Jump to content

Hot water circuit design


jetzi

Featured Posts

6 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

No, if you refer to the original diagram, the water from the rad outlets doesn't up in the tap, but in the bottom of the calorifier. They are on the same circuit, but the water in the tap is directly from the top of the calorifier so is just as hot as in a "conventional" system.

 

 

No.  In your diagram the cooler water entering the bottom of the calorifier is the same water that comes out of the top, albeit a bit later.  The radiators will be more effective in transferring heat out of the cylinder that any indirect coil is putting it in.  So even when the heat source is operative, you will soon have only luke warm water in the cylinder and, for what it's worth, at the rads

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Mack said:

You have the calorifier coil and radiators in series.  That means that the radiators won't get warm until the calorifier is well on its way to working temperature. And also you can't heat water from the eberspacher or back bolier without also eventually heating the radiators. Put the calorifier coil in parallel with the rads with control valves and you can have independent control of water and space heating.

The original system had the rads in series with the Eber. Perhaps this is why it wasn't very effective for space heating? However the rads did seem to get warm almost immediately, but yes I can imagine that a lot of the energy went to heating the water.

 

  image.png.b16b43034dd3f482b3be80dd9c9f92a4.png

 

 

Here's an updated diagram that's also closer to scale. @Tony Brooks and @Mike the Boilerman do you think it's likely that a gravity feed system would work if I set it up like this? I'd use at least 22mm pipes. The effective length of the circuit for the furthest rad would be about 35 metres. The hot pipe would need to go under the gunwale around 1m higher than the return pipe. And the top coil of the calorifier would be about 1.5m higher than the back boiler.

 

9 hours ago, stegra said:

our third diagram includes a tap above the radiators; I assume this was an oversight. 

Not an oversight, maybe just a misnomer - I meant "tap" as a valve / stopcock to turn the rad on and off.

 

2 hours ago, Tacet said:

No.  In your diagram the cooler water entering the bottom of the calorifier is the same water that comes out of the top, albeit a bit later.  The radiators will be more effective in transferring heat out of the cylinder that any indirect coil is putting it in.  So even when the heat source is operative, you will soon have only luke warm water in the cylinder and, for what it's worth, at the rads

This is surely a function of the radiator output and the heat input - if the heat input is 4kW and the rads are 3kW, won't this result in the calorifier getting up to maximum temperature? I find it difficult to understand that the rads will always be more effective than transferring heat out of the cylinder than the coils will transfer it in. Is this because the coil is smaller than the rads and therefore will have a tougher time transferring energy than the rads will? If I can understand this, then this would be the nail in the coffin of the wacky tap-water-in-rads idea. If this is true, then this explains why you must always have the rads directly on the same circuit as the energy source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

This is surely a function of the radiator output and the heat input - if the heat input is 4kW and the rads are 3kW, won't this result in the calorifier getting up to maximum temperature? I find it difficult to understand that the rads will always be more effective than transferring heat out of the cylinder than the coils will transfer it in. Is this because the coil is smaller than the rads and therefore will have a tougher time transferring energy than the rads will? If I can understand this, then this would be the nail in the coffin of the wacky tap-water-in-rads idea. If this is true, then this explains why you must always have the rads directly on the same circuit as the energy source.

Yes.  You would need to ensure that the coil can transfer heat in to the cylinder faster than the radiators will extract it.  Clearly it is a matter specific to the fittings - but realistically, I doubt it is readily achievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the boat is something over about 57ft long and yes I am sure gravity circulation will work as long as you get the pipework correct.

 

I still don't understand this need to put the coil in series with the stove, boiler and radiators. I am convinced it will circulate by gravity perfectly well if you put the coil in parallel with the radiators. It did on my 54ft boat. Outlet from stove & Eber joined and running vertically upwards to a T or three port T valve. One leg of the T to coil and the other to the rads. A T valve would allow you to heat water & rads, just rads or just water. IF you use a T fit a full bore ball valve on the pipe going to the rads so they can be isolated to give water only heating but never ever set to water only when the stove is alight. If you can arrange both pipes from the T to have a slight upwards slope so much the better. The rads pipe will have because of the way the boat trims bow up a little, its the coil  pipe that would ideally need a slight upward slope but then you will need a vent of some sort at the top to bleed trapped air.

 

Your diagram is both unworkable and a potential bomb. First of all you need a header tank so T that into the lower orange pipe - then it will work but may explode if/when the stove runs away. To stop that you also need an open vent pipe either to the outside or into the header tank but if you do it into the tank  you may fill the boat with steam and rusty water spots. Mount the header tank as high as possible while still allowing you to top it up.  If your existing Eber circuit is sealed with an expansion vessel acting a s the reservoir then on no account do it that way with a stove. An open vent of reasonable bore (say 15mm minimum) is a vital safety feature.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

So the boat is something over about 57ft long and yes I am sure gravity circulation will work as long as you get the pipework correct.

It's 65', but the furthest rad will be about 40' from the calorifier / stove.

 

32 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I still don't understand this need to put the coil in series with the stove, boiler and radiators. I am convinced it will circulate by gravity perfectly well if you put the coil in parallel with the radiators.

I think the penny has dropped for me.

 

I thought the coils in the calorifier were for pulling heat out (as well as) putting heat in. I thought it was possible to use the calorifier as a central "heat battery" and use if for all my hot water / heating needs, hence, that it is possible to do space heating with the engine coolant by having the engine heat the calorifier and the calorifier heat the rads. That's why I wanted to put the coil in series, so that I could take heat from the calorifier.

37 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

If your existing Eber circuit is sealed with an expansion vessel acting a s the reservoir then on no account do it that way with a stove.

The existing Eber circuit has a header tank and no expansion vessel, so I presume this means that it is not a sealed circuit.

 

36 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

First of all you need a header tank so T that into the lower orange pipe - then it will work but may explode if/when the stove runs away. To stop that you also need an open vent pipe either to the outside or into the header tank

I have added these features to the diagram - I realised they would be necessary I just didn't put them on the diagram to keep it simple. I realise that there is  a big danger with back boilers and I certainly want the safest, most idiot proof design I can - I live aboard after all ?. I tried to follow your description - have I put the header and the vent in the correct place? And am I correct with my circuits now? What's to stop all my hot water bubbling up and out of my outside vent?

 

image.png.47265f15835cdfde1d742d04e9c376be.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

It's 65', but the furthest rad will be about 40' from the calorifier / stove.

 

I think the penny has dropped for me.

 

I thought the coils in the calorifier were for pulling heat out (as well as) putting heat in. I thought it was possible to use the calorifier as a central "heat battery" and use if for all my hot water / heating needs, hence, that it is possible to do space heating with the engine coolant by having the engine heat the calorifier and the calorifier heat the rads. That's why I wanted to put the coil in series, so that I could take heat from the calorifier.

The existing Eber circuit has a header tank and no expansion vessel, so I presume this means that it is not a sealed circuit.

 

I have added these features to the diagram - I realised they would be necessary I just didn't put them on the diagram to keep it simple. I realise that there is  a big danger with back boilers and I certainly want the safest, most idiot proof design I can - I live aboard after all ?. I tried to follow your description - have I put the header and the vent in the correct place? And am I correct with my circuits now? What's to stop all my hot water bubbling up and out of my outside vent?

 

image.png.47265f15835cdfde1d742d04e9c376be.png

 

 

A calorifier coil will draw heat from the stored water and with the Eber pump running you may  well find it heats the radiators to a degree  but they will never get much more than just about warm and the more you have the cooler they will be. If you want to use engine heat for space heating it is best to fit a heat exchanger in series and after the ENGINE heating coil that is placed in parallel or in series with the other heat sources but I am not sure how effective this would be using gravity circulation. To be honest I doubt the gains would be worth the complications and cost. Remember that if a calorifier thermo-siphons back through the engine at night it will be tepid by morning, calorifiers do not store that much heat.

 

If you have a header tank it is an open circuit.

 

The vent exits the system in the wrong place to assist in bleeding. It needs to come from the highest point. I woudl fit a T into the bend above the three way valve. It needs to be as close to the stove as is practical and of the shortest length.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

........

This is surely a function of the radiator output and the heat input - if the heat input is 4kW and the rads are 3kW, won't this result in the calorifier getting up to maximum temperature? I find it difficult to understand that the rads will always be more effective than transferring heat out of the cylinder than the coils will transfer it in. Is this because the coil is smaller than the rads and therefore will have a tougher time transferring energy than the rads will? If I can understand this, then this would be the nail in the coffin of the wacky tap-water-in-rads idea. If this is true, then this explains why you must always have the rads directly on the same circuit as the energy source.

Not that simple.  The heat source - boiler, stove etc, will generate heat, however the temperature of the water coming out will depend on the temperature of the water going in and the rate of flow and the load.  The hot tank water can never be hotter than the water circulating in the coils.  As an example you may find with a good sized pump and a load 4kW (3kW rads & 1kW calorifier) and a heat source of 4kW, the heat dissipated by the load means the water going back to the heat source is cool, so therefore not that hot coming out of the heat source, as the difference in temp between in and out may only be an increase of 30 degrees.  It will take a very long time for the temp to creep up to give you hot water.  So you may need to reduce the flow through the rads once the boat is warm to reduce the heat loss in the rads and increase the water temp going into the calorifier.  Which is why you need to be able to control the flow through the calorifier and rads separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

if a calorifier thermo-siphons back through the engine at night it will be tepid by morning

Is this still a problem if I don't use the engine for space heating? Sounds like more trouble than it is worth.

 

15 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

The vent exits the system in the wrong place to assist in bleeding. It needs to come from the highest point. I woudl fit a T into the bend above the three way valve. It needs to be as close to the stove as is practical and of the shortest length.

I think the vent has to be before any taps, otherwise what would happen if the backboiler overheats and the tap is set to rads only?

 

I would like to add a vent from the back boiler directly out of a skin fitting - but what is stopping all the water from escaping? I suppose if you were to add a vent at the same height as the header tank, the pressure would be equal and water would not escape, right?

 

I can add a bunch of bleed points all over the system, I don't feel like they need to be combined with the vent.

 

8 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

 Which is why you need to be able to control the flow through the calorifier and rads separately.

To me this is the ultimate reason that my original wacky plan wouldn't work - the corrosion and stuff was a red herring. The fact that you cannot get enough heat out of the system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Is this still a problem if I don't use the engine for space heating? Sounds like more trouble than it is worth.

 

I think the vent has to be before any taps, otherwise what would happen if the backboiler overheats and the tap is set to rads only?

 

I would like to add a vent from the back boiler directly out of a skin fitting - but what is stopping all the water from escaping? I suppose if you were to add a vent at the same height as the header tank, the pressure would be equal and water would not escape, right?

 

I can add a bunch of bleed points all over the system, I don't feel like they need to be combined with the vent.

 

To me this is the ultimate reason that my original wacky plan wouldn't work - the corrosion and stuff was a red herring. The fact that you cannot get enough heat out of the system

1. No problem if you do not use the engine for space heating as long as you skin tank is the correct size for the engine. But even it its not that is a cooling system problem that can be hidden by dumping heat elsewhere.

 

2. Agreed, there should be no valves between the stove and vent so a single valve on the line to the rads.

 

3. Yes, stick with high level header tank and vent. Its a well proven system for both pumped and gravity setups.

 

4. Fine, its your boat. Don't complain to me when you are trying to fill via the header tank and sundry bleed points are squirting water over the carpets or it takes an age because you have to fill header tank, bleed, close bleed, fill  header tank and so on.

 

5. If you mean enough heat out of the stored water and into the coil circuit I agree. Just think about the surface are of the coil and the surface area of the rads. Even allowing for the different conductivity of steel and copper/stainless steel the rads will take more heat out than the coil can put back in.

 

I think I am not going to spend any more time on this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

3. Yes, stick with high level header tank and vent. Its a well proven system for both pumped and gravity setups.

Great, will do. I am tempted to add the vent to an inlet on the header tank, so they can share an overflow to a skin fitting, but I will look into whether or not that is a good idea.

 

10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

4. Fine, its your boat. Don't complain to me when you are trying to fill via the header tank and sundry bleed points are squirting water over the carpets or it takes an age because you have to fill header tank, bleed, close bleed, fill  header tank and so on.

Your advice was to not skimp on bleed points - that's what I was trying to follow! I feel that adding extra bleed points even if they don't get used is worthwhile, but perhaps not - I'll do more research. I can't have the vent come off the stove as close as possible AND have it at the highest point, so it seems logical to me to have the vent and topmost bleed point be separate.

 

10 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I think I am not going to spend any more time on this topic.

I apologise if I seem in any way uncooperative or ungrateful, or if I annoyed you (and others) with the way I go about things. I like to know why things are done a certain way rather than blindly following and this is my way of figuring it out. Thank you for the time you did spend, it's been incredibly useful to me and I think I now mostly have a safe, conventional, appropriate design for my system.

Edited by ivan&alice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I can see no reason why not, especially if you fit a ball valve to maintain level BUT ensure the lid is well fitting but not secured so if the stove ever does boil it will have trouble blowing the lid off. If it did I woudl expect it to spit rusty water all over the place.

 

2. You can usually fit the vent pipe to a T at the end of or close to the upright outlet pipe from the stove, that will be the highest point for most of the system apart from the extreme end of the radiator top pipe run and the run into the calorifier coil so while you are installing it it takes little to fit a bleed point at those points. The vast majority of the system will then bleed via the vent and only small amounts of air, if any, will need to be bled from the high points so you won't be running about like an idiot trying to top up the header tank and bleed at the same time. I suspect the header tank will have more than enough liquid in it to bleed just those points.

 

3. happy to help but feel you probably now have enough info to sort it all out.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mulling thy proposed system over.  As drawn I fear the Eber water might "short circuit through the stove. You can't put an NRV in the stove feed because the thermo-siphon effect woudl be unlikely to be strong enough to open it and you really shouldn't put a manual vale in either in case you light the stove and forget to open the valve. However I think there may be swept T fittings that will reduce the risk of that happening.

 

I think someone pointed the potential for this a while ago but I did  not grasp the full significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been doing more pondering.

 

I can't see how to get a combination of gravity circulated stove plus Eber to be sure it will work before trying it without valving the stove leg but that risks an explosion if the valve is off and the stove on.

 

The Eber has, I think, small bore inlet and outlet pipes so putting it in series with the stove may or may not compromise the gravity circulation but if it worked would simplify everything as long as the Eber was in the "return to the stove" side to minimise the chances of overheating it by the stove.

 

I am sure gravity from the stove alone would work for calorifier and radiators as long as the levels of pipes were correct.

 

If I were going to put a valve in the stove led then with great reluctance I woudl put it in the return but then fit one or two safety valves (PRV) in the stove out leg so if it was ever lit with the valve off the resultant pressure could be vented. Actually I am not so sure that the steam pressure would not simply push water back into the header tank. I am sure the noise would persuade the boater to open the valve PDQ.

 

Sorry for my misleading advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/11/2019 at 11:47, Tony Brooks said:

1. I can see no reason why not, especially if you fit a ball valve to maintain level BUT ensure the lid is well fitting but not secured so if the stove ever does boil it will have trouble blowing the lid off. If it did I woudl expect it to spit rusty water all over the place.

I have an existing stainless steel header tank with a ball valve that I intend to re-use. It doesn't have a lid and was open to the air, however it did have an overflow. I wouldn't seal it but I would hope that in most cases it would leak overboard and I'd notice before it started spitting rusty water.

 

On 21/11/2019 at 11:47, Tony Brooks said:

The vast majority of the system will then bleed via the vent and only small amounts of air, if any, will need to be bled from the high points so you won't be running about like an idiot trying to top up the header tank and bleed at the same time. I suspect the header tank will have more than enough liquid in it to bleed just those points.

I'll fit a bleed point at each high point, even if I never use them, I feel like it's prudent seeing as the system is built from scratch. I'm not sure I understand why you need to manually top up the header tank - unless some header tanks are not plumbed in, with a ball valve, like mine?

 

On 21/11/2019 at 17:13, Tony Brooks said:

As drawn I fear the Eber water might "short circuit through the stove. You can't put an NRV in the stove feed because the thermo-siphon effect woudl be unlikely to be strong enough to open it and you really shouldn't put a manual vale in either in case you light the stove and forget to open the valve. However I think there may be swept T fittings that will reduce the risk of that happening.

What about a valve system such that you can select either Eber or stove, and if you select Eber it opens a vent from the stove directly outside? That way if you do light the stove with the Eber set, any boiling would be vented harmlessly overboard. Could even fit a whistle from an old kettle to alert you that you've done goofed.

 

It would be nicer if there were no valves to have to remember to change. I wonder if the short circuit would be mitigated by the fact that gravity would be in the Eber's favour?

11 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

The Eber has, I think, small bore inlet and outlet pipes so putting it in series with the stove may or may not compromise the gravity circulation but if it worked would simplify everything as long as the Eber was in the "return to the stove" side to minimise the chances of overheating it by the stove.

I don't think the stove could be in series with the Eber, as the Eber is pumped and I don't think the thermo siphon would be able to get through the Eber, would it? Also, the Eber is in the engine bay and I think the loss in heat might also mess up the gravity circulation.

 

One extreme option is to have the stove on a third coil and a completely different set of rads!

 

It's a tricky problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.cafe6d57b6886bd57f3436fdd3c52e82.png

 

 

image.png.cef016daf2a83dc5a09c24b4f0d8c30a.png

 

image.png.fc9a207a8eb1f2823cf8c284375189df.png

 

This is my plan to mount the cylinder above the stove. I would weld a metal tray to rest the calorifier on to catch any leaks. The stove chimney I would have to elbow to get it out of the way of the calorifier, and out of the back wall which would also neatly minimise the chances of leaks by cutting a hole in the roof. It would be sealed with ropes and about 50mm off the back deck to help keep water out. The stove I'd mount as low as possible, right against the ribs of the boat in its metal tray. This layout is intended a) to encourage the thermosiphon effect and b) to save space in what is a very small room - mounting both the calorifier and the stove at floor level would not really be possible.

Does anyone have any concerns or criticisms about this idea?

Perhaps having 70kg of calorifier and water mounted high in the cabin would make the boat less stable?

Would heat from the chimney be too close to the exterior paintwork or the calorifier tank itself?

 

Perhaps having a hot chimney on the back deck is a safety concern?

 

Would like to hear about any potential problems with laying out the stove and calorifier like this.

Edited by ivan&alice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Generally speaking, if  you put your stove and calorifier in the middle of your boat, they would be better placed in order for heat to reach both ends of the boat and to minimise the length of your hot water pipe runs.

I have a Morsø Squirrel right at the front of the boat, in the saloon. This heats the saloon, galley and bedroom very effectively, but the bathroom is cold and the back room (where the calorifier is currenly located) is icy. One stove in the middle would certainly be better, but the back room is currently unfinished while the rest of the boat is finished, so moving the current stove would be very, very invasive. I bought this as a second stove to heat the back room, and it has a back boiler. The calorifier, engine, Eber, washing machine and bathroom are all nearby. So it makes sense for the calorifier to be there.

 

If I was fitting out a boat from scratch, I would definitely have one stove smack in the middle of the boat, and I'd plan the rest of the layout around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, WotEver said:

A lot of heat from the stove usually comes from the flue. Putting it outside wastes all that. 

Yes, that had occurred to me. It's about 700mm of flue that would normally be inside. But if anything the stove is too large for the space, so having the flue outside will cool it down a bit. A shame to waste the coal though.

Edited by ivan&alice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

I have an existing stainless steel header tank with a ball valve that I intend to re-use. It doesn't have a lid and was open to the air, however it did have an overflow. I wouldn't seal it but I would hope that in most cases it would leak overboard and I'd notice before it started spitting rusty water.

 

I'll fit a bleed point at each high point, even if I never use them, I feel like it's prudent seeing as the system is built from scratch. I'm not sure I understand why you need to manually top up the header tank - unless some header tanks are not plumbed in, with a ball valve, like mine?

Are you aware that wet heating systems need antifreeze in them and it is VITAL that the antifreeze and water are mixed BEFORE being put into the system, this is even more vital on gravity systems. If you don't mix antifreeze and water first you will end up with hot antifreeze refusing to rise up through the water because hot antifreeze is denser than cold water. Antifreeze is very toxic so you can't mix it into your domestic water system so it will go via the ball valve.. It has to be put into the system via the header tank so its either jugs, pump or a bucket on the roof with a hose and a siphon.

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

 

What about a valve system such that you can select either Eber or stove, and if you select Eber it opens a vent from the stove directly outside? That way if you do light the stove with the Eber set, any boiling would be vented harmlessly overboard. Could even fit a whistle from an old kettle to alert you that you've done goofed.

As long as you ensure with the valve closed the water in the stove has an easy means of escape if it ever boils it should be fine but I am not so sure about any codes of practice for heating installation.

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

 

It would be nicer if there were no valves to have to remember to change. I wonder if the short circuit would be mitigated by the fact that gravity would be in the Eber's favour?

This is the problem, I suspect no one can answer that with any confidence until the system is installed and tried. By then its a bit late.

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

I don't think the stove could be in series with the Eber, as the Eber is pumped and I don't think the thermo siphon would be able to get through the Eber, would it? Also, the Eber is in the engine bay and I think the loss in heat might also mess up the gravity circulation.

I agree, this is why I said it would need some form of valving.

 

12 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

One extreme option is to have the stove on a third coil and a completely different set of rads!

 

It's a tricky problem.

Yes or even full boat length Finrads as you first suggested, they could be stacked double on the flow & return but its expensive.

 

There should be no problem with gravity circulation through the raised calorifier but you may well need a flow control valve to stop it taking all the stove output, its a suck it and see situation so you woudl need to decide if fighting it at installation and potentially leaving it unused  is a good idea or not. Actually I suspect pumping the calorifier in 15mm pipe would OD a similar job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS wotsis suggests flues should now be insulated so they will not radiate very much heat, Luckily its not mandatory - so far.

 

Would there be enough space to run an insulated portion of flue between the calorifier and the corner of the cabin side & bulkhead. The area by the flue woudl have to be heat board or metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

Are you aware that wet heating systems need antifreeze in them and it is VITAL that the antifreeze and water are mixed BEFORE being put into the system, this is even more vital on gravity systems.

I didn't think of this! Makes complete sense. Perhaps I could hook the siphon on the roof to the ball valve and plumb in the fresh water supply afterwards. Probably simplest to just get the human ball valve I married to do it while I bleed.

 

42 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

There should be no problem with gravity circulation through the raised calorifier but you may well need a flow control valve to stop it taking all the stove output, its a suck it and see situation so you woudl need to decide if fighting it at installation and potentially leaving it unused  is a good idea or not. Actually I suspect pumping the calorifier in 15mm pipe would OD a similar job.

If I'm going to be fighting between the rads and calorifier on the stove circuit as well, doesn't it make sense to just go back to the series idea? Currently the Eber is connected in series with the rads, so that seems like a conventional design. I can't really see a situation where I would want space heating but not hot water, and the reverse is easily achieved by turning off the rads.

 

I feel like there is enough certainty here to build the system and then make adjustments as needed, though. So I think it will have to be the suck it and see situation.

 

40 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

Would there be enough space to run an insulated portion of flue between the calorifier and the corner of the cabin side & bulkhead. The area by the flue woudl have to be heat board or metal.

 

I could make space. If I was going to put the flue inside then I would want to avoid elbows, so I could do something like this. Move the calorifier forward by 300 or so and then the flue would go up behind it and out of the roof. This would probably be an easier install, as well.

 

image.png.ffbebbe2e6d31be23bfc728b3bcd161c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

I didn't think of this! Makes complete sense. Perhaps I could hook the siphon on the roof to the ball valve and plumb in the fresh water supply afterwards. Probably simplest to just get the human ball valve I married to do it while I bleed.

 

If I'm going to be fighting between the rads and calorifier on the stove circuit as well, doesn't it make sense to just go back to the series idea? Currently the Eber is connected in series with the rads, so that seems like a conventional design. I can't really see a situation where I would want space heating but not hot water, and the reverse is easily achieved by turning off the rads.

 

 

My mistake - fighting should read fitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.