Home Repair forum - Expansion tank

Author

Expansion tank

chimney

2005-11-10, 12:21 pm

Hello,

I would like to know if it would be possible to replace the open
expansion tank with a closed expansion tank in the diagram of Kit 3A
from the webpage http://www.edilkamin.com/eng/doc/menu-eng.swf

Edilkamin themselves don't offer much technical support.

Thanks.

Christian McArdle

2005-11-10, 12:21 pm

> I would like to know if it would be possible to replace the open
> expansion tank with a closed expansion tank in the diagram of Kit 3A
> from the webpage http://www.edilkamin.com/eng/doc/menu-eng.swf

I'd be very surprised if this was possible. Most back boilers must be run
vented and are not suitable for sealed operation. If you have a requirement
for unvented operation (for example, to run radiators in a loft conversion),
you'll need to run the system through a plate exchanger to a fully pumped
sealed system on the other side. However, you'd need to ensure there was
sufficient heat dump on the unvented side for safety reasons, as a pump
failure would mean that the heat exchanger doesn't get rid of much heat.
Several fixed radiators would be a more reliable heat dump, especially for
non-thermostatic solid fuel appliances.

Christian.

Set Square

2005-11-10, 1:21 pm

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
chimney <chimneyplace@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to know if it would be possible to replace the open
> expansion tank with a closed expansion tank in the diagram of Kit 3A
> from the webpage http://www.edilkamin.com/eng/doc/menu-eng.swf
>
> Edilkamin themselves don't offer much technical support.
>
> Thanks.

I don't see why not. The tank has a lid, but it can't be air-tight -
otherwise it wouldn't work!
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Set Square

2005-11-10, 2:21 pm

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Set Square <diy@privacy.net> wrote:

> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> chimney <chimneyplace@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I don't see why not. The tank has a lid, but it can't be air-tight -
> otherwise it wouldn't work!

Looking at Christian's reply leads me to think that I may not correctly have
understood the question - so please disregard my earlier answer.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

Christian McArdle

2005-11-10, 2:21 pm

> Looking at Christian's reply leads me to think that I may not correctly
have
> understood the question - so please disregard my earlier answer.

You might find that you were right and I was wrong, though!

Christian.

Aidan

2005-11-10, 3:21 pm

Christian McArdle wrote:

Strange animation, when you work out how to make it go.

I'd think Christian's first reply was right.

>open expansion tank with a closed expansion tank in the diagram

I think the question should read "can you replace the feed and
expansion tank with a diaphragm expansion vessel".

The boiler circuit should have an expansion vessel, although it's not
shown. SC20 & SC30 seem to be plate heat exchangers.

Ned Flanders

2005-11-11, 4:21 pm

"Most back boilers must be run
vented and are not suitable for sealed operation."

Could you tell us why this is? Do they not like expansion at all?

My answer would be yes sure you could close the system and put a sealed
diaphragm expansion tank in the system.
Here in the states 99% of the systems are sealed.

You need only ask what the tank does for the system. (in general)
Allows for expansion when the water temp rises
allows air to escape from system
gives you a place to add water to system.

A taco air scoop with a hyvent with an extrol tank will do all this but add
water, that is seperate item (boiler feeder)
placement of boiler feeder can be argued with many places being "right". (i
have been putting them on return manifold, used to put it at air scoop)

This is just a guess on my part, let that be clear, I have not installed one
of theese systems only ones like it. I would like to know why you should not
use an extrol (expansion tank) if it is so.

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131649635.219279.293530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Christian McArdle wrote:
>
> Strange animation, when you work out how to make it go.
>
> I'd think Christian's first reply was right.
>
>
> I think the question should read "can you replace the feed and
> expansion tank with a diaphragm expansion vessel".
>
>
> The boiler circuit should have an expansion vessel, although it's not
> shown. SC20 & SC30 seem to be plate heat exchangers.
>

chimney

2005-11-11, 4:21 pm

>
> This is just a guess on my part, let that be clear, I have not installed one
> of theese systems only ones like it. I would like to know why you should not
> use an extrol (expansion tank) if it is so.
>

The reason why I don't want an open expansion tank and I would prefer
to replace the one shown in the circuit with a closed one is that I
think that the open expansion tank has to be located at a height above
the fireplace boiler which means it would have to be outside on the
roof and that could cause freezing problems in winter. Am I right about
the open expansion tank having to be located higher than the fireplace
boiler? I don't think I could put it in the basement below which is
where I want to put the gas boiler.

Ned Flanders

2005-11-12, 12:21 am

the open tank has to be above everything I belive. They are always up in the
attic.
otherwise water would come out.

I just can't think of why you cant do this. I will admit that with a
fireplace or wood burning boiler i like an open system better. You just
need to make sure you have a way to dump heat. Like someone else said cast
radiators are great. I bet the fireplace shown can damper itself down.

I would like to hear why a closed system is not recomended or wont work.

"chimney" <chimneyplace@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1131738196.598948.186610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The reason why I don't want an open expansion tank and I would prefer
> to replace the one shown in the circuit with a closed one is that I
> think that the open expansion tank has to be located at a height above
> the fireplace boiler which means it would have to be outside on the
> roof and that could cause freezing problems in winter. Am I right about
> the open expansion tank having to be located higher than the fireplace
> boiler? I don't think I could put it in the basement below which is
> where I want to put the gas boiler.
>

Don

2005-11-12, 12:21 am

"Ned Flanders> wrote
> the open tank has to be above everything I belive. They are always up in
> the attic.
> otherwise water would come out.

Why won't the water come out in the attic, the last place someone would want
water to come out?
Hopefully there is a spillover pan and drain.

Aidan

2005-11-12, 5:21 am

Ned Flanders wrote:

> I would like to hear why a closed system is not recomended or wont work.

You can do it, it is not recommended. You can't turn off the heat with
a solid-fuel boiler, as you can with oil, gas or electric. There is a
strong possibility of the water boiling. An open vented system will
just blow steam out of the vent pipe, it will also dissipate the excess
heat in doing so and will refill with cold water.

A sealed system relies on the safety devices. It will discharge steam,
but usually has a limited volume of water it can discharge as steam. We
don't permit/use direct mains connections via a make-up valve, as you
do.

Edwin Pawlowski

2005-11-12, 9:21 am

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You can do it, it is not recommended. You can't turn off the heat with
> a solid-fuel boiler, as you can with oil, gas or electric. There is a
> strong possibility of the water boiling.

That is one of the downsides to solid fuel, even a separate wood burning
stove. You load it up and the weather turns unexpectedly mild so you have to
open windows to dissipate the excess heat.

Dick

2005-11-12, 12:21 pm

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:HJldf.8052$Kv.6397@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> That is one of the downsides to solid fuel, even a separate wood burning
> stove. You load it up and the weather turns unexpectedly mild so you have
to
> open windows to dissipate the excess heat.
>

That is the least of the problems. Hauling the stuff in and loading the
stove every few hours at a minimum is. Especially if you have to go outside
in bitter cold to get a new load of wood.

Ned Flanders

2005-11-12, 4:21 pm

ok this is the reason i mentioned, you are just repeating what I covered
already, it is a small concern I agree but not a reason not to do it. All
the wood/solid fuel boilers I have seen have a damper that will remove the
oxygen from the process. The heat is easily removed from the boiler to
prevent steam.

> That is one of the downsides to solid fuel, even a separate wood burning
> stove. You load it up and the weather turns unexpectedly mild so you have
to
> open windows to dissipate the excess heat.

Only if you have failed to properly engineer the system. There are only so
many BTU per pound and only sooo much that can fit in the fire box. Size the
heat sync to collect that many BTU's and you are set.

"Dick" <outoutxx@att.net> wrote in message
news:Zvodf.86803$zb5.48161@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:HJldf.8052$Kv.6397@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> to
>
> That is the least of the problems. Hauling the stuff in and loading the
> stove every few hours at a minimum is. Especially if you have to go
> outside
> in bitter cold to get a new load of wood.
>
>

gruhn

2005-11-13, 1:21 am

> stove. You load it up and the weather turns unexpectedly mild so you have
to
> open windows to dissipate the excess heat.

Take off the sweater you were wearing anyway.

Aidan

2005-11-13, 5:21 am

gruhn wrote:

> Take off the sweater you were wearing anyway.

He needs the sweater on for his trips out to the woodpile.

Aidan

2005-11-13, 6:21 am

Ned Flanders wrote:
> All
> the wood/solid fuel boilers I have seen have a damper that will remove the
> oxygen from the process. The heat is easily removed from the boiler to
> prevent steam.

It still leaves a mass of hot unburned fuel in the grate. Solid fuel
boilers are more liable to overheat . My experience of safety valves
is that they're safety devices and should only operate under fault
conditions. They're liable to drip after discharging; if left dripping,
they're liable to become concreted shut by limescale deposits. An open
vent is fairly fool-proof, unless it freezes. You need a fool-proof
steam discharge.

My understanding was that the preferred arrangement in rural areas in
the US was to have the wood-burner open-vented and connected to the
sealed house heating system via a plate heat exchanger. Ideally, the
wood burner is installed in an out-building and has anti-freeze in the
water. It is a very sensible arrangement; no wood & no ash indoors. Not
applicable, of course, for a cosy fire in the lounge..

Search the archives here, a US heating contractors forum;

http://www.heatinghelp.com/wall_forum.cfm

Ned Flanders

2005-11-13, 8:21 pm

I did not say to use the relief valve to dump the heat / energy.
The damper will only stop the fuel that is present from burning further, you
still have to dump the heat you have currently, which I addressed. The wood
boiler I have installed goes in basement, not outside. There is a difference
between preffered and what this whole thread is about. Your "answer" was a
repeat of what I said but not complete and incorrect.

plz read before you respond with usless/ repeat information.

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131876864.408597.296710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ned Flanders wrote:
>
> It still leaves a mass of hot unburned fuel in the grate. Solid fuel
> boilers are more liable to overheat . My experience of safety valves
> is that they're safety devices and should only operate under fault
> conditions. They're liable to drip after discharging; if left dripping,
> they're liable to become concreted shut by limescale deposits. An open
> vent is fairly fool-proof, unless it freezes. You need a fool-proof
> steam discharge.
>
>
> My understanding was that the preferred arrangement in rural areas in
> the US was to have the wood-burner open-vented and connected to the
> sealed house heating system via a plate heat exchanger. Ideally, the
> wood burner is installed in an out-building and has anti-freeze in the
> water. It is a very sensible arrangement; no wood & no ash indoors. Not
> applicable, of course, for a cosy fire in the lounge..
>
> Search the archives here, a US heating contractors forum;
>
> http://www.heatinghelp.com/wall_forum.cfm
>

Christian McArdle

2005-11-14, 7:21 am

> I would like to hear why a closed system is not recomended or wont work.

The reason is that the rules in the UK are much tighter on sealed operation.
In the US, for example, it is permitted in domestic installations to just
connect up the mains water permanently via a pressure reducing valve. Such
an arrangement is expressly banned in the UK.

Sealed operation in the UK also requires multiple safety features. One of
these features is that the boiler should have an automatic lockout in the
event of overtemperature. In a properly designed vented system, this is not
required (although still recommended), as there is always a supply of fresh
water to quench a boiler that won't shut down.

However, with a solid fuel back burner, it is not possible for the system to
cut the heat automatically. With a sealed system, this means that no water
is being introduced and there is no vent for the steam to go to. Hopefully,
the system will boil and the pressure relief valve will open. This is fine
for a few minutes, until there is no water left. Then, you have a runaway
solid fuel appliance heating pipes with no water, which is a bad thing.

If the boiler has reliable electrical control, then it can be fitted with an
automatic shutdown device, which makes it suitable for sealed pressurised
operation.

Christian.

Aidan

2005-11-14, 7:21 am

Ned Flanders wrote:
> I did not say to use the relief valve to dump the heat / energy.
> The damper will only stop the fuel that is present from burning further, you
> still have to dump the heat you have currently, which I addressed. The wood
> boiler I have installed goes in basement, not outside. There is a difference
> between preffered and what this whole thread is about. Your "answer" was a
> repeat of what I said but not complete and incorrect.

No, Ned. I've answered your query. It seems that either I failed to
make myself sufficiently clear or you have difficulties in
comprehending what I have written.

>I just can't think of why you cant do this.
> You just need to make sure you have a way to dump heat. Like someone else said cast
>radiators are great. I bet the fireplace shown can damper itself down.

>I would like to hear why a closed system is not recomended or wont work.

I'm sure a man of your obvious intellect and talent can do it, Ned.

Off you go and let us know how you get on.

> plz read before you respond with usless/ repeat information.

Some people think some Americans to be ill-mannered.
I wonder why.

Ned Flanders

2005-11-14, 8:21 am

"However, with a solid fuel back burner, it is not possible for the system
to
cut the heat automatically. With a sealed system, this means that no water
is being introduced and there is no vent for the steam to go to. Hopefully,
the system will boil and the pressure relief valve will open. This is fine
for a few minutes, until there is no water left. Then, you have a runaway
solid fuel appliance heating pipes with no water, which is a bad thing."

This is not true. We use saftey devices to prevent everything you mentioned.
I wonder what happens with the steam in your setup. Does it have to travel
all the way through your vent in the walls up to the attic then dump into
the make-up tank? You also have a single point of failure; the fill valve.
My soloution is a heat sync that can take the heat from the boiler once the
oxygen has been removed. The boiler will not keep getting hotter at this
point; only cooler. This reaction takes place before steam has formed. I
have been on calls where aquastats have failed and we made steam. It came
out the relief valve and the VENT on the boiler. When we lose pressure our
systems become open systems.

I think you can argue pretty convinceingly for both methods. I agree my
little voice tells me an open system seems safer, but logic tels me that
both can be dangerous or equaly safe if installed correctly / incorrectly.

"Christian McArdle" <cmcardle75@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43786693$0$23986$4d4eb98e@read.news.uk.uu.net...
>
> The reason is that the rules in the UK are much tighter on sealed
> operation.
> In the US, for example, it is permitted in domestic installations to just
> connect up the mains water permanently via a pressure reducing valve. Such
> an arrangement is expressly banned in the UK.
>
> Sealed operation in the UK also requires multiple safety features. One of
> these features is that the boiler should have an automatic lockout in the
> event of overtemperature. In a properly designed vented system, this is
> not
> required (although still recommended), as there is always a supply of
> fresh
> water to quench a boiler that won't shut down.
>
> However, with a solid fuel back burner, it is not possible for the system
> to
> cut the heat automatically. With a sealed system, this means that no water
> is being introduced and there is no vent for the steam to go to.
> Hopefully,
> the system will boil and the pressure relief valve will open. This is fine
> for a few minutes, until there is no water left. Then, you have a runaway
> solid fuel appliance heating pipes with no water, which is a bad thing.
>
> If the boiler has reliable electrical control, then it can be fitted with
> an
> automatic shutdown device, which makes it suitable for sealed pressurised
> operation.
>
> Christian.
>
>

Aidan

2005-11-14, 8:21 am

Ned Flanders wrote:

> My soloution is a heat sync that can take the heat from the boiler once the
> oxygen has been removed.

Heat Sink.

I'd suggest you do some reading around the subject. The truth is out
there.

Ned Flanders

2005-11-14, 8:21 am

I am not a rude american, thats the libs that have the $$$ to travel over
there and act like assholes.
i said plz

> No, Ned. I've answered your query. It seems that either I failed to
> make myself sufficiently clear or you have difficulties in
> comprehending what I have written.

im sorry if it came across as an insult to you but you did just repeat what
I said and you also were not correct in your answer.

my apologies, I dont want to be rude to fellow plumbers.

btw what is the "truth" about a place to dump heat?

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131966746.265111.166360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ned Flanders wrote:
>
> No, Ned. I've answered your query. It seems that either I failed to
> make myself sufficiently clear or you have difficulties in
> comprehending what I have written.
>
>
>
> I'm sure a man of your obvious intellect and talent can do it, Ned.
>
> Off you go and let us know how you get on.
>
>
>
> Some people think some Americans to be ill-mannered.
> I wonder why.
>

Aidan

2005-11-14, 8:21 am

Ned Flanders wrote:

> btw what is the "truth" about a place to dump heat?

See above. You need a fool-proof steam discharge.

Ned Flanders

2005-11-14, 8:21 pm

a closed system has at least 2 places to let out steam

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131969788.733126.162090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ned Flanders wrote:
>
>
> See above. You need a fool-proof steam discharge.
>

Aidan

2005-11-14, 8:21 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:
> a closed system has at least 2 places to let out steam

2 mechanical devices (PRV. auto-air vent?) that should discharge steam.
Both can fail. I've seen several PRVs that failed shut. AAVs should be
used for initial venting only & the discharge valve closed after a week
or so. They are that unreliable.

There were lots of coal-fired HP steam boilers that show something like
this can be managed safely. You are confident, as am I, that you could
build a working system.

The difference is that I've been at this longer. I could build such a
system, but I would prefer not to. I expect mechanical safety devices
to fail and know that they will fail. 'Working' is a temporary state
for a component and that systems are only kept working safely by
inspection, testing and maintenance. I know that domestic systems are
most liable to be neglected. An open vent and a float-valve are the
most reliable safety devices of those available. Ask opinions at the
link above, some very knowledgeable & experienced US-based contractors
there.

Ned Flanders

2005-11-14, 9:21 pm

so I guess we agree then, here is one of my first posts.

" I will admit that with a fireplace or wood burning boiler I like an open
system better. "

This post is about a homeowner that wanted to do this with a closed system.
I have offered a number of options for dumping the heat.

Both of our systems share the same single point of failure, a mechanical
device, the boiler feeder.

I like the idea of having a mass to dump the heat before it comes to the
point of making steam, this would need an aquastat and relay and circulator
to work. You could also have an electric solenoid that can dump water into
the system.

when the oxygen is removed the fire stops. The fire stops getting hotter,
it goes out. At this point you need only cool the boiler to below steam
temp. This does not take much water circulation at all. You could in some
cases do it with just the heat installed in your house. I know this from
actual hands on experience.

Put a radiator outside with a plate heat exchanger you can dump the heat
through.

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132012464.219076.138090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ned Flanders wrote:
>
> 2 mechanical devices (PRV. auto-air vent?) that should discharge steam.
> Both can fail. I've seen several PRVs that failed shut. AAVs should be
> used for initial venting only & the discharge valve closed after a week
> or so. They are that unreliable.
>
> There were lots of coal-fired HP steam boilers that show something like
> this can be managed safely. You are confident, as am I, that you could
> build a working system.
>
> The difference is that I've been at this longer. I could build such a
> system, but I would prefer not to. I expect mechanical safety devices
> to fail and know that they will fail. 'Working' is a temporary state
> for a component and that systems are only kept working safely by
> inspection, testing and maintenance. I know that domestic systems are
> most liable to be neglected. An open vent and a float-valve are the
> most reliable safety devices of those available. Ask opinions at the
> link above, some very knowledgeable & experienced US-based contractors
> there.
>

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-05, 10:21 am

Interesting topic, one of my favorites sorry I missed it. After reading
the previous posts I can't help but laughing to myself. We here in the
states are looked upon as uninteligent yahoo's by those of you on the
other side of the pond. When in truth we've been there and done that
safely for the last 100 or so years. The bad press from our side comes
from the do it yourselfers that don't have a clue to what side of the
match to light.
I' ve been involved with and installing wood fired boilers for years,
always closed/low pressure systems and never once had a problem with
any of the above fears. The 2 most important rules are a dump zone
thats a min. of 10% of the BTUH output of the unit and volumn/storage
of the system. Your UK systems seem primitive to me, I consider the
open outside units garbage here in the states. The European units are
by far superior then anything available here in the states. The Swedish
Tarm/solo plus is my favorite. Runaway woodfired boilers in todays
world when done correct are limited to old trains.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-05, 10:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> We here in the
> states are looked upon as uninteligent yahoo's by those of you on the
> other side of the pond.

Not by me. I'd imagine you'd have about the same percentage of Darwin
award contenders & general purpose morons as we do.

> Your UK systems seem primitive to me, I consider the
> open outside units garbage here in the states.

I disagree. Look at the US-based link I've posted above, which seems to
attract many competent contractors. If you look at their archives,
open-vented wood fired systems are regularly mentioned. I can't recall
a sealed system being mentioned; I'm not saying they aren't installed,
I don't know. I do recall one, but since it was mentioned in the
context of a DIY pipe loop, we'll exclude that; the pipe loop had
burst.

Unlike you, we also have to cope with the UK legislation and standards
which require a solid fueled boiler to be open-vented.

See this;
http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/main_pages/literature.htm

> Runaway woodfired boilers in todays
> world when done correct are limited to old trains.

I think it is a forseeable and avoidable risk. I would be very unhappy
to have a sealed solid-fuel system.

Aidan

2005-12-05, 11:21 am

Aidan wrote:

> See this;
> http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/main_pages/literature.htm

Should be THIS;

http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/pdfs/link_up.pdf

Ned Flanders

2005-12-06, 11:21 pm

Kenny, he only knows what he has seen.
You and I both have had sucesss with closed solid fuel burning systems.
The very old houses here have open gravity powered systems, they are a
dieing breed.
Personaly I dont like the idea of sending steam all the way through a vent
to my attic. I have not heard anything that makes the open system that much
safer. I can think of ways it is more dangerous. Your described system is
dependant on the boiler fill valve. Our closed systems have more than a
single point of failure. Our systems don't allow super heated water to fill
the houses raditors and or send steam to the attic.

I think you can make a strong arguement for both systems.

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133792313.559916.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Aidan wrote:
>
>
>
> Should be THIS;
>
> http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/pdfs/link_up.pdf
>

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-07, 3:21 am

Ned, I assume you live in an older northern area/city as I do(Buffalo)
to run across the older open systems. These are the places the true
wetheads were born, fathered by the old navy boilermen who wrote the
book or at least corrected it at times.
If Santa brings me a scanner, I'll post a few pics. so everyone can
inform me of all the errors I've made.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-08, 10:21 am

Ned Flanders wrote:

> Kenny, he only knows what he has seen.
and previously;
>plz read before you respond with usless/ repeat information.

Ned, you're a knob.

If I had asked for information and somebody had obliged me by spending
their time in offering their opinion, then I'd like to think I'd have
the courtesy to say 'Thank you', even if I disagreed with the opinion
offered. Whilst I don't believe that all Americans are as ill-mannered
as you, you're obviously the exception. I'd suggest you lay off the
internet, your contributions here are depriving your village of the
services of it's idiot.

If you had looked at the link I had posted, then you would have seen
that it states that solid fuel boilers must be open-vented.I would
guess that this is because it is a requirement of the British Standard
that covers the installation of solid fuel boilers. If it were of any
interest, I'd look it up, but it's not.

You are not obliged to comply with this, but we in the UK are. If I
were to install a solid fuel boiler on a sealed system and there was
any sort of a failure, then our HSE would hold me criminally
responsible. In simple words that means I would be liable to be sued in
the civil courts for damages, prosecuted in the criminal courts and, if
convicted, fined and jailed. These standards are drawn up by committees
of industry-recognised experts, so there are good, practical reasons
why they would require the safety devices that they have specified.

Since you and Kenny are not in the UK, what you do is entirely up to
you. If you are going to rely upon a mechanical damper and a "heat
sync" to prevent an explosive burst of your ill-considered system, then
I will be grateful for the Atlantic.
[color=darkred]
> Our systems don't allow super heated water to fill
> the houses raditors and or send steam to the attic.

No, they don't. So, WTF is "superheated water"? Superheated steam I
know all about, this is a new one on me; I must have missed that bit of
the syllabus.

>taco air scoop with a hyvent with an extrol

The Taco air scoop relies on an automatic air vent, which would blow
"superheated water"/steam out if the system overheated. I think you may
find that it isn't rated for 100 degC so would probably melt.

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-09, 12:21 am

"WTF is "superheated water"? "

Super heated water is water heated 212 degrees or over.( sorry 100C in
your case)

"If you are going to rely upon a mechanical damper and a "heat
sync" to prevent an explosive burst of your ill-considered system"

You are misinformed here, mechanical dampers are used on gas appliances
and are powered to close. A failure would cause it to open.
Todays solid fuel systems such as a wood fired boiler are air tight and
combustion air is induced. A failure would cause it to idle down and
smother, not run wild.

Our "ill-considered system" you speak of is really state of the art
today. I suggest you check with your neighbors on your side of the pond
like Sweden and Denmark. They seem to be the world leaders today in
solid fuel systems.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-09, 6:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Super heated water is water heated 212 degrees or over.( sorry 100C in
> your case)

No, it is not.

100 degC is the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. You cannot
superheat water, it becomes steam. Similarly, with increasing pressure
the boiling point increases, but you still can't have "superheated
water". The use of the term suggests an unfamiliarity with steam
tables. It is an oxymoron.

> "If you are going to rely upon a mechanical damper and a "heat
> sync" to prevent an explosive burst of your ill-considered system"
>
> You are misinformed here,

> Todays solid fuel systems such as a wood fired boiler are air tight and
> combustion air is induced. A failure would cause it to idle down and
> smother, not run wild.

You are assuming that it will always work when another failure has
occurred. It is hardly a fail-to-safe syatem. Given that it could take
out the side of your house, I think that is not a safe assumption

You might choose to trust a mechanical damper; I would not.
I'd still have to comply with UK laws which seem opposed to a sealed
system.

> Our "ill-considered system" you speak of is really state of the art
> today.

You think so; I disagree. Ned's system will rely on a "heat sync". I
would have more confidence in his selection of safety devices if he
could spell them.

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-09, 10:21 am

"100 degC is the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. You cannot
superheat water, it becomes steam."

Heating 101A today,
A change of state from water to gas/steam occurs under atmospheric
pressure(14.7lbs) at 100C/212F. In a closed system under increased
pressure, water can be heated well over 100C/212F with out changing its
state. Thus becoming known as super heated water.
I thought science and physics had no boundries and was universial, If
thats true you may need to educate yourself a little more on the
subject.

"You are assuming that it will always work when another failure has
occurred. It is hardly a fail-to-safe syatem."

No actually we know it will work but we always assume it will fail and
take every precaution possible. You see we are also held responsible
for our actions over here too.

I know we live in two different countries, with laws and codes we must
obey. Our heating systems are different thats understandable. What I
find difficult to comprehend is when we don't understand something on
your side we ask questions with open minds to further our own education
on the subject and understand your systems. On the other hand You guys
are ignorant of our systems, could care less about learning anything
new because you already know everything on the subject and your way is
the only way thats right. Thats sad, then you have the balls to insult
us and call us ill-mannered Americans.
You state our systems are dangerous and unsafe, hell I have to think
long and hard to even remember one instance in the last 30 years here
in the states that was related to a hydronic heating system failure
that took someones life or home.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-09, 11:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> Thats sad, then you have the balls to insult
> us and call us ill-mannered Americans.

On the contrary. I had said;

"Whilst I don't believe that all Americans are as ill-mannered
as you, you're obviously the exception."

after Ned had said;

Ned Flanders wrote:
>plz read before you respond with usless/ repeat information.
and
> Kenny, he only knows what he has seen.

I'm sure there's too many of offensive idiots over here, none of them
have yet chosen to insult me after I'd given him some information.

>You state our systems are dangerous and unsafe,

Where did I state that?

I just don't like the idea of a solid fuel boiler on a sealed system; I
couldn't care less what you do. I think the reason why open expansion
tanks are less common in the northern US is because of the severity of
your winters; we have the Gulf Stream. The F&E tanks are less liable to
freeze here. I'd probably rethink it if a system was to be exposed to
pro-longed sub-zero temperatures. The open vent is only one safety
device & it is fairly fool proof. There should be several others.

>On the other hand You guys
>are ignorant of our systems, could care less about learning anything
>new because you already know everything on the subject and your way is
>the only way thats right.

You are mistaken. I have several textbooks from the US on heating; I've
learnt some godd stuff from them. I regularly read the articles by
Joihn Siegenthaller PE in PMag and PMEngineer. The authors manage to
write without being offensive.

Goedjn

2005-12-09, 1:21 pm

> 100 degC is the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. You cannot
>superheat water, it becomes steam. Similarly, with increasing pressure

This is, in fact, not true, although one is unlikely to manage it
in a home boiler system. Look for a webpage entitled
"Unwise microwave experiments" for more info.

gruhn

2005-12-09, 1:21 pm

> In a closed system under increased
> pressure, water can be heated well over 100C/212F with out changing its
> state. Thus becoming known as super heated water.

Not the definition I'm familiar with.

> I thought science and physics had no boundries and was universial, If
> thats true you may need to educate yourself a little more on the
> subject.

Since you are getting hoity toity about it, maybe you should provide a good
reference for your definition.

Matt

2005-12-09, 1:21 pm

On 9 Dec 2005 01:17:04 -0800, "Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
>
>
>No, it is not.
>
> 100 degC is the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. You cannot
>superheat water, it becomes steam. Similarly, with increasing pressure
>the boiling point increases, but you still can't have "superheated
>water". The use of the term suggests an unfamiliarity with steam
>tables. It is an oxymoron.

I tend to agree. Unless you are operating at supercritical pressures,
once the temperature of water is raised above its boiling point and
the system is pressurised to above atmospheric pressure you will
*always* have a mix of water and steam, this could typically be at a
300 deg C and 170bar in a power station boiler drum. On a multipass
boiler you will (hopefully!) see a distinct water level in the drum
where the steam is separated out at the top and the water
re-circulates back into the furnace walls. From there the "wet" steam
from the top of the drum is heated further to become "dry" superheated
steam (at around 570 deg C) At 300 deg C the water in the bottom of
the drum is certainly hot but that is all, I've never seen it referred
to as superheated.

Operate at supercritical pressures (circa 300bar) with a single pass
boiler and the transition from water to steam takes place without the
vapour phase i.e. hot water more or less instantly becomes superheated
steam. This used to play havoc with the materials used for the boiler
tubes though!

--

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-09, 9:21 pm

I'm speechless, you've got to be kidding. I now know why we can't come
to common ground here.

kenny b

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-09, 10:22 pm

Here is a link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-09, 10:22 pm

"There are no superheated water systems. Ned used the term because he
didn't understand it."

Well, we're both waiting!

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-10, 7:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
Thank you for the Wikipedia link.

Had you read it?

"In physics, superheating .......... is the phenomenon in which a
liquid is heated to a temperature higher than its standard boiling
point, without actually boiling. This can be caused by rapidly heating
a homogeneous substance while leaving it undisturbed (so as to avoid
the introduction of air bubbles at nucleation sites). Because a
superheated fluid is the result of artificial circumstances, it is
metastable, and is disrupted as soon as the circumstances abate,
leading to the liquid boiling very suddenly and violently-a very
dangerous situation."

My previous comment;

> "There are no superheated water systems. Ned used the term because he
> didn't understand it."

was right. It seems that you can get superheated water under artificial
circumstances/ laboratory conditions, so I have learnt something from
the discussion.

However, it does not exist in commercial heating. Water heated to >100
degC under pressure is NOT superheated.

> Well, we're both waiting!

What for?

Ned Flanders

2005-12-10, 9:21 pm

I used the term as an adjective. I unlike you was fully aware of the fact
that you can superheat water. I did not mean it in its literal sense, just
as when I say you are wicked stupid; I don't mean you are stupid and a mean
person. You are just upset that you have been made to sound stupid and are
grabbing for anything you can to "make a point", like raging on spelling
mistakes.

Here is a fact that is clear for all to read.
One person here said that I was stupid to think you can super heat water.
They said that I do not understand superheating because you can't superheat
water.
We all agree now that he/she was wrong and was just talking out of his/her
XXX with no actual knowledge of the science/ physics behind it.

I am talking about closed systems where you can have extreme pressure in a
very very unlikely event of every safety device failing. We know that an
electric water heater can become a bomb if the relief valve fails but we
don't outlaw them because we know it is soo rare.

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134212036.350821.6870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> Thank you for the Wikipedia link.
>
> Had you read it?
>
> "In physics, superheating .......... is the phenomenon in which a
> liquid is heated to a temperature higher than its standard boiling
> point, without actually boiling. This can be caused by rapidly heating
> a homogeneous substance while leaving it undisturbed (so as to avoid
> the introduction of air bubbles at nucleation sites). Because a
> superheated fluid is the result of artificial circumstances, it is
> metastable, and is disrupted as soon as the circumstances abate,
> leading to the liquid boiling very suddenly and violently-a very
> dangerous situation."
>
> My previous comment;
>
>
> was right. It seems that you can get superheated water under artificial
> circumstances/ laboratory conditions, so I have learnt something from
> the discussion.
>
> However, it does not exist in commercial heating. Water heated to >100
> degC under pressure is NOT superheated.
>
>
>
> What for?
>

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-10, 9:21 pm

Water in a pressurized boiler can easily be heated above the boiling
point, and many times is in a pressurized system. Therefore the water
is superheated at that point! Just what can't you comprehend here. You
and your friends are clearly wrong, I POSTED THE FACTS AND CLEARLY
BACKED THEM UP! You and your buddies were clearly wrong.
Why don't you read the last ten posts again, they clearly state your
stance and ignorance.

I guess the next step is to admit the yankees were right, thats gotta
hurt huh!

kenny b

gruhn

2005-12-11, 5:21 am

> don't outlaw them because we know it is soo rare.

You musn't be in the US.

Aidan

2005-12-11, 5:21 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:
> I unlike you was fully aware of the fact
> that you can superheat water.

Really? So you meant that an open vented system was liable to fill the
attic with smooth containers of pure water heated to >100 degC in
microwave ovens without causing any disturbance likely to cause the
water to flash off into steam?

No, you didn't mean that.

You used a technical term incorrectly because you had no idea what it
meant. I'm an engineer; 'superheat' has a specific meaning with regard
to steam or refrigerant vapour.
Superheated steam I know about, having worked on HP steam systems.
Superheated water I'd never heard of because it is as rare as rocking
horse shit. It doesn't exist outside of laboratories or kitchen
accidents.

> You are just upset that you have been made to sound stupid and are
> grabbing for anything you can to "make a point", like raging on spelling
> mistakes.

I couldn't care less about your spelling, providing you knew what you
were talking about. I got annoyed when you started being offensive. You
haven't got a clue. The prospect of a half-wit like you putting
together an unvented solid-fuelled heating system scares the crap out
of me.

> Here is a fact that is clear for all to read.
> One person here said that I was stupid to think you can super heat water.

If you still think you can get superheated water out of a wood-fired
boiler, then you are stupid.

> They said that I do not understand superheating because you can't superheat
> water. We all agree now that he/she was wrong and was just talking out of his/her
> XXX with no actual knowledge of the science/ physics behind it.

I have spent a long time studying the physics. I know that
'superheated' means a fluid has been heated above it's boiling point. I
know that water usually becomes steam when heated to >100 degC at STP.
'Superheated water' makes about as much sense as the proverbial
snowball in hell, liquid ice or a lead zeppelin.

> I am talking about closed systems where you can have extreme pressure in a
> very very unlikely event of every safety device failing. We know that an
> electric water heater can become a bomb if the relief valve fails but we
> don't outlaw them because we know it is soo rare.

There have been lots of explosions involving unvented water heaters; I
am qualified to install them. They should have two thermostats which
should shut off the heat if the water overheats. Many such heaters have
exploded after these two devices, and the two pressure relief valves,
had failed. Your system will not have these safety devices.

In comparison I know of only one explosion involving an open vented
system, which happened after the open vent froze. It is a safer system.

Ned Flanders

2005-12-11, 6:21 pm

sad he now has to resort to ignoring what we say and putting words in our
mouths.

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134332918.643129.33090@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ned Flanders wrote:
>
> Really? So you meant that an open vented system was liable to fill the
> attic with smooth containers of pure water heated to >100 degC in
> microwave ovens without causing any disturbance likely to cause the
> water to flash off into steam?
>
> No, you didn't mean that.
>
> You used a technical term incorrectly because you had no idea what it
> meant. I'm an engineer; 'superheat' has a specific meaning with regard
> to steam or refrigerant vapour.
> Superheated steam I know about, having worked on HP steam systems.
> Superheated water I'd never heard of because it is as rare as rocking
> horse shit. It doesn't exist outside of laboratories or kitchen
> accidents.
>
>
>
> I couldn't care less about your spelling, providing you knew what you
> were talking about. I got annoyed when you started being offensive. You
> haven't got a clue. The prospect of a half-wit like you putting
> together an unvented solid-fuelled heating system scares the crap out
> of me.
>
>
> If you still think you can get superheated water out of a wood-fired
> boiler, then you are stupid.
>
>
> I have spent a long time studying the physics. I know that
> 'superheated' means a fluid has been heated above it's boiling point. I
> know that water usually becomes steam when heated to >100 degC at STP.
> 'Superheated water' makes about as much sense as the proverbial
> snowball in hell, liquid ice or a lead zeppelin.
>
>
> There have been lots of explosions involving unvented water heaters; I
> am qualified to install them. They should have two thermostats which
> should shut off the heat if the water overheats. Many such heaters have
> exploded after these two devices, and the two pressure relief valves,
> had failed. Your system will not have these safety devices.
>
> In comparison I know of only one explosion involving an open vented
> system, which happened after the open vent froze. It is a safer system.
>

Aidan

2005-12-11, 7:21 pm

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> Water in a pressurized boiler can easily be heated above the boiling
> point, and many times is in a pressurized system. Therefore the water
> is superheated at that point! Just what can't you comprehend here. You
> and your friends are clearly wrong, I POSTED THE FACTS AND CLEARLY
> BACKED THEM UP! You and your buddies were clearly wrong.
> Why don't you read the last ten posts again, they clearly state your
> stance and ignorance.

Kenny, with all due respect, you have posted a link that states the
exact opposite of what you thought it said.

Here is a link to a set of on-line steam tables. You can flip between
metric & imperial units.

http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_steam.htm

If you look at the boiling temperature at 1.013 bar absolute
(atmospheric pressure) you will see that it is 100 degC. Water or steam
heated above the boiling point (100 degC at atmospheric pressure) would
be superheated. Generally, you can't superheat water because it turns
into steam.

Atmospheric pressure is 1.013 bar absolute or 0 bar gauge.

If you look at a pressurized system running at, let us say, 3 bar
gauge, you will see that the boiling point is 143.75 degC. Water or
steam heated above the boiling point (143.75 degC at 3 bar) would be
superheated.Water at more than 100 degC but less than 143.75 degC AND
at 3 bar, is NOT superheated, because the boiling point is not 100
degC, it is 143.75 degC. Water or steam at 3 bar and at more than
143.75 degC is superheated. Generally, you can't superheat water at 3
bar above 143.75 degC because it turns into steam.

Now have you got it? Anyone with any engineering qualifications who
reads this will be howling with laughter at your insistence that you
can superheat water by pressurizing it.

> I guess the next step is to admit the yankees were right, thats gotta
> hurt huh!

It will be a pleasure to do so. Please advise us when it happens.

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-11, 10:21 pm

"Kenny, with all due respect, you have posted a link that states the
exact opposite of what you thought it said."

You know your a real XXX, my original post and the link are below.
Looks almost word to word to me.
Let me add I will no longer give any of your posts credibility after
all the psycho babble bullshit that your peddling trying to cover your
uneducated XXX. Anyone with even a little class would of admitted he
was wrong. Your just another wannabe.

1) Heating 101A today,
A change of state from water to gas/steam occurs under atmospheric
pressure(14.7lbs) at 100C/212F. In a closed system under increased
pressure, water can be heated well over 100C/212F with out changing its

state. Thus becoming known as super heated water.
I thought science and physics had no boundries and was universial, If
thats true you may need to educate yourself a little more on the
subject.

2)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In physics, superheating (sometimes referred to as boiling retardation,
boiling delay, or defervescence) is the phenomenon in which a liquid is
heated to a temperature higher than its standard boiling point, without
actually boiling.

kenny b

gruhn

2005-12-11, 11:21 pm

Kenny is why I fear teaching.

Rick

2005-12-12, 1:21 am

<kennybs@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1134351890.137914.86610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> "Kenny, with all due respect, you have posted a link that states the
> exact opposite of what you thought it said."
>
> You know your a real XXX, my original post and the link are below.
> Looks almost word to word to me.
> Let me add I will no longer give any of your posts credibility after
> all the psycho babble bullshit that your peddling trying to cover
your
> uneducated XXX. Anyone with even a little class would of admitted he
> was wrong. Your just another wannabe.
>
> 1) Heating 101A today,
> A change of state from water to gas/steam occurs under atmospheric
> pressure(14.7lbs) at 100C/212F. In a closed system under increased
> pressure, water can be heated well over 100C/212F with out changing
its
>
> state. Thus becoming known as super heated water.
> I thought science and physics had no boundries and was universial,
If
> thats true you may need to educate yourself a little more on the
> subject.
>
>
> 2)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> In physics, superheating (sometimes referred to as boiling
retardation,
> boiling delay, or defervescence) is the phenomenon in which a liquid
is
> heated to a temperature higher than its standard boiling point,
without
> actually boiling.
>
> kenny b

From "Steam-its generation and use" by Babcock & Wilcox

"...the first two columns of Tables 1 and 2 (ASME Steam Tables) define
the pressure-temperature correspondence for equilibrium between the
liquid and vapor phases referred to as saturation. Steam heated beyond
saturation to higher temperatures is superheated steam. Water heated
to temperatures below saturation (subcooled water) is referred to as
compressed water in the steam tables.

From "Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics" by Gordon J. Van Wylen
and Richard E. Sonntag

"If a substance exists as a liquid at the saturation temperature and
pressure, it is called saturated liquid. If the temoerature of the
liquid is lower than the saturation temperature for the existing
pressure, it is called either a subcooled liquid (implying that the
temperature is lower than the saturation temperature for the given
pressure) or a compressed liquid (implying that the pressure is
greater than the saturation pressure for the given temperature)"

"If a substance exists as a vapor at the saturation temperature, it is
called saturated vapor. When the vapor is at a temeprature greatrer
than the saturation temperature, it is said to exist as a superheated
vapor"

I would imagine you would be hard pressed to find a chart for steam
(or refrigerants for that matter) that didn't follow this terminology.

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-12, 1:21 am

Hey uneducated XXXXXXX #2 check out the following link. Residentual
baseboard output rated at "water temp" of 220 degrees. How could that
be?

http://www.slantfin.com/spec-30rr.html

You couldn't pass my class, maybe you could get Ned to tutor you. ;)

You guys just keep diggin the hole deeper.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-12, 7:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:

> 1) Heating 101A today,

What is "Heating 101A today"?
Is it a link? If so, I cannot find it, a Google search returns only
your posts in this thread.

Is it a book? If so, Amazon do not stock it.

> 2)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> In physics, superheating (sometimes referred to as boiling retardation,
> boiling delay, or defervescence) is the phenomenon in which a liquid is
> heated to a temperature higher than its standard boiling point, without
> actually boiling.

In the Wikepedia article, the words "boiling point" are a hyperlink. If
you follow that link you will come upon another Wikipedia article in
which it is stated;

"The boiling point corresponds to the temperature at which the vapor
pressure of the substance equals the ambient pressure. Thus THE BOILING
POINT IS DEPENDENT ON THE PRESSURE."

Superheat refers to the amount by which a dry saturated vapour
exceeds the saturation temperature/boiling point for that pressure.

Whilst it has been very entertaining trying to teach you some
fundamental thermodynamics, it was obviously a futile cause.

Are there any American PEs reading this who can explain superheat to
Kenny in his own language? He won't believe any Europeans. His
persistence may be giving the impression that all Americans are
similarly intellectually challenged. I remain confident that this is
not the case and that we have just been unfortunate with the two
representatives of your fine country who have posted here so far..

Aidan

2005-12-12, 7:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> Hey uneducated XXXXXXX #2 check out the following link. Residentual
> baseboard output rated at "water temp" of 220 degrees. How could that
> be?

220 degF = 104 degC.

Either a pressurized hot water system operating at a pressure above
about 3 psi gauge, or a steam system using superheated steam which has
about 8 degF of superheat.

What I find utterly mind-boggling about the link is that anyone would
consider operating a modern domestic heating system at more than 212
degF (100 degC) or, for that matter at more than 175 degF (80 degC).
Instant burns if you touch any part of it and no concept of thermal
efficiency. Haven't you heard of condensing boilers?

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-12, 9:21 am

deeper and deeper

I just realized you can't read, so this is really pointless.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-12, 9:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> deeper and deeper
>
> I just realized you can't read, so this is really pointless.

You didn't answer the question.

>What is "Heating 101A today"?
>Is it a link? If so, I cannot find it, a Google search returns only
>your posts in this thread.

>Is it a book? If so, Amazon do not stock it.

Bye. Have a nice day.

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-12, 10:21 am

Heating 101A was my futile attempt to teach someone something.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-12, 11:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> Heating 101A was my futile attempt to teach someone something.

That explains it. You made it up.

>Anyone with even a little class would of admitted he was wrong.

You said it. I do agree with that.

Ned Flanders

2005-12-12, 11:21 am

it is useless they are not even responding to the points we make. Just some
blowhards that want so badly to be right for once in their life.

Face it you have not done anything to make your own point, only reinforce
the statement that we said you can superheat water. I don't see where I
said you can or can't do it at atmospheric pressure but the whole microwave
test puts some holes in that argument.

I am curious if you think that an open system does not have pressure drop
and increase above atmospheric pressure.

The bottom line though is the whole "superheated" statement has been taken
out of context and if you took the time to read you would see that. Your
"arguments" are insane and do not actually answer or correct anybody. If
you want to belive that I honestly don't know what superheated means then
that is fine. My answers to questions are good and I have nothing to be
insecure about, unlike you apparently.

Here is the real question!!

If the limeys are such good plumbers then why do they all smell soo bad and
have rotten teeth???? Do we have better DNA or is it a hygiene issue, or
ignorance???

<kennybs@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1134395739.359618.301430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Heating 101A was my futile attempt to teach someone something.
>
> kenny b
>

Ned Flanders

2005-12-12, 11:21 am

you are a dolt.

wtf are you saying that the US has outlawed electric water heaters for?

those who can't do teach!

> don't outlaw them because we know it is soo rare.

>You musn't be in the US.

"gruhn" <spam@hwb.com> wrote in message news:pb5nf.1095$Ru.284@fed1read05...
> Kenny is why I fear teaching.
>

Aidan

2005-12-12, 11:21 am

Ned Flanders wrote:

> Here is the real question!!
>
> If the limeys are such good plumbers then why do they all smell soo bad and
> have rotten teeth???? Do we have better DNA or is it a hygiene issue, or
> ignorance???

I've no idea, Ned. You'd better ask a limey.

You have a nice day, too.
And a happy Christmas to you both.

869999@gmail.com

2005-12-12, 11:21 am

http://www.hf30.com/

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-12, 2:21 pm

"That explains it. You made it up."

Your comming full circle here with your bullshit and you lost me. Made
what up?

kenny b

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-12, 2:21 pm

"it is useless they are not even responding to the points we make. Just
some
blowhards that want so badly to be right for once in their life."

Ned I totally agree with your statement, it's like listening to the
Clintons.

kenny b

Aidan

2005-12-12, 5:21 pm

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:

> Ned I totally agree with your statement

Kenny is Ned.

Dr. Hardcrab

2005-12-12, 6:21 pm

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134420108.364072.5450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
>
>
> Kenny is Ned.

They killed Kenny????!!!!

YOU BASTARDS!!!!!!!!

oh......

I thought you said Kenny was dead.....

(nevermind)

Ned Flanders

2005-12-12, 8:21 pm

He loves Lemmiwinks best

"Dr. Hardcrab" <drhardcrab@hotmail.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:Aqmnf.37086$Y7.5760@trnddc02...
>
> "Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134420108.364072.5450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> They killed Kenny????!!!!
>
> YOU BASTARDS!!!!!!!!
>
> oh......
>
> I thought you said Kenny was dead.....
>
> (nevermind)
>

Red Jacket

2005-12-12, 9:21 pm

Can we now fight over Type L over Type N ?

<kennybs@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1134262911.140728.179180@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Water in a pressurized boiler can easily be heated above the boiling
> point, and many times is in a pressurized system. Therefore the water
> is superheated at that point! Just what can't you comprehend here. You
> and your friends are clearly wrong, I POSTED THE FACTS AND CLEARLY
> BACKED THEM UP! You and your buddies were clearly wrong.
> Why don't you read the last ten posts again, they clearly state your
> stance and ignorance.
>
> I guess the next step is to admit the yankees were right, thats gotta
> hurt huh!
>
> kenny b
>

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-12, 10:21 pm

"Can we now fight over Type L over Type N ?"

Type "N" ----- ? Oh UK version of "M" but better right.

kenny b

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 1:21 am

<kennybs@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1134363088.418199.90730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey uneducated XXXXXXX #2 check out the following link. Residentual
> baseboard output rated at "water temp" of 220 degrees. How could that
> be?
>
> http://www.slantfin.com/spec-30rr.html
>
> You couldn't pass my class, maybe you could get Ned to tutor you. ;)
>
> You guys just keep diggin the hole deeper.
>
> kenny b

If I may jump in,

Your assuming that 212 is the boiling point of water and it is not. Its the
boiling point of water at 14.7 PSI. Those in the Alps have the standard
water boiling point of 175 F. Water will boil below 71F if its under a
vacuum, so technically, according to your definition, all the water at 14.7
atmosphere is 'superheated'.

Rich

Oscar_Lives

2005-12-13, 1:21 am

"Geoman^^" <Geo2> wrote in message
news:1KCdnUI7RfSj0gPenZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> <kennybs@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:1134363088.418199.90730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If I may jump in,
>
> Your assuming that 212 is the boiling point of water and it is not. Its
> the boiling point of water at 14.7 PSI. Those in the Alps have the
> standard water boiling point of 175 F. Water will boil below 71F if its
> under a vacuum, so technically, according to your definition, all the
> water at 14.7 atmosphere is 'superheated'.
>
> Rich
>

Isn't the water supply under pressure?

I guess that just laid a big turd in your food bowl...

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 1:21 am

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134391910.719613.255110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
>
> You didn't answer the question.
>
>
>
> Bye. Have a nice day.

In refrigeration and hydronics, superheat is ALWAYS known as the added
temperature rise of a VAPOR. Liquid temperature will increase with pressure
without a change of state. Liquid temperature at a given temperature is its
'SATURATED" temperature, anything below that is SUBCOOLED. So, if you have
15 PSI on a closed system you can have 240 degrees F and not have a change
of state. Anything below that point is SUBCOOLED liquid. The 240 is the
SATURATED temperature of that liquid at the given pressure, In other words,
the liquid is TOTALLY SATURATED with the maximum BTU's before a change of
state. If you raise the temperature higher you will have a change of state
but the steam will be the same as the temperature of the remaining water in
the system. Any further BTU's added to the system which raises the STEAM
above the 240 F is SUPERHEATED. You can NOT have superheated liquid, it
violates all physics classifications and isn't logical.

The water in our atmosphere at 14.7 PSI boils at 212F. Try to superheat it
past that point and not have a change of state. You can superheat a vapor
almost forever if the container would survive. Your confusing saturated
temperature/pressure to superheat. Superheat virtually has no end to it,
saturation does. You can NOT take water and heat it past its saturation
point and not have a change of state.

Sorry, Kenny, but your entire thought of superheated water in a liquid
state goes against all the engineering studies I have taken, and they
completely defy the concepts of refrigeration and hydronics.

Rich

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 2:21 am

"Oscar_Lives" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rfsnf.616326$x96.441488@attbi_s72...
>
> "Geoman^^" <Geo2> wrote in message
> news:1KCdnUI7RfSj0gPenZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> Isn't the water supply under pressure?
>
> I guess that just laid a big turd in your food bowl...

Oscar, if your posting to my post, then all I can say is your confusing
subcooling, saturation and superheat. Superheat is only applied to vapor
gases. Saturation defines the temp of a liquid that is below saturation
point.

Rich

>
>

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 2:21 am

"Geoman^^" <Geo2> wrote in message
news:4cOdna8hRZQKwQPenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> "Oscar_Lives" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:rfsnf.616326$x96.441488@attbi_s72...
>
> Oscar, if your posting to my post, then all I can say is your confusing
> subcooling, saturation and superheat. Superheat is only applied to vapor
> gases. Saturation defines the temp of a liquid that is below saturation
> point.
>
> Rich

I meant to say Saturation defines the temp of a liquid that is below the
changing state of the liquid to a vapor phase, which then can be
superheated.

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 7:21 am

Red Jacket

2005-12-13, 9:21 am

Hey ! at least its a start !

<kennybs@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1134438046.199877.320680@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Can we now fight over Type L over Type N ?"
>
> Type "N" ----- ? Oh UK version of "M" but better right.
>
> kenny b
>

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-13, 9:21 am

"Sorry, Kenny, but your entire thought of superheated water in a
liquid
state goes against all the engineering studies I have taken, and they
completely defy the concepts of refrigeration and hydronics."

Sir I've posted an articulate statement in the original post, included
all stated facts and backed them up. What more can I do?

"So, if you have 15 PSI on a closed system you can have 240 degrees F
and not have a change of state."

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 9:21 am

Oscar_Lives

2005-12-13, 10:21 am

Oscar_Lives

2005-12-13, 10:21 am

"Geoman^^" <Geo2> wrote in message
news:PKWdnRLOuq8yyQPeRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
>
> "Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134391910.719613.255110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> In refrigeration and hydronics, superheat is ALWAYS known as the added
> temperature rise of a VAPOR. Liquid temperature will increase with
> pressure without a change of state. Liquid temperature at a given
> temperature is its 'SATURATED" temperature, anything below that is
> SUBCOOLED. So, if you have 15 PSI on a closed system you can have 240
> degrees F and not have a change of state. Anything below that point is
> SUBCOOLED liquid. The 240 is the SATURATED temperature of that liquid at
> the given pressure, In other words, the liquid is TOTALLY SATURATED with
> the maximum BTU's before a change of state. If you raise the temperature
> higher you will have a change of state but the steam will be the same as
> the temperature of the remaining water in the system. Any further BTU's
> added to the system which raises the STEAM above the 240 F is SUPERHEATED.
> You can NOT have superheated liquid, it violates all physics
> classifications and isn't logical.
>
> The water in our atmosphere at 14.7 PSI boils at 212F. Try to superheat
> it past that point and not have a change of state. You can superheat a
> vapor almost forever if the container would survive. Your confusing
> saturated temperature/pressure to superheat. Superheat virtually has no
> end to it, saturation does. You can NOT take water and heat it past its
> saturation point and not have a change of state.
>
> Sorry, Kenny, but your entire thought of superheated water in a liquid
> state goes against all the engineering studies I have taken, and they
> completely defy the concepts of refrigeration and hydronics.
>
> Rich
>
>

I hope this Kenny idiot doesn't teach in my state. He seems like a real
dumbass who furthers the stereotype "Those who can't do, teach".

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 10:21 am

kennybs@adelphia.net

2005-12-13, 10:21 am

(Sorry I hit the wrong key and posted before I was finished.)

"So, if you have 15 PSI on a closed system you can have 240 degrees F
and not have a change of state."

It would require more then 15 psi to super heat water to 240 degrees.
Temperature and pressure are a constant.

Question: what is the cause of a water heater explosion that will take
a house off it's foundation? Think about it for a minute.

Is it not the rapid and volatile change of state of superheated water
to a gas/steam caused by its rapid release into atmospheric pressure.
Under Aidan's terms this would not be logical. I believe a refresher
course in kinetics is needed here. Its time to learn the facts for
oneself instead of relying upon others and hearsay.

kenny b

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 12:21 pm

"Oscar_Lives" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:I6Anf.617318$x96.172389@attbi_s72...
>
> "Geoman^^" <Geo2> wrote in message
> news:4cOdna8hRZQKwQPenZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
>
> Sorry Geo. No, I was replying to Clueless Kenny.

Thanks for clarifying that, Oscar, I really thought for a moment that you
were loosing it ! LOL !!! I thought, "What in the world has happened to
Oscar, did he hit his head too? :-)))

Rich

>

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 12:21 pm

you CANNOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A RELIABLE SOURCE!!! READ THESE TWO LINKS!

Wikipedia is a BLOG and NOT an encyclopedia that is reliable. Anyone can
help make it up and even the founder admits to this. So please, post another
source that substantiates your claims of what superheat water is, you won't
find any.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0...n_story_related

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/1...uality_problem/

http://www.google.com/search?q=Wikipedia+problems

"Aidan" <amcmaho@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134212036.350821.6870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:
> Thank you for the Wikipedia link.
>
> Had you read it?
>
> "In physics, superheating .......... is the phenomenon in which a
> liquid is heated to a temperature higher than its standard boiling
> point, without actually boiling. This can be caused by rapidly heating
> a homogeneous substance while leaving it undisturbed (so as to avoid
> the introduction of air bubbles at nucleation sites). Because a
> superheated fluid is the result of artificial circumstances, it is
> metastable, and is disrupted as soon as the circumstances abate,
> leading to the liquid boiling very suddenly and violently-a very
> dangerous situation."
>
> My previous comment;
>
>
> was right. It seems that you can get superheated water under artificial
> circumstances/ laboratory conditions, so I have learnt something from
> the discussion.
>
> However, it does not exist in commercial heating. Water heated to >100
> degC under pressure is NOT superheated.
>
>
>
> What for?
>

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 12:21 pm

<kennybs@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1134482397.096807.120800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> (Sorry I hit the wrong key and posted before I was finished.)
>
> "So, if you have 15 PSI on a closed system you can have 240 degrees F
> and not have a change of state."
>
> It would require more then 15 psi to super heat water to 240 degrees.
> Temperature and pressure are a constant.
>
> Question: what is the cause of a water heater explosion that will take
> a house off it's foundation? Think about it for a minute.
>
> Is it not the rapid and volatile change of state of superheated water
> to a gas/steam caused by its rapid release into atmospheric pressure.
> Under Aidan's terms this would not be logical. I believe a refresher
> course in kinetics is needed here. Its time to learn the facts for
> oneself instead of relying upon others and hearsay.
>
> kenny b

No, it is not because of the 'superheated water', it is the EXPANSION of
water above its boiling point and it flashes to a volume that is over 1000
times its original mass, this is because the STEAM is superheated when the
pressure is reduced, NOT the water.

As to learning facts, I posted an interesting article about your resources,
it is a blog and not an encyclopedia.

Rich

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 12:21 pm

"Oscar_Lives" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_7Anf.624081$_o.25063@attbi_s71...
>
> "Geoman^^" <Geo2> wrote in message
> news:PKWdnRLOuq8yyQPeRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
>
> I hope this Kenny idiot doesn't teach in my state. He seems like a real
> dumbass who furthers the stereotype "Those who can't do, teach".

I agree with you Oscar, We know what he's thinking and it makes 'laymens'
sense, but its not factually correct.
>
>

Oscar_Lives

2005-12-13, 12:22 pm

Geoman^^

2005-12-13, 1:21 pm

Aidan

2005-12-13, 1:21 pm

kennybs@adelphia.net wrote:

> What more can I do?

Study more refrigeration & thermodynamics.

Troll less.

Ned Flanders

2005-12-13, 2:21 pm

here are some links to look at.

http://www.criticalprocesses.com/SHWmore.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...bcritical+water

http://www.waltersmfg.com/steam_cleaner_history.htm