## Gene

Joined on September 19, 2007

Last Post on March 27, 2011

### Thank you

@ March 27, 2011 7:23 PM in BTUs / % Year End Savings

First off, I want to thank everyone for your input so far.
Burner A is your typical burner which burns at about 1800 degrees. It runs about 11.5% to 12% CO2 and is rated around 78% to 82% Efficiency.
Burner B burns burns at a temperature of around 2200 degrees. It runs between 13.5% to 14.5% CO2 and is rated around  84% to 86% Efficiency.
We have talked to the boiler manufacturer and the boiler can withstand temps over 3000 degrees, as long as the flame is not hitting the back wall (which in our case it is not).
We turn the fuel down in the Burner B to match the Burner A to produce the same amount of heat  in the burner and to handle the same heat load as Burner A . Although the flame is hotter, it also shorter. If Burner A flame is 3" off the back wall and is X degrees and Burner B
is 5" off the back wall and is X degrees, also, then you can still
achieve the same heat in the combustion chamber and use less fuel.
We have set up some prototypes, in this fashion, in several homes and all are experiencing fuel saving of 20 to 40%. We are looking for a mathematical equation to explain these results.
We are hoping to go into production with this burner, later this year, and we will post on the board when we do.

### Burner B

@ March 27, 2011 8:07 AM in BTUs / % Year End Savings

Burner B is a new prototype burner that has been tested at an approved testing facility and the flame is 440 degrees hotter than Burner A, due to a more complete combustion of the #2 oil. We are looking for the mathematical formula to figure the % difference.

### BTUs / % Year End Savings

@ March 26, 2011 6:40 PM in BTUs / % Year End Savings

Can anyone calculate for me what would be the % of fuel savings at the end of a year, if we are using same boiler (X), in the same house and the differences below, knowing that the extra BTUs would satisy the boiler quicker, at the same fuel rate?
Burner A - 88100 BTUs per hour using an X boiler in a 1600 sq ft home with a .75 gals per hour fuel rate
Burner B - 116000 BTUs per hour using an X boiler in a 1600 sq ft home with a .75 gals per hour fuel rate
Thanks for any help!

@ January 21, 2010 3:15 PM in Just Curious

Sorry, I missed that the BTU load on Day One was 42000. Please keep in mind this is all hypothetical. Thanks again.

@ January 21, 2010 3:12 PM in Just Curious

OK, here is the scenario: 1000 Sq Ft Home at 70 Degrees Fahrenheit inside. Outside temp is 32.3 Degrees Fahrenheit. The next day is 30 Degrees Fahrenheit (a temperature drop of about 7%). How many more BTU's are required on Day 2 to maintain the 70 Degree Farhenheit inside? What would be the formula to figure this?

### Just Curious

@ January 21, 2010 12:13 PM in Just Curious

Is there a formula to figure out how many more BTU's you would need produce, if the temp was 7% colder than the previous day? Thanks.

### Looking for Someone Certified

@ September 23, 2009 6:52 AM in Looking for Someone Certified

I am wondering if there is anyone out there who can help me out. I have invented a new burner and here is the scenario. We are running my burner and a typical oil burner in the same boiler (we switch them out).
We set the typical burner to the correct pressure for the size nozzle that is in it and check the fuel consumption, by timing the ounces used per minute. We set the CO2 for the burner to their recommendations and then we checked the temp inside the firebox. We let the water run through at a measured amount (GPM). We also check the time it takes for the water to go from 160 degrees Fahrenheit to 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
Our burner was set up the same way and with the same fuel consumption. We set our CO2 to match the typical burner. We checked the temp in the firebox and it was much hotter. Again, we let the water run through at the same measured amount (GPM). Ours water went from 160 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit quicker than the typical burner.
Our unit has been tested at Brookhaven and by several engineers. The results were comparable to those above, but because they could not figure out why it was hotter, they would only give results off the efficiency. If we are running the same CO2 for either burner, our efficiency would be the same (within a couple points). They cannot explain why our flame is hotter than the typical burner.
We are not claiming to get more BTU"s out of the fuel, but the way our burner is designed we get a hotter flame, thus more heat. We need someone who will verify that our burner is putting out more heat than the typical burner, without going by the efficiency.
We need someone of a higher ranking (like a professor or engineer) who will test our burner and put the results in writing. If you are not open-minded to give us results off of the heat produced or the only way you know how to figure it is off of the efficiency, please do not respond.