Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They have automatic air bleeders for water. They have a reservoir to capture the air as it passes. There may be a large one near the boiler and smaller ones can often be found at key points such as the top of radiator or the line coming into the second floor.
The radiators in our house have been in use since the house was built in 1911. Only thing that has improved them was the purchase of a new furnace a few years ago. the new furnace doesn't keep heating the water all the time,
A furnace heats air, a boiler heats water. Nit picking, I know....
How difficult and expensive is it to repair/replace if there's an earthquake?
Firstly it's difficult and expensive to install, ideally it would be part of plan for full renovation or new build. At the very least it will require new ceilings or new floors. In a slab of concrete during new construction would be best but they have a variety of systems that retrofitted to any structure. Slab is also very effective at cooling in a geothermal sytem.
Earthquake concerns is interesting local issue, I would imagine the slab in this case is not a good idea. If the slab cracks and shifts it could easily sever the pex tubing like a pair of scissors and is going to be very difficult to fix. Pex is very flexible though and the systems used to retrofit would be much more flexible, unless you had major structural damage it should be fine and even then would be much more accessible for easy repair.
They have automatic air bleeders for water. They have a reservoir to capture the air as it passes. There may be a large one near the boiler and smaller ones can often be found at key points such as the top of radiator or the line coming into the second floor.
Yes and those are called vents or valves.
You do not need a key to bleed them as has been mentioned more than once in this thread.
Each of my radiators has one, and there are two on pipes at the boiler.
What are the advantages of steam heating in comparison with the water ?
With steam you can have the one pipe system rather than two pipes. Steam heats up faster. When we had steam, I like that it leaked a little bit because it added some humidity, but it is not supposed to leak. You do not have pumps. Thus, you do not need electricity for it to work. Also you do not have to replace expensive pumps after 15-20 years. You might get some advantage in having more heat radiating form the pipes as they pass through walls and floors
It may be a little bit more efficient. Or maybe it is less. I have never seen a study on that. Probably there is one someplace.
It may be a little bit more efficient. Or maybe it is less. I have never seen a study on that. Probably there is one someplace.
Consider heat to be a glass of water. When you pour it into another glass and some dribbles onto the counter(heat going out the chimney) you have decreased the efficiency. Assuming all things equal with boiler operation like length and interval of the cycles the efficiency is the same to heat the water in the boiler for hot water or steam.
Boilers are most efficient the longer they run but at longer intervals, this is why thermostats have a 1 or 2 degree setback. If it's going on and off to maintain a more even average temperature you are short cycling it causing a loss in efficiency. You just spilled a little more water onto the counter.
If you have pipe going through your basement you going to lose heat to the basement, this is not necessarily a bad thing but if you have a rock foundation AKA the giant heat sponge you just spilled a liitle more water onto the counter.
Boilers are most efficient the longer they run but at longer intervals, this is why thermostats have a 1 or 2 degree setback. If it's going on and off to maintain a more even average temperature you are short cycling it causing a loss in efficiency. You just spilled a little more water onto the counter.
Then it seems that hot water will be more efficient. Hot water boilers tend to run continually running water out at 170 (i think), circulating it through the pies and radiators and then adding more heat as is passes back into the boiler fins. This keeps the boiler running longer. Steam heats the water above 220. Shoots it out into the radiators, lets it cool and condense and run back to the boiler then heats it up again. It seems like that would create this short cycling that you mentioned. At least a one pipe steam system would.
I do not know whether the new steam boilers are tankless like the hot water ones. Can you heat water to steam without a tank?
Then it seems that hot water will be more efficient. Hot water boilers tend to run continually running water out at 170 (i think), circulating it through the pies and radiators and then adding more heat as is passes back into the boiler fins. This keeps the boiler running longer. Steam heats the water above 220. Shoots it out into the radiators, lets it cool and condense and run back to the boiler then heats it up again. It seems like that would create this short cycling that you mentioned. At least a one pipe steam system would.
I do not know whether the new steam boilers are tankless like the hot water ones. Can you heat water to steam without a tank?
I am not expert on steam vs water heating, but you also have to consider that steam condensing in radiators gives up its heat of condensation to the room. Generally you get a lot more bang for your buck when you have a phase change than just a change of temperature without a change of phase. You'd have to run the numbers, for mass flow of steam or water, heat transfer coefficients of the radiators, and initial and final temperatures of water, steam, and condensate, to make a real comparison. I suspect that the question of which is more efficient depends on a lot of factors specific to the type of installation. Complexity of the system, maintenance requirements, and reliability will also play into it.
I am not expert on steam vs water heating, but you also have to consider that steam condensing in radiators gives up its heat of condensation to the room. Generally you get a lot more bang for your buck when you have a phase change than just a change of temperature without a change of phase. You'd have to run the numbers, for mass flow of steam or water, heat transfer coefficients of the radiators, and initial and final temperatures of water, steam, and condensate, to make a real comparison. I suspect that the question of which is more efficient depends on a lot of factors specific to the type of installation. Complexity of the system, maintenance requirements, and reliability will also play into it.
I am sure there is someone here ion CD that will do just that. Until then I am sticking with my answer to that equation: 42
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
