Indirects or Turbomax - Any Experiences?
I have been reading a multitude of info regarding indirect hot water heaters installed in conjunction with oil fired boilers.
i have the same type of questions as to which indirects are good options but additionally, to add to the mix of products, i ran across a tank made by thermo 2000 called turbomax. it is suppose to be an indirect tank that works kind of like a tankless coil, only bigger. they claim better performance and faster recovery than indirect storage tanks while allowing the use of a smaller tank size.
i like the numbers and the rep i spoke to has a good technical background with real world calculations being done to figure out the correct application.
i wondered if anyone had any actual experience with these units and what their opinions might be. longevity is always something to consider but without first hand knowledge, it's hard to get info.
Additionally, i have gotten info on indirects such as peerless partner, phase 3, crown mega store and the superstor. all viable options.
thanks for any help.
Incidentally, i am looking to pair the tank with a new yorker boiler, circa 1980 which will no longer use the built in tankless coil.
Are better used with low water volume boilers. Your old NYorker is probably higher volume. They're cost more and used for for high HW demands with bigger boilers.
For the value , I'd just get a regular stainless indirect unless your boiler is short cycling and you need the added water mass.
how much is considered low volume/ high volume?
my boiler isn't short cycling but the tankless coil is not adequate for the house. i need more hot water for a longer period of time.
Check the specs of the tank
Throw a 300K BTU boiler at a Turbomax and you could feed a small apartment building. If you only have a 40K gas boiler, don't expect to run 2 showers at the same time for monre then a few minutes. It's usually easier to store hot water for a single household. If your heat loss only needs 50K BTU's, silly to have a 300K boiler to make a ton of hot water once a day. Better to store it up and just run for 10-20 minutes to "recharge" the storage tank. I would stick with a Triangle Tube Phase III or WeilMclain (same tank).
i'm somewhere in the middle of the two extremes you listed.
using my 133K/156K new yorker, it seems the turbomax would do better at providing enough hot water for two simultaneous showers than a regular indirect could and the indirect would be out of hot water (recovering to heat the newly infused cold water in the tank) while the turbomax would still be providing hot water for other smaller draws.
what do you think?
If you realy need the HW
Compare the price of a 60 or 80 gal indirect to the Turbomax. Another solution is a priority control. When the Indirect calls for heat, the control will
shut off the heating circulator and direct all the BTU's to the indirect for 10-20 minutes. You actually, might need this for the TurboMax also. High HW demand will probably require all the BTU's of the boiler.
the size of turbomax i would need is comparable to the tanks you suggest, maybe a little less even.
Priority control is a given for either circumstance otherwise you won't have all the BTU's needed to get the DHW the tank can produce. i plan on using a mixing valve so that i can further stretch the DHW.
It still seems to me that once i dump the hot water reserve from the storage tank (75% usable hot water before it needs to recover for some time) - so 60 gal x 75% = 45 gal dump, now i have to wait for recovery or face having NO hot water. The turbomax still can provide around 3 GPM continuous after the same initial dump. This is where i understand it to be more usefull.