Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
1
Plumbing / What is the temp in your water jacket?
« on: March 05, 2015, 04:58:25 PM »
My aquastat is set at 190, and the temp gauge says it's 190. However, the water in the supply line is much cooler. I have tried several different pumps, and am currently running a Taco 011. Out of curiosity, I pulled back the insulation and put my hand on the tank. The top 8 inches was so hot I couldn't keep my hand on it, but if I moved any lower than that it was just lukewarm. It appears that there isn't any circulation in the tank itself.
Has anyone else ever tried this? I always assumed the temp gauge was correct, but didn't think there would be that much difference throughout the tank.
Has anyone else ever tried this? I always assumed the temp gauge was correct, but didn't think there would be that much difference throughout the tank.
2
Portage & Main / Re: Is the Ultimizer really more efficient then Optimizer???
« on: March 05, 2015, 09:45:27 AM »
I wonder if they've had so many people trying to get over the learning curve that they just try to steer people away if they can?
I'm not sure on what is meant by efficiency, either. As Slim states, the stack temps are lower, so one would assume that more heat is going to the water than a unit with higher stack temps. To me, that's a good measure of efficiency. But the EPA doesn't care where the heat goes (chimney or water) as long as the particulate matter in the smoke is low. My guess is that you could potentially have a stove that burns all the smoke and sends all the heat out the chimney!
I'm not sure on what is meant by efficiency, either. As Slim states, the stack temps are lower, so one would assume that more heat is going to the water than a unit with higher stack temps. To me, that's a good measure of efficiency. But the EPA doesn't care where the heat goes (chimney or water) as long as the particulate matter in the smoke is low. My guess is that you could potentially have a stove that burns all the smoke and sends all the heat out the chimney!
3
Portage & Main / Re: Is the Ultimizer really more efficient then Optimizer???
« on: March 05, 2015, 09:29:52 AM »
Coolidge - thanks for that info. Sometimes is hard to find the same product in the same geographical temperature zone, with the same heat load to do comparisons with. That's what makes this forum nice.
That being said, I'm using 14 cords now. I heat the house to 72 and the barn to 48. So if I did that with the 250, I'd hopefully use less than 14 cords.
That being said, I'm using 14 cords now. I heat the house to 72 and the barn to 48. So if I did that with the 250, I'd hopefully use less than 14 cords.
4
Portage & Main / Re: Is the Ultimizer really more efficient then Optimizer???
« on: March 04, 2015, 04:25:47 PM »
Thanks for the replies, guys. It wasn't a dealer, but the main office that I spoke with. I questioned the logic, but was told a dealer had the Optimizer then switched to the Ultimizer and burned even less wood. I was just curious if anyone else had similar experiences, since it seems just the opposite should be true.
I'm really leaning toward the 250, but the brochure states that it is good up to 5000 sqft of well insulated buildings. Although the house is insulated well, the barn isn't. I plan to fix some of that, but it's still a barn. With 2 sliding doors and 2 overhead doors, there are lots of places for air to get in. I'd hate to be on the small side and wish I'd went bigger. On the other hand, I'd rather not pay for the bigger unit if I don't need it.
Slimjim, thanks for letting me know you're not at liberty to talk about the new 250. I respect that. You can just PM me all the details. Haha! Seriously, it's got me thinking that I should wait til it shows up on the P&M website, though. Since I don't have a local dealer, I guess that would be the only way I could see it.
I'm really leaning toward the 250, but the brochure states that it is good up to 5000 sqft of well insulated buildings. Although the house is insulated well, the barn isn't. I plan to fix some of that, but it's still a barn. With 2 sliding doors and 2 overhead doors, there are lots of places for air to get in. I'd hate to be on the small side and wish I'd went bigger. On the other hand, I'd rather not pay for the bigger unit if I don't need it.
Slimjim, thanks for letting me know you're not at liberty to talk about the new 250. I respect that. You can just PM me all the details. Haha! Seriously, it's got me thinking that I should wait til it shows up on the P&M website, though. Since I don't have a local dealer, I guess that would be the only way I could see it.
5
Portage & Main / Is the Ultimizer really more efficient then Optimizer???
« on: March 04, 2015, 09:47:35 AM »
Hello all! I'm new to this forum, but have read most of the posts on the P&M topic. I currently have a home built OWB that is very similar to the Ultimizer. My heat exchanger has 4 passes above the firebox rather than 2, and I no longer use firebrick since the ash/creosote got under them and rusted through the firebox. After making the necessary repairs, I can't seem to get good circulation in the water jacket which leaves me with a cold house on days when it gets below 0.
I like the idea of a gasser, and called P&M about dealers in my area. I was told there aren't any, but they could ship direct. They also told me that since Michigan doesn't restrict OWBs, I should buy the Ultimizer because it is more efficient than the Optimizer.
I was left scratching my head. Aren't the gassers supposed to burn less wood? And since the heat exchangers are vastly different between the two models, I would think the Optimizer would be more efficient at converting wood heat into water heat. Am I missing something? Is there anyone on here that could verify this claim?
I understand that the gassers require a learning curve, but I'm okay with that. I just like the idea of burning less wood.
I read a post by Slimjim from last fall where he stated that the new 250s were not quite ready. Should I be looking elsewhere?
I currently heat my 20 year old ranch home (1750 sqft main floor, and 1750 sqft basement, both well insulated), my DHW (wife, 4 teenagers and I) and a pole barn (1500 sqft, poorly insulated) on about 14 full cords. I live in SW Michigan, where the temps dip into the negative digits at night, but rise to the single digits to the teens on the coldest days.
Sorry this is long, but..
1. Which model burns less wood?
2. What isn't quite right with the NEW 250?
3. If I choose the 250, would it be large enough for my needs?
Thanks,
Aaron
I like the idea of a gasser, and called P&M about dealers in my area. I was told there aren't any, but they could ship direct. They also told me that since Michigan doesn't restrict OWBs, I should buy the Ultimizer because it is more efficient than the Optimizer.
I was left scratching my head. Aren't the gassers supposed to burn less wood? And since the heat exchangers are vastly different between the two models, I would think the Optimizer would be more efficient at converting wood heat into water heat. Am I missing something? Is there anyone on here that could verify this claim?
I understand that the gassers require a learning curve, but I'm okay with that. I just like the idea of burning less wood.
I read a post by Slimjim from last fall where he stated that the new 250s were not quite ready. Should I be looking elsewhere?
I currently heat my 20 year old ranch home (1750 sqft main floor, and 1750 sqft basement, both well insulated), my DHW (wife, 4 teenagers and I) and a pole barn (1500 sqft, poorly insulated) on about 14 full cords. I live in SW Michigan, where the temps dip into the negative digits at night, but rise to the single digits to the teens on the coldest days.
Sorry this is long, but..
1. Which model burns less wood?
2. What isn't quite right with the NEW 250?
3. If I choose the 250, would it be large enough for my needs?
Thanks,
Aaron
Pages: [1]