Hoffman Radiator
Ania Cozzolino
Years ago, my friend Frank Taverna (who happens to be one hell of a good heating man) and I looked at a steam problem in a small church in New York City. Five one-pipe steam radiators heated this church. These were huge radiators. Each put out 110 square feet EDR and each had a quick vent.
Fast vents vent fast. And because they do, they let steam enter cold radiators much too quickly. With all that steam roaring in, the condensate that rapidly forms inside the cold radiator has a tough time leaving.
It is a main vent. The variety isn't important. It is most likely too small anyway. It is impossible to vent mains too fast. The best bang for the buck, is a Barnes& Jones Bigmouth main vent. They are available through Amazon or HeatingHelp.com. It has the highest venting capacity of any main vent, and twice the capacity of a Gorton #2. You might want to consult the steam pros at HeatingHelp re: it's installation.
Edited 1 times.
Hi there,
Thanks for the response, I really appreciate it.
This is for a radiator.
It seems like the somewhat compatible Hoffman version part number 4a 401413, which is 1/2 x 3/4 inches straight main steam valve which we have purchased. The Hoffman #401413 seems to not work well with the radiator that is closer to the boiler. It starts shooting out water. so, I can replace the other eight valves in the house with the Hoffman 401413, but the radiator close to the boiler is a big problem and only seems to work with this unknown part. It is a mystery part made by Bell and Gossett, and I cannot seem to get the manufacture to help me. They direct all calls to representatives and distributors and when you call their numbers they are no help at all. Every year one of these unidentified valves break because they have been in the house for years. That's why I reached out to this porter.
OK........All these questions are relevant to the recurring problem you're having..........Do you have main vents on the system? What's the pressure set at, on the boiler? I've never seen a radiator vent with a half inch thread.
There's your problem.......The Empire State building operates at a couple pounds of steam pressure. Vents will fail over that. Your systems mains should be well vented and vent quickly to make sure steam is available to all areas. Are all the "radiators"(actually a convector), the same type in the house?
Edited 1 times.
Pressure rating would be the maximum the boiler is design to run at. That would only become a factor, if, say you were heating a vessel or some other commercial application. Operating pressure is pretty self-explanatory. It's the pressure you operate at, and for domestic heating should be under 2lbs.
That is a convector, and your system will be very sensitive to pressure, as you have very little EDR (equivalent of direct radiation) available. In other words, you have small radiators. I'd bet your boiler is hugely over-sized, and that will also cause your system to build pressure too quickly.
TEN POUNDS? Who recommended that? The Empire State Building is heated with TWO POUNDS of pressure. At 10 psi, you are getting close to the point where you need an "in house" mechanical engineer to operate it, because it could almost become a high pressure system.
Like anything else...it takes a lot of time to learn about steam systems. Over many years, these systems get butchered by folks that don't have a clue. The best way to fix the system, is to bring in a person that is an expert with steam systems, and let them evaluate the whole system. If the system is in bad shape, they can create a punch-list of repairs. When everything is right with the system, it will operate silently, evenly, at ounces of pressure. I've got no skin in the game. I'm a homeowner, DIYer, and machinist with just enough knowledge to know when I don't know everything. And when it's time to call in a pro.
Also notice in that chart.....the higher the pressure, the higher the temperature required to produce steam. Running at a higher pressure than what is needed, is like standing next to the boiler and burning ten dollar bills.
The properties of steam are amazing. People are playing around with vacuum steam. That's nothing new. That's been around a long time. What they are doing that is new, is, they are controlling the vacuum, based on outdoor temperature. At 50* outside, you need heat, but not the whole output of the boiler. So, at 50* you apply a specific vacuum to the system. It lowers the boiling point of water, and the point at which you start adding latent heat to the steam You apply heat, but less, to the building. They are also re-discovering all the benefits of vacuum.....namely...speed and self-balancing.
I'm stating that there are people that have converted their systems , very simply, to operate as natural vacuum systems. They promote doing it, all the time. The ones experimenting with outdoor reset are very few, as their systems are much more complicated.
well this guy have a simple steam wall convector and I bet the shut off valve is partially closed,causing it to fill with water and thus shooting out the air vent...or a back pitched line pocketing water near this radiation.
Those may be problems he has in addition to the ones he's told us about. I bet he was told that 10 psi was the proper setting, by the guy that put a massive boiler in the house. He was trying to keep the boiler running long enough, so the steam would reach all the convectors.
Plaintiffs' property was injured by water which leaked from a defective heater. They brought this action for damages against Morris, the owner of a plumbing business, who had installed the heater on premises leased by MacMar, Inc., and whose employee, Rule, worked on the heater shortly before the accident. Plaintiffs also sued MacMar, Inc., a corporation which owned the heater; Dan Spellman, its secretary and treasurer; and Mack E. Marin, who was associated with the corporation. A judgment of nonsuit [39 Cal. 2d 453] was granted in favor of all defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.
In accordance with the settled rule, the facts will be stated most favorably to plaintiffs, and all reasonable inferences will be drawn in their behalf. MacMar, Inc., occupied the floor immediately above plaintiffs' luggage store, and the heater, described as a nine section, cast-iron, gas- fired water heater, was originally purchased about one year before the accident. In the late afternoon of April 28, 1948, Spellman heard the heater making a hissing noise, and, upon investigating, found that it was leaking. It does not appear that this leak caused any damage to plaintiffs' property. Spellman immediately turned off the water and notified Morris, who sent his employee, Rule, a master plumber, to repair it. Rule found a "pinhole" leak in the second section and used a radiator compound for the purpose of sealing the opening. Morris testified that this preparation is used by placing it in the water in the heater and boiling the solution for a number of minutes, and that as it circulates through the heater "it seals up the openings whatever the cause may be." After using the compound Rule put the heater in operation and left the premises. At about 7 o'clock the following morning, it was found that water from the heater had caused the ceilings in plaintiffs' store to fall and had damaged the floor coverings and merchandise. Examination of the heater revealed that sections three, four and five contained several cracks which were about the thickness of a cigarette paper and ranged in length from one to four inches.
There is no evidence of any specific act of negligence on the part of Morris, and the question is whether the facts entitle plaintiffs to the benefit of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. [1] This doctrine may be invoked where the accident is of such a nature that it can be said, in the light of past experience, that it was probably the result of someone's negligence and that the defendant is probably the responsible party. (Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., ante, p. 436 [247 P.2d 344].) As pointed out in the Zentz case, the courts, in determining applicability of the doctrine, have relied upon common knowledge as well as expert testimony, and they have considered such circumstances as the extent of control which the defendant exercised over the instrumentality causing the accident, the plaintiff's own conduct, the likelihood of negligence [39 Cal. 2d 454] by a third person, and, in some situations, the fact that the defendant may be better able than the plaintiff to explain what happened.
[2] It is clear that in the present case the accident probably would not have occurred unless someone was negligent, and the question is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify application of res ipsa loquitur as to Morris. The evidence shows that the boiler compound, if properly applied, would seal up small holes and cracks, and that there thus was available a safe and effective method of repairing the leak. In view of the fact that additional leaks developed within a short time after Rule put the heater in operation, it is probable that he either failed to use the compound properly, so that it did not seal all the cracks then existing, or carelessly did his work in such a manner as to induce cracks in the heater where none had existed before. This might have been done, for example, by lighting the gas with insufficient water in the heater or by suddenly running cold water into the heater after it had been brought to a high temperature. It should be noted in this connection that the cracks developed in three of the nine separate sections of a comparatively new heater and that these openings were of a different character from the "pinhole" which the plumber found when he was called in to repair the leak.
Furthermore, Rule was under an affirmative obligation to make appropriate tests when he put the heater back into operation, and one obvious method would have been to observe, for a reasonable time, whether any leaks developed after the water became fully heated. Although this method might not reveal every type of defect in the heater, it is likely that it would have disclosed cracks such as those which were apparent the next morning, whether they resulted from an act of the plumber or from a defect in the heater. The amount of water present and the amount of damage done indicate that the heater must have been leaking for some time before 7 o'clock in the morning when the damage was discovered. The heater was constructed so that the flame of the gas burner would be extinguished when the water reached a certain temperature, and, although Morris testified that Rule said he stayed until this occurred, due care may have required him to stay longer. Moreover, the trier of fact was not compelled to believe Morris' hearsay testimony and could have inferred that Rule did not test the heater in this manner but, instead, left the premises immediately after he put it in operation, [39 Cal. 2d 455] without waiting until the water became hot and perhaps even without waiting until the heater became filled with water.
d3342ee215