wiling to sell in small quantities; I've been able to get Caleffi stuff through local supply sources, but for certain items, it's often been on a special order basis, sometimes with no small wait.


----------



## Gooserider (Sep 19, 2009)

I don't know if there is a good on-line source, but the Caleffi-US website does have a "find your nearest wholesaler" function on their home page, top right corner...  Of course there is a question about how willing they will be to deal with you, but my experience has been that most places will take your cash if you act clueful and don't get in the way of their pro customers...

Gooserider


----------

