Low Loss Header

I have a better use for it

silly-pipe.jpg


Sorry i couldnt help it
 
Sponsored Links
AAh I think you meant "crap" design Onetap.

I think its a waste of good steel. :(
 
Sponsored Links
Onetap.
Do you think that header design in the first photograph published by Doital could have been acheived using much less steel piping ??.
 
Hm. Still unclear - are you saying that you were the only person who worked on it?
 
Sider said:
Onetap.
Do you think that header design in the first photograph published by Doital could have been acheived using much less steel piping ??.

Read my post sider, the horizontal header was for convenience as fixing was poor to say the least.

You should also understand the size of the system.

4 x 20Kw blowers
8 x average radiators.
3000m ish underfloor heating.
plus provisions for phase 2 in the new year.
 
Sider said:
Onetap.
Do you think that header design in the first photograph published by Doital could have been acheived using much less steel piping ??.

I've no idea, I have no details.

I'd imagine the cost of the pipe and fittings would be a small part of the total cost, so I don't see problem with the pipe size. Better too big than too small.
 
doitall said:
You should also understand the size of the system.
I imagine that a system of this size would require more than one person to install it, although taking all the credit for it is easily a one-man job. ;)
 
Softus said:
Hm. Still unclear - are you saying that you were the only person who worked on it?

No, I had an improver working with me.

Not done pipe fitting before. Dam good welder though.
 
Onetap wrote

I
will only refer you to CIBSE Guide H, section 5.4.3 and figure 5.23. The differences are subtle, but critical. If you realised how bad that was, you wouldn't have posted it.

Then Onetap wrote

I've no idea, I have no details

after my question about the amount of steel used.

If this reference to the CIBSE guide shows a more superior method of designing the system , then you surely must know if less steel could have been used thus making the installation cheaper .
You have seen the photograph and seen fit to call it a "carp" design so in your professional opinion would you not agree that too much steel has been used.??.
 
Sider said:
Then Onetap wrote

I've no idea, I have no details

after my question about the amount of steel used.

If this reference to the CIBSE guide shows a more superior method of designing the system , then you surely must know if less steel could have been used thus making the installation cheaper .
You have seen the photograph and seen fit to call it a "carp" design so in your professional opinion would you not agree that too much steel has been used.??.



It gives the fundamentals, you'd have to fill in the details from elsewhere.

Having got it out, they call that arrangement a 'decoupler', a variation on the low loss header, which they recommend for multiple boilers and so variable primary flow rate. It is described as an upright pipe or a buffer vessel, so the size of the pipe is not an issue. You might be able to make it smaller, but I really wouldn't bother.

The last one I designed was 8" pipe and 3,500 kW boiler load, but that is a long time back. I didn't install it.

The issues are;
i) the sequence of the primary/secondary connections and;
ii) preventing mixing in the header.

If the secondary flow> the primary flow, then you get reverse flow and mixing in the decoupler pipe. This can happen at part load, e.g., one boiler running.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top