DX Systems
Last Post 17 Apr 2012 01:45 PM by gtjp. 49 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>
Author Messages
DickRussellUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:182

--
23 Feb 2012 11:51 AM
There is a thread on this subject running on another forum. Someone there posted a link to this GBT thread. I posted some comments on that other thread, so I'll just provide a link to that. Mine are #21 and #27.

http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/83121/P15/
Paul AuerbachUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:88

--
23 Feb 2012 04:43 PM
Posted By docjenser on 22 Feb 2012 11:53 PM
Paul, I visited your webpage (www.TotalGreenUS.com) and you are making some pretty steep claims here. Among them:

"What sets Total Green ‘DX’ Systems apart is only one heat exchange transfer is required, compared to the two step transfer in water-based systems demanding about twice as much energy consumption, as well as a circulating pump and expensive deep well drilling. "

Doesn't the overall efficiency matter?

"Copper Tubing – a superior heat conductor, proven more reliable and efficient than plastic used in water based systems. "
Really, more reliable than high density polyethylene?


"Ultra efficient Direct Expansion (DX) Technology - is at least 30% more efficient than other geothermal heating systems - achieving 4.5-5.0 COP heating and up to 33 SEER cooling in real world applications. "
When I look up the COP and EER for the Earthlinked System it is reported to be 3.5 (COP) and 16 EER. How do you come up with the above numbers. SEER (seasonal) rating for geothermal heatpumps?

"Total Green ‘DX’ Geothermal Technology is the most advanced in the market, backed by years of research, design and real-world installations."

What makes it the most advanced on the market, and again, could you elaborate on the years of research. Some data would help here.
Doc, as you know DX does have one heat transfer which is more efficient than the two required transferring to the glycol loop and then the refrigerant loop.  As far as overall efficiency, circulating glycol uses energy.  This is not required in a DX system.  All the work is done by the compressor.  This brings up an interesting point.  The newest water based heat pumps (not yet in the market I'm told)  use very efficient staged compressors.  This may negate the potential advantage DX enjoys over water loops. 

Copper piping has been around for hundreds of years - most municipal water systems use copper in the ground from the street main to the home.  Did we take liberties comparing copper to HDPE - yes.  That will be changed when our new website comes up in about two months. 

We will publish results of a few of our best operating systems - which show this kind of performance.  Feel free to call Earthlinked.  They routinely talk about some systems delivering 4.5 COP and up to 33 EER.  So does Advanced Geo.  Check out the May 2010 AHRI directory (email me if you can't find a copy and I'll email one to you).  Advanced Geo and Earth to Air systems publish 4.2 COP.  Plus, the 870 test protocol uses a tank with a finite amount of water which skews performance as heat is removed from the water.  

That said, we are working toward providing real world performance figures for systems in the ground.  WelServer is starting to do that. 

"Years of research" refers to the manufacturers - Earthlinked Technologies in business since 1989 and has been continually improving their product (holding 6 patents).  The same holds true for ECR Industries (dba Advanced Geothermal Technologies).  Also in business since the early 1990's.  Between both companies they have provided equipment for more than 15,000 installs.

Copper piping certainly conducts heat better than HDPE, but all GSHP's are limited by ground heat conductivity.  Does that mean given the same ground conditions HDPE and copper will pass the same amount of heat?  That's some data I would like to see.
Bill NeukranzUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1103

--
23 Feb 2012 09:42 PM
There's little difference in performance between conventional vs DX geo systems when both are installed correctly.  Performance just shouldn't be considered as a deciding factor if choosing.

Conventional geo systems can easily run 4.8 - 5.0 COP - even my conventional off-the-shelf geo current technology WaterFurnace Envision 5 and 3 ton 2-stage variable speed units do this routinely - and I have a WEL system carefully implemented to be sure to get the measurements exactly correct.

There just isn't advantage to DX based on COP or EER - again when each is installed properly.

'Installed properly' includes for conventional geo that vertical boreholes are properly grouted and length of pipe is sufficient such that the heat transfer at the HDPE pipe surface can match the speed heat can move within the earth.  While DX' heat transfer at the copper pipe's surface is far superior to what conventional geo can accomplish, I question how much it's a 'plus' for DX when heat can only move so fast within the earth.

But, while I think we could argue on the merits of performance either way (DX vs conventional), continuously byt the way, I don't think it makes any difference.

I think the real benefit of DX is increased scenarios where DX can be installed and conventional geo cannot.

No longer do you need to have a residential lot big enough to put on it a borehole drilling machine, or to string over a mile of pipe in a horizontal manner.  With DX you can drill the copper radiating pipes through the basement slab, through the driveway, in the front yard, etc., with a drilling rig that much easier fits on the property.  Now your market for geothermal installation extends into urban areas where residential lots are much smaller.

In summary, given enough lot space, and again assuming installed properly, there just isn't a performance difference between the two technologies.  Give me a big rural sprawling lot, with lots of acreage, the conventional geo system's going to perform just as well as DX (again each properly installed).

But give me an 8000 SF lot with a 2500 SF home on it, the odds are excellent only a DX system can be installed and a conventional geo system cannot.  And it will perform just as well as the conventional geo technology.  Amongst the many obstacles facing the borehole digger in this scenario, imagine a big drilling machine to dig vertical boreholes having a prayer just making it down the alley to this home, let alone have any room to maneuver (through the fence) to get into position.

If my focus of business included high urban density areas, I'd become an expert at DX, and would routinely go get the geo business that the conventional geo companies just can't do.

Best regards,

Bill
Energy reduction & monitoring</br>
American Energy Efficiencies, Inc - Dallas, TX <A
href="http://www.americaneei.com">
(www.americaneei.com)</A></br>
Example monitoring system: <A href="http://www.welserver.com/WEL0043"> www.welserver.com/WEL0043</A>
robinncUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:586

--
23 Feb 2012 10:17 PM
Paul and a012, what would be the approx cost to install a 4 ton system with DX with desup? From my earlier thread on geo costs, it ended up being in the $20-22 grand range for horizontal loops before tax adv.
docjenserUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1400

--
24 Feb 2012 02:33 AM
Posted By Paul Auerbach on 23 Feb 2012 04:43 PM
Posted By docjenser on 22 Feb 2012 11:53 PM
Paul, I visited your webpage (www.TotalGreenUS.com) and you are making some pretty steep claims here. Among them:

"What sets Total Green ‘DX’ Systems apart is only one heat exchange transfer is required, compared to the two step transfer in water-based systems demanding about twice as much energy consumption, as well as a circulating pump and expensive deep well drilling. "

Doesn't the overall efficiency matter?

"Copper Tubing – a superior heat conductor, proven more reliable and efficient than plastic used in water based systems. "
Really, more reliable than high density polyethylene?


"Ultra efficient Direct Expansion (DX) Technology - is at least 30% more efficient than other geothermal heating systems - achieving 4.5-5.0 COP heating and up to 33 SEER cooling in real world applications. "
When I look up the COP and EER for the Earthlinked System it is reported to be 3.5 (COP) and 16 EER. How do you come up with the above numbers. SEER (seasonal) rating for geothermal heatpumps?

"Total Green ‘DX’ Geothermal Technology is the most advanced in the market, backed by years of research, design and real-world installations."

What makes it the most advanced on the market, and again, could you elaborate on the years of research. Some data would help here.
Doc, as you know DX does have one heat transfer which is more efficient than the two required transferring to the glycol loop and then the refrigerant loop.  As far as overall efficiency, circulating glycol uses energy.  This is not required in a DX system.  All the work is done by the compressor.  This brings up an interesting point.  The newest water based heat pumps (not yet in the market I'm told)  use very efficient staged compressors.  This may negate the potential advantage DX enjoys over water loops. 

Copper piping has been around for hundreds of years - most municipal water systems use copper in the ground from the street main to the home.  Did we take liberties comparing copper to HDPE - yes.  That will be changed when our new website comes up in about two months. 

We will publish results of a few of our best operating systems - which show this kind of performance.  Feel free to call Earthlinked.  They routinely talk about some systems delivering 4.5 COP and up to 33 EER.  So does Advanced Geo.  Check out the May 2010 AHRI directory (email me if you can't find a copy and I'll email one to you).  Advanced Geo and Earth to Air systems publish 4.2 COP.  Plus, the 870 test protocol uses a tank with a finite amount of water which skews performance as heat is removed from the water.  

That said, we are working toward providing real world performance figures for systems in the ground.  WelServer is starting to do that. 

"Years of research" refers to the manufacturers - Earthlinked Technologies in business since 1989 and has been continually improving their product (holding 6 patents).  The same holds true for ECR Industries (dba Advanced Geothermal Technologies).  Also in business since the early 1990's.  Between both companies they have provided equipment for more than 15,000 installs.

Copper piping certainly conducts heat better than HDPE, but all GSHP's are limited by ground heat conductivity.  Does that mean given the same ground conditions HDPE and copper will pass the same amount of heat?  That's some data I would like to see.


No question DX is a simpler system, no question copper is a better heat conductor than HDPE, I found the claims pretty steep. No, I am not calling earthlink, I was on their website. No data their which support their claims. I then did a search, and could not find any studies or data supporting the higher efficiency claims. I realize the manufacturers, as you say, routinely talk about high efficiency numbers, but they also routinely fail to provide any evidence and data supporting any of those claims. And Paul, no offense, but so did you here so far. Why don't you publish the data first you claim to have, and then make the claim of 30% higher efficiency.

I checked out the AHRI directory, and you are correct, other than Earthlinked post up to 4.2 COP. I only had checked Earthlinked. But that kind of efficiency is also reached by W-W systems under the relatively bad conditions (32F EWT).

Years of research does not relate to years in business, nor does it relate to any patents. Nor do patents mean that you have any evidence for your efficiency claims.

It does not matter that copper has a better conductivity, nor does it matter that "...given the same ground conditions..." copper will transfer more heat than HDPE. That is why the HDPE water systems are much larger, so the ground can catch up and does not become the needle ear.

Look, I agree that in theory the direct exchange technology is simpler and intriguing. It caught my interest and I started digging, but did not find anything which could sustain those claims, nor did I find anything to explain on how you can extract the same amount of energy from a much smaller mass of soil without reducing efficiency significantly.

So please, be the guardian of reality here. Support your claims with data. At the end, theory guides, but experiment decides.
www.buffalogeothermalheating.com
tinoueUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:96

--
24 Feb 2012 09:49 AM
As a user of an Earthlinked DX system I can attest to both sides of this argument. I'm probably the only person who has temperature sensors attached to the ground loops as well as in a nearby bore to measure the near-field affects over the season. I've had the unit about 7 years now.

From the theoretical standpoint, the DX system must be more efficient because there's no water circulation pump. It take a fair amount of energy to pump the GPM of water/glycol through the ground loop. Those of you who have monitored that should post your numbers. I've heard you quote 250w-500w as typical circulator pump energy requirements. That's about 10% of the compressor.

On the DX side, it requires forcing the refrigerant through the ground loops, so that should require more energy than the circulation through the heat exchanger of a conventional water source heat pump. I have years of WEL data from the compressor showing my 4-ton DX system uses between 2600 and 3000 watts at steady state.

As has been pointed out by the water source guys, there's a question of the heat capacity of the ground given the much smaller ground bores. My system has 100 feet per ton, which based on my research, calculations and measurements is grossly inadequate. During the first year of operation, I evaluated the bore hole temperatures by monitoring the system from the time it was turned off after a long run. This quantified the ground temperature recovery rate. What it showed was that the DX system very efficiently sucked the heat out of the ground much faster than the thermal conductivity of the ground (in my case, solid diabase rock) could recover under anything but low duty cycles.

In addition, I should note that my system was installed incorrectly. Even though I specified 6 loops (150'/ton) spaced a minimum of 10' apart, the installers drilling small rig was unable to deal with the diabase rock and he ended up installing 4 loops spaced only 6' apart. Based on all models, this was inadequate and long term measurements proved this to be the case. Note: I will not discuss the legal and other complications involved with this install. That's been hashed out elsewhere. The end result is that I have multiple active heating systems in use throughout the season.

Note too that the installer came recommended by Earthlinked as the best in the area (at the time) so it's not like this was a "low bidder" situation.

I try to stay as objective as possible in these analysis. Based on the models, the theory and the practical application, I cannot see how it is possible under anything but the most favorable conditions (high water table, porous ground or very low duty cycles) for 100'/ton to provide satisfactory performance. This is true regardless of the tech - DX or water source. Even 150'/ton is usually considered inadequate for high, long term performance. The fundamental physics involved indicates that DX installers should not be promoting the less expensive 100'/ton systems unless long term modeling and ground measurements indicate that this is adequate and certify certain performance criteria. This will almost never happen in residential installations, therefore I strongly discourage people from going this route.


joe.amiUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:4377
Avatar

--
24 Feb 2012 09:54 AM
Bill,
There are actually almost no scenarios where DX can be installed and water source can't. There are many more situations where DX can't be installed but water source can.
A drill is a drill and DX may require less depth but it has more bore holes.....in fact this is one of the short comings of DX; there is little flexibility in loop design. You'll notice lots of different configurations of water loops (vertical or horizontal), DX offers few choices as the requirements for refrigerant distance from compressor are fixed in granite.

Superior efficiency as you note is only in the first few minutes after which soil determines performance......unless we have extremely dry soil and horizontal loops at which point the versatility of water source (that allows additional loop in the ground) wins the day.

Let's talk about those nifty copper loops, some fields cost as much as a heat pump. I don't have my price book around, but suffice it to say you can by 10 times the HDPE on the same budget. You might have to buy a flow center, but you save 30# of refrigerant.

Who sells DX? No offense to Paul but I notice he's been installing them since 2007... Lot's of guys jumped in geo in 2007 and 2008. The one's most attracted to DX were guys with little geo experience who also didn't want to purchase a bunch of new tools. Only those ignorant to geo are convinced that DX is cheaper or easier to install.

Those second most attracted to DX are the marketing oriented firms that stood a chance at distributorship or at least saw an oppurtunity to set themselves apart from the other bidders (if you don't want to beat them on price with their product, change the product). This is a legitimate marketing strategy. This explains my interest in the technology (and Paul's if I'm not mistaken).

On top of everything else, DXers can not design as tightly as water source as they try to design in down time for ground thaw, meaning you will often buy more tonnage in a DX. Then you have hundreds of feet of loop field that have been exposed to many oppurtunities for mishap and contamination, so without a terrific amount of attention by the installer, the package water source geo has a way better shot at longevity (think of the lifespan of a refrigerator or a window airconditioner vs a central air conditioner).

So in sum, DX is less versatile, more expensive, equal in efficiency and more attractive to new dealers (suggesting less experienced installers). It is also more complicated to install correctly, requiring more equipment (to haul different backfill to the site for instance), time and skill.

Someone purchasing geo will have a way harder time finding a good DX installer and they will likely pay more for the system. These are the facts, not criticisms.

FWIW I don't know of a DX installer in my AO right now (that includes the "dealer of the year" for the "distributor of the year" ~2009 of one of the companies mentioned).

Rob,
2 things:
1) After all of our conversations about cost and how it varies place to place, you've arrived at a number that may be close in my AO but not necessarily Pauls or along the East coast. Prices vary based on many contributors. Attempts to "nutshell" pricing become exasperating.
2) Without getting in to specifics, I can tell you that a 4 ton DX package costs me $500 less than a watersource geo with the loopfield installed by my loop contractor. By the time I install the loops, purchase, haul and backfill with crusher dust my DX installation costs me significant extra time and no less than $1,000 more......it's manufacturers/distributors insist that DX is cheaper.

Doc,
watersource manufacturers are guilty of embellishing performance numbers as well. I'm not going to fault an advertiser for citing peak efficienies (while ignoring similarity in averages). Nor do I fault an advertiser hyping a weakness (i.e. fixed loop length) as a strength (....."hey we have a smaller footprint!"....).
What I can't get past is the feeling I get ("snakeoil" salesman) everytime I read the ads. Tuffluck driller and maybe Paul are the only guys in the DX biz that didn't give me that feeling......
.....and PLEASE DX manufacturers, if you are going to dispell the snake oil feel get your product recognized by the International Code Council. Why should a product be taken seriously when it is absent from the codebooks?

Alton,
"The problem is that no one seems to know which brand or type of system is best."
Not so, it is turning mantra for a reason but; the best brand is what the areas best contractor/ installer sells.
You don't hear about lengthy fix times with my customers, nor do they blog complaints here, because I handle their problems.
New technology in furnaces air conditioners as well as geo heat pumps are creating more service problems in general that the average "part-changer" will not easily diagnose. Perhaps you need to suggest to your customers the technology you think best "if" a competant installer is in the area. For instance, I would not suggest mini splits at all without experienced installers.
Joe Hardin
www.amicontracting.com
We Dig Comfort!
www.doityourselfgeothermal.com
Dig Your Own Comfort!
Bill NeukranzUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1103

--
24 Feb 2012 12:21 PM
For those that want to learn more detail on the technical side of how DX systems work, there are at least 4 WEL monitored systems to look at.  They all have varying amounts of diagram detail and charts and graphs:

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0193
? ton Earthlinked installation
Homeland, FL

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0201
Three installations: 5 ton Earthlinked, 5 ton WaterFurnace, 5 ton Carrier
This is Terraclime Geothermal's WEL presence; they are an Earthlinked and Carrier dealer
Northampton, MA

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0356 
2007 built Net Zero home. 
2 ton Earthlinked installation
Grapevine, TX

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0508 
4 ton Earthlinked installation
Wilmore, KY

There may be more WEL monitored DX systems - the above 4 were the ones I could quickly find.

Best regards,

Bill
Energy reduction & monitoring</br>
American Energy Efficiencies, Inc - Dallas, TX <A
href="http://www.americaneei.com">
(www.americaneei.com)</A></br>
Example monitoring system: <A href="http://www.welserver.com/WEL0043"> www.welserver.com/WEL0043</A>
Bill NeukranzUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1103

--
24 Feb 2012 12:34 PM
Posted By joe.ami on 24 Feb 2012 09:54 AM
... There are actually almost no scenarios where DX can be installed and water source can't.
Joe, are you sure?

I'm located in a 1/4 million population suburb of a 2 million or so Dallas area.  There are plenty of 7000 and 8000 sf lots with reasonable sized 2000 - 2500 sf homes on them (even larger sf with 2 stories) that there's no way a well drilling machine could maneuver to to drill the borehole field.

Horizontal's out because there's no room.  Vertical's out because you don't have enough room for either/both the drilling rig or properly spaced borehole field holes.

Looks to me these are DX only opportunities - vertical needing less area than a conventional borehole field - especially for those structures that have a cooling heat rejection need of under 3 tons (Dallas area comment, where cooling is the challenge and heating is the afterthought.)

Best regards,

Bill

Energy reduction & monitoring</br>
American Energy Efficiencies, Inc - Dallas, TX <A
href="http://www.americaneei.com">
(www.americaneei.com)</A></br>
Example monitoring system: <A href="http://www.welserver.com/WEL0043"> www.welserver.com/WEL0043</A>
waterpirateUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:467

--
25 Feb 2012 06:59 AM
Posted By a0128958 on 24 Feb 2012 12:34 PM
Posted By joe.ami on 24 Feb 2012 09:54 AM
... There are actually almost no scenarios where DX can be installed and water source can't.
Joe, are you sure?

I'm located in a 1/4 million population suburb of a 2 million or so Dallas area.  There are plenty of 7000 and 8000 sf lots with reasonable sized 2000 - 2500 sf homes on them (even larger sf with 2 stories) that there's no way a well drilling machine could maneuver to to drill the borehole field.

Horizontal's out because there's no room.  Vertical's out because you don't have enough room for either/both the drilling rig or properly spaced borehole field holes.

Looks to me these are DX only opportunities - vertical needing less area than a conventional borehole field - especially for those structures that have a cooling heat rejection need of under 3 tons (Dallas area comment, where cooling is the challenge and heating is the afterthought.)

Best regards,

Bill


I read most of this with an open mind, but the above is just not true.  From a drilling perspective Joe is correct.  A hole is a hole.  If you can get a machine on the lot to drill a hole, how deep you drill and what you put in the hole are a choice, not a rule.

I have drilled many jobs that others declined due to the flexibility of our companies assests.  Five drill rigs to choose from, all very different in size and application.  We offer the flexibility of design also.  We have often drilled fewer bores deeper and larger pipe size where others could not.  That is the flexibility of hdpe. 

My knowledge of refrigerant and the laws concerning moving it is very limited so I will stop there.  I will add that we also construct loop fields in remote locations from the building they serve and only have to upsize the circ pump.

Eric
Eric Sackett<br>www.weberwelldrilling.com<br >Visit our Geothermal Resource Center!
Bill NeukranzUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1103

--
25 Feb 2012 09:40 AM
Eric, thank you for the info and update.

Best regards,

Bill
Energy reduction & monitoring</br>
American Energy Efficiencies, Inc - Dallas, TX <A
href="http://www.americaneei.com">
(www.americaneei.com)</A></br>
Example monitoring system: <A href="http://www.welserver.com/WEL0043"> www.welserver.com/WEL0043</A>
docjenserUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1400

--
26 Feb 2012 10:30 PM
Posted By a0128958 on 24 Feb 2012 12:21 PM
For those that want to learn more detail on the technical side of how DX systems work, there are at least 4 WEL monitored systems to look at.  They all have varying amounts of diagram detail and charts and graphs:

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0193
? ton Earthlinked installation
Homeland, FL

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0201
Three installations: 5 ton Earthlinked, 5 ton WaterFurnace, 5 ton Carrier
This is Terraclime Geothermal's WEL presence; they are an Earthlinked and Carrier dealer
Northampton, MA

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0356 
2007 built Net Zero home. 
2 ton Earthlinked installation
Grapevine, TX

http://www.welserver.com/WEL0508 
4 ton Earthlinked installation
Wilmore, KY

There may be more WEL monitored DX systems - the above 4 were the ones I could quickly find.

Best regards,

Bill


Bill, unfortunately none of the monitoring is set up to monitor the performance from an efficiency point of view. I yet have to find data to support the higher efficiency claims many make. Please point me to it. Thanks
www.buffalogeothermalheating.com
joe.amiUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:4377
Avatar

--
27 Feb 2012 06:25 AM
Bill,
Yes I'm sure. It is not what DX marketing would have you believe, but a hole is a hole and DX needs more of them so installation may be less versatile than water source. Just like the "smaller footprint" of their horizontal loops. Each ton needs a 4' wide by 125' long trench where my slinkies fit in a 3' wide by 110' trench (though the slinkies have more than twice the pipe making the loopfield "bigger"). This is the "snakeoil" vibe I mentioned.

Doc,
Don't forget DXers load heavy, so they may see a quarter COP advantage over rightsized system- thousands more to install- $50/yr savings.
Joe Hardin
www.amicontracting.com
We Dig Comfort!
www.doityourselfgeothermal.com
Dig Your Own Comfort!
docjenserUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1400

--
27 Feb 2012 07:16 PM
Posted By joe.ami on 27 Feb 2012 06:25 AM
Bill,
Yes I'm sure. It is not what DX marketing would have you believe, but a hole is a hole and DX needs more of them so installation may be less versatile than water source. Just like the "smaller footprint" of their horizontal loops. Each ton needs a 4' wide by 125' long trench where my slinkies fit in a 3' wide by 110' trench (though the slinkies have more than twice the pipe making the loopfield "bigger"). This is the "snakeoil" vibe I mentioned.

Doc,
Don't forget DXers load heavy, so they may see a quarter COP advantage over rightsized system- thousands more to install- $50/yr savings.


http://welserver.com/WEL0336/

I don't get the "need less space for drilling" argument. Look at the above images with the WELserver, we dilled right beside the driveway, 6 inch hole is all we need. Or through the driveway. Or 3 inches beside the sidewalk, where there were 3-4 ft between the sidewalk and the house. As long as you can back up with the drill rig, even at an angle, it is not a problem. Most houses are more than 20ft wide, so you put two boreholes right in front of the house wall, and you are done. Each hole supports 3-4 tons.

Joe, even if they load heavy, I do not see any support for their efficiency claims. As you know, just because their system is oversized, it does not run more efficient. While in theory a more efficient system since it saves 1 heat exchange, their published COP does not not look impressive, certainly not better than current closed loop W-A heatpumps. Yes, the protocol is slightly different since it requires a holding tank and cools down the water rather quickly, but it does so also in real life.

To Paul: " Feel free to call Earthlinked. They routinely talk about some systems delivering 4.5 COP and up to 33 EER. So does Advanced Geo. ... Advanced Geo and Earth to Air systems publish 4.2 COP.

Copper piping certainly conducts heat better than HDPE, but all GSHP's are limited by ground heat conductivity. Does that mean given the same ground conditions HDPE and copper will pass the same amount of heat? That's some data I would like to see."
I see lot of claims made, so the manufacturer talking about much higher efficiencies than they can proof does not help us here. As you point out, copper is great in conducting heat, much better than HDPE. But that is not the point. You say "given the same ground condition". The entire point is that you do not have the same ground conditions with a DX system versus a water loop system. The DX will pull the same heat out of lesser amount of ground, cooling the ground much further down to the point where it is much colder than with a water loop system, which will reduce the efficiency to a point where I would argue eliminates the benefits of the DX system.
Going through a second heat exchange process probably will cost you 5-7 degrees, which will reduce your efficiency by a maximum of 10%. Lets say another 8% you loose with circulation pumps, but also a DX system has to push refrigerant through the lines, and that energy comes from the compressor. Running the ground beside the refrigerant lines 10-15 degrees lower than a water loop will wipe out the DX benefit.
www.buffalogeothermalheating.com
joe.amiUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:4377
Avatar

--
29 Feb 2012 08:56 AM
At the end of the day, DX manufacturers greatly exaggerate capabilities and tout "smaller footprint" though we explained there is no advantage and often greater impact to the lawn (don't forget their horizontals have to maintain pitch, so if you have a lawn that's not flat, much more digging will be required). They further continue to fail to take care of business with the Code Council......
Then they cry foul when water source guys "pick on them".

The only dealer advantage to DX is market distinction (selling something few others offer), but it begins to pale if inspectors start enforcing the code (i.e. refrigerant detectors).
Joe Hardin
www.amicontracting.com
We Dig Comfort!
www.doityourselfgeothermal.com
Dig Your Own Comfort!
GTJONUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:112

--
09 Apr 2012 07:34 PM
Good Day all:
experience and rough website to be built better soon... 70 sold-installed, since 1980, and 1600+ hands-on

www.geopros.org GT since 1994, replaced grundfos pumps in 26 years usage on a still-running 1982 GT HW, Cooling by Chilled water, and Forced-Air Heating TETCO, 46k compressor (found on rateds-size 4.1/2 "TON" units today... (hah!) using 5-ton heat exchangers, COP 4.11 laboratory...then in 1981-1982... on-line to date...

Any hooz:
more nice talk at
http://www.hearth.com/talk/search/57320/?q=solar+geothermal&o=date&c[node]=11
Please search some GT there too

Still learning: after nearly 1600 hands on + to 1500-ton chillers...
--nice U' nomenclature above , but just see my rough website a bit please...

But you do not have to give up on DX,
like GT generally:
HOW ? WHO? When does all accurately get us in a margin of good ROI and comfort...?
It should and it will with great installers that are really good and fast enough to lower overhead with accuracy to reduce call backs,,, BUT NO ONE can estimate when the next electro-board failure or particular Air-Coil failure may occur in any A/C or Ht Pump, --- we all know.

As we know, we all can grapple with over-sizing a plastic-water ECL (Earth Coupled Loop) if we can not well-water pump/dump/ or what ever.
Once everything is on site, things like 2ft wide ditches, if really wet, can have 3-pipes (add 500-600 bucks, please) working very GT Looped warmly ! and for a 20- to 24,000 btuh compressor (over 2-tons rated's say) 24/7 in 52 deg soil of clay/stone for easily a couple of weeks at 32- to 34 degrees entering and staying (barely) above 27 deg 'Blue-Line'. or in just440- 500 ft horizontal hooked up on a pair of boreholes x 3/4" sdr-11 to a 1" header for a small home size comparrison.
If you can use a very low Press-Drop HX on water ECL (gle) then you will find a single 185 watt pump runs a 5-Ton in a 3600 sq ft home very well on 5-loops of 3/4" in average damp soil designs... keeping loop above 34-deg entering...
and
it wont have ALL the claims of "best" but it has a HUGE R.O.I. in 10 years running , paying for itself ~ 2x's ( ! ).

and change those less-quality electrical compressor contactors on ANY REFG UNIT before 10-years !!!

REFRIGERATION GAUGES TELL MORE
than discussing 3gpm to 4gpm per compressor-ton (cT-on inside of a GT uit) (resulting in Temp diff readings that a few argue too much to a 1/10th deg)
Yes I have pointed out 1/3 deg in a diff reading is 10% OF A 3-DEG DIFFERENCE ON 2) PUMPS ON A COLD 30-DEG LOOP ON A "4-TON RATED" RUNNING CONTINUOUSLY --- in the 90's --- when so many had 1 pump at larger temp differences than the 3-deg required to stay off 27-deg leaving the house...

We measured the 46 btuh extracted then too versus 43 btuh per foot of borehole on a warmer 34- 35 deg loop entering the unit ( also 10% less heat per drilled foot) but the unit put out 88% plus of it's compressor label rating instead of 77% over-10% less on the 10% colder loop, etc....
JUST TELL THE LOOPER TO GUARANTEE A REASONABLE agreed COLD DAY's AMBIENT CONDITION ON THOSE REFRIGERATION GAUGES at say 420-cfm per heating compressor ton (cT)
and Entering Air 68-deg and suction on 410a over 100 psig --- just like I maintain on any open-well a 106+ guarantee, shown the customer, fullfilled.
~YES:
DX worked on 1/3 in 1993-1999 installs in NE Ohio
and --- just replaced one loosing 22 lbs R-22 (now near $400 wholesale per ~25 lbs... today)
FOUND:
All the GSDX and CA info of the 1990's about "frozen dirt around tubing= "no problem" to be a REAL problem...
so
(see heat loss chart on website, please, since 1980, still very accurate, and add for new insulation's, real 80-deg diff and 73-deg or your own)
and READ YOUR HOME loading there or fax over to me surface areas and life-style to see...
and then size loop FOR THE HOME running like a couple of weeks straight at your estimated average worst loading
<< I size just like the $450..."wise guys" charge and give performance guarantees for designs of regular 2-6-ton homes and pools and radiant, @$ much less..>>

I posted results in 2003 of a "27-deg 'Blue-Line' in our soil for gt return line temps"
in 6600- deg days -27 peak below-zeros 1994--- and a lot = -12-deg winters an hour N of the FootBall H.O.F.
Mentioning that:
Then told THE GT 'WORLD' 20% more vertical loop was required here and across the country stated 150 ft vert drilled usually and a few at 175 ft commercially... all came up VERY SHORT...
Then Engineers and home owners called our office to discuss over-freezing home loops -to over-heating in Schools too.
We were at 230 ft per school-cooling ton by 2005 for sure and based that on 1995 data at a 103-degree leaving to loop from Cuyahoga Coiunty Airport then vs the unedr 86 deg loop at an AKRON 50-Equiopment-ton (28-block-cooling-ton) job and ~ 200ft/House-Heat-Load-Avg-ton just as BARD Heating, NW OH (Scott) predicted years ahead of the 'experts' and many 150 vert-ft/ "ton" freezies... some 24-deg leaving like an ice-maker system.

THE DIRT PUSHES AWAY at a consistent 26-27 degrees here...

YOU ARE ALL CORRECT IN AGREEING ONLY SO-MUCH ENERGY PER SPACE OF OCCUPIED WET OR (LESS) DRY EARTH COUPLED LOOP:::
That is the point :
DX if you have no Cu issues in 30-years+ a good reason to... (why not just put in a 50-year loop anyways in plastic?)...

Although Dave Heart TETCO) is gone and his dear wife sold rights of some vertical GT DX systemics to WF of CAN many years ago...
TO-DATE: Many have only seen a far fewer successful Cu DX worth installing for a 30-year longevity in grounds minerals and acids compositions
such that the cities in Ohio are ALL DISTRAUGHT with so many required CU Water line replacements in particular areas of adverse soil composition...

YES DX WORKS
NO IT DOES NOT USE ANY LESS GROUND-AVAILABLE ENERGY as that refrigeration gauge, if sitting at 100 psig on r410a suction, (at the evaporator chiller coil to the ground while heating your home) is in the same spot as with a water-loop ECL gle, GTX, ground coil system of loops...
we have even open-well low water-usage at 1.2 gpm per cT RUNNING CAREFULLY and a circulator across pipes whips water OPEN- through at ~ 6 gpm/ton, feading only that loop at 1.2 GPM/ cT...( ! ) near 34.1/2 deg leaving raw water... as we must: circ is 1/6 hp g-fos bronze across in-outlets on 38k bristol compressor 1982, running...

WE HAVE CORRECTED SO MANY LOOPS BELOW 27-DEG RETURNING TO THE GROUND FROM UNITS, AND SEEN DX SYSTEMS FAIL ENOUGH IN THE 1990'S INSTALLS (now showing up), NOTING THAT PRICES ARE driven LOWER TODAY TO INSTALL HORIZONTAL BORES SUCH THAT A CONTINUOUS 5-TON 24/7 @ 3-WEEKS OPERATING STRAIGHT FULL BORE HIGH SPEED (5-T) GT UNIT ground loop installed from unit to pumps to earth costs customers @ less than 1900/ton installed before credits.

I hope that helps to consider.

engineerUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:2749

--
09 Apr 2012 10:37 PM
Wow...am I alone in having difficulty understanding all that?
Curt Kinder <br><br>

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is - Winston Churchill <br><br><a href="http://www.greenersolutionsair.com">www.greenersolutionsair.com</a>
LoobyUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:401
Avatar

--
09 Apr 2012 11:15 PM
Posted By engineer on 09 Apr 2012 10:37 PM
Wow...am I alone in having difficulty understanding all that?

Which part of:

"I posted results in 2003 of a "27-deg 'Blue-Line' in our soil for gt
return line temps" in 6600- deg days -27 peak below-zeros 1994---
and a lot = -12-deg winters an hour N of the FootBall H.O.F."

didn't you understand?

Looby

One measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions.
robinncUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:586

--
09 Apr 2012 11:30 PM
My head is spinning......
joe.amiUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:4377
Avatar

--
10 Apr 2012 07:46 AM
I think; therefore I am (a toaster).
Joe Hardin
www.amicontracting.com
We Dig Comfort!
www.doityourselfgeothermal.com
Dig Your Own Comfort!
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>


Active Forums 4.1
Membership Membership: Latest New User Latest: hudson2000 New Today New Today: 0 New Yesterday New Yesterday: 2 User Count Overall: 34707
People Online People Online: Visitors Visitors: 212 Members Members: 1 Total Total: 213
Copyright 2011 by BuildCentral, Inc.   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement