ReplyBeen done for a long long time here.
If down fired too much, they will use more oil.
Regular Guest
LOL! ... I wasn't drinking when I wrote that title either!Speed typing with two fingers has it's down side
I dont know as I am ready to put everything I know on the subject out there but I am bringing it up because I am seeing this practice more and more over the last few years up north. I would like to hear your opinions and views on the subject.
I understand that there is a vast wealth of theory and opinion to be had on the subject and I would be glad to elaborate my views but for now... let me hear your story.
I have to scoot and will be back later. hope this is a thread that will be worth reading when it hits it's end.
God Speed, Jim. We'll miss you - 2-26-23
Been done for a long long time here.
If down fired too much, they will use more oil.
Regular Guest
That is a given but I am looking for some opinion based on experience and theory. A discussion with merit in other words.Originally Posted by beenthere
God Speed, Jim. We'll miss you - 2-26-23
Ok. Down firing to save oil works. Have to give consideration to boiler piping gain on many older systems. If you don't, you be under fired and use more oil. Also need to double check what retention head a Beckket burner has to make sure you can set the burner up properly for the new firing rate. Too large of a head, and you won't get good combustion. It will have a high CO.
Professional Member*
before you do this you need to determine, as close as possible, the exact btu's needed. and if it has an indirect, make sure it has priority option. as been said, do not go less than the burner is rated.many variables are on the table when you do this. have you applied for pro yet? it would make this alot easier on us.
God Speed, Jim. We'll miss you - 2-26-23
Yeah, specially since we have a Pro Oil Burner forum.
Regular Guest
Been awhile waiting on the Pro upgrade. Guess everyone is out working.
Regular Guest
Yeah....So I have heard. Still waiting
Professional Member*
Not only do you have to make sure burner is set up for the lower firing rate (end cone and static plate) but the combustion chamber is sized correctly (This can be a pita in units with just a target wall or no liner at all) and flow through heat exchanger controlled (sometimes smaller venting or baffling). And this is only on the firing side not to mention the heat transfer side.
Professional Member*
Care to expand on this?
If you have proper combustion and less heat going up the chimney how could you use more oil.
"The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it it can be looked at by every character of mind.
No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this."
John Stuart Mill
God Speed, Jim. We'll miss you - 2-26-23
A burner burning 1 GPH running 24/7 uses 24 gallons. A burner burning 1.5 GPH running 14 hours only burns 21 gallons in that same 24 hour period. At 1 GPH if the burner never shuts off but just maintains the set temp, it uses more oil. At 1.25 GPH, it may only run 16 hours, and then it would only be using 20 gallons in that same 24 hour period. Its a fine line between just right, and too little.
God Speed, Jim. We'll miss you - 2-26-23
Seems there is no info on you applying. Send it in again.
Professional Member*
Im missing something here.
Let just say the burner is 100% efficient.
If the load requires 1gph running 24 hrs. that would be 3,336,000BTU/24hrs
Your examples of nozzle and run times and gallons dont add up to this.
I would also hope that by decreasing the nozzle size you would increase efficiency by lowering the stack temp.
"The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it it can be looked at by every character of mind.
No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this."
John Stuart Mill
God Speed, Jim. We'll miss you - 2-26-23
My run times were times pulled out of the air as examples. But aren't far off.I’m missing something here.
Let just say the burner is 100% efficient.
If the load requires 1gph running 24 hrs. that would be 3,336,000BTU/24hrs
Your examples of nozzle and run times and gallons don’t add up to this.
I would also hope that by decreasing the nozzle size you would increase efficiency by lowering the stack temp.
1.5 X 14 = 21. 21 X 140000= 2,940,000
1.25 X 16 = 20, 20 X 140000 = 2,800,000
1 X 24 = 24, 24 X 140000 = 3,360,000
The savings of the higher firing rate comes from the off time.
The lowest stack temp is not always the most efficient set up. When the firing rate gets too low, heat transfer rate drops since there isn't enough heat. Unfortunately so does stack, which leads to a false high efficiency reading.
Posting Permissions