Can experience technical personnels who are experience with Co Ray Vac products please share your current or past experience of Co Ray Vac products (Infrared Heating). I am about to make a major purchase on this product to heat our aircraft hangars. They are coming out with a new product that will provide at least 5-10% input efficiency more than the current product which will make the new product to be beyond 90-95% efficiency. Please put your comments here if you are satisfied or unsatisfied with this product. Thank you.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
Please share your experience with Infrared Heating, Co Ray Vac product
- Thread starter thien2002
- Start date
ChrisConley
Mechanical
Wow, 90-95% efficient. I didn't know that they had a condensing infrared heater. The last time I looked at the combustion efficiency of any infrared heater they were under 80%.
I think perhaps that you mean that the new 'system' they are proposing will be 90-95% efficient. I got into a loooong argument with the Co-Ray sales guy about the efficiency of the system.
When it comes to burning gas, most infrared burners are under 80% efficient, but because of the way that they supply heat (not heating the entire space) you are allowed to reduce the calculated heat load by 10-15%. The result being that an infrared system can be viewed as 90-95% efficient.
Unless they really have come up with a condensing product, which I would love to see.
I think perhaps that you mean that the new 'system' they are proposing will be 90-95% efficient. I got into a loooong argument with the Co-Ray sales guy about the efficiency of the system.
When it comes to burning gas, most infrared burners are under 80% efficient, but because of the way that they supply heat (not heating the entire space) you are allowed to reduce the calculated heat load by 10-15%. The result being that an infrared system can be viewed as 90-95% efficient.
Unless they really have come up with a condensing product, which I would love to see.
hi,
"...beyond 90-95%...."
wow......that could solve the world's
energy problems....I am speechless...
that means we could expect 96%, 97%
or perhaps 98 %.....wowowowow
look at the small print, the independant
test report and test conditions tell the
real story.......or perhaps it was tested
off planet?
Sadly, 'spin' is far too common these days.
cheers.
"...beyond 90-95%...."
wow......that could solve the world's
energy problems....I am speechless...
that means we could expect 96%, 97%
or perhaps 98 %.....wowowowow
look at the small print, the independant
test report and test conditions tell the
real story.......or perhaps it was tested
off planet?
Sadly, 'spin' is far too common these days.
cheers.
- Thread starter
- #4
ChrisConley (Mechanical) Mar 18, 2004
Wow, 90-95% efficient. I didn't know that they had a condensing infrared heater. The last time I looked at the combustion efficiency of any infrared heater they were under 80%.
**Thank you Chris for your comments. What they explained to me on their last presentation was that the new product will have the VFD built to control the variables. The product called Ultravac. They also told me their products of infrared on the "high ends". I am still under research.
==========================================================
Thank you also JHerbert for your comments.
Wow, 90-95% efficient. I didn't know that they had a condensing infrared heater. The last time I looked at the combustion efficiency of any infrared heater they were under 80%.
**Thank you Chris for your comments. What they explained to me on their last presentation was that the new product will have the VFD built to control the variables. The product called Ultravac. They also told me their products of infrared on the "high ends". I am still under research.
==========================================================
Thank you also JHerbert for your comments.
I keep the lenght of the IR heaters to 30' or less.
After 30 feet one end of the heater is hot and the other end is cold so you get a lot of thermal stress on the tube and it will crack.
The two stage heaters work very well.
Remember IR is line of sight heat, when you are under the wing of the aircraft you will not be feeling any heat.
You may want some blower type unit heaters to warm the air.
If you have one area where most of the A&P work is done, consider some extra heaters or fans.
After 30 feet one end of the heater is hot and the other end is cold so you get a lot of thermal stress on the tube and it will crack.
The two stage heaters work very well.
Remember IR is line of sight heat, when you are under the wing of the aircraft you will not be feeling any heat.
You may want some blower type unit heaters to warm the air.
If you have one area where most of the A&P work is done, consider some extra heaters or fans.
- Thread starter
- #6
Stevenw,
I am reading your advice carefully but I don't know which specific brand you have used. Are you talking about the maximum allowable length of the IR tube or space between the burners. Please reply with further advices. Thank you.
I am reading your advice carefully but I don't know which specific brand you have used. Are you talking about the maximum allowable length of the IR tube or space between the burners. Please reply with further advices. Thank you.
I have installed systems in hangers. Co Ray Vac systems work GREAT. 400 to 500 foot systems with zoning that give you great control. The VAC Pump hangs on exterior wall and all piping runs to it. 20 burners and 6 zones on last system.
As for Efficient I think people keep misunderstanding this.
80% Efficient means 20% stack loss.(fuel side)
90% to 95% Efficient means Economically compared to heating the building with air to air or other sources
As for Efficient I think people keep misunderstanding this.
80% Efficient means 20% stack loss.(fuel side)
90% to 95% Efficient means Economically compared to heating the building with air to air or other sources
GRETO - manufacturers of heating equipment need to properly identify just what "efficiency" they're referring to, in their glossy literature. Typically, number tossed around is the highest percentage value they can find, and that's combustion eff. Most customers don't know the difference between things like combustion eff, boiler eff, system eff, etc. Most sales people don't know the difference either. That's simple ignorance. For the ones that DO know the difference, but don't talk about it - that's deceit.
Propective customers should ask "Just how, exactly, is this efficiency number calculated?" The vast bulk of the answers will fall into two catagories: blank stares/silence, or the longest string of nonsense you've ever heard.
Most of my work involves steam systems. In addition to the efficiency question, most end users should also ask a question regarding "payback". I've seen cases where a whole new $100,000 hot water heating system has been proposed because it was "more efficient" than the old steam system. The main culprit behind the high cost of running the steam system, was a big condensate pump had a failed coupling, so the condensate had been merrily running to a floor drain for at least a couple of years. What's the right solution - re-do the whole heating system for a $100 K, or spend a couple of hundred dollars to fix the pump? The steam system won't be quite as efficient as the hot water, but the payback for the coupling is probably about an hour, vs at least 10 years the conversion, now that the existing system is funtioning properly.
Propective customers should ask "Just how, exactly, is this efficiency number calculated?" The vast bulk of the answers will fall into two catagories: blank stares/silence, or the longest string of nonsense you've ever heard.
Most of my work involves steam systems. In addition to the efficiency question, most end users should also ask a question regarding "payback". I've seen cases where a whole new $100,000 hot water heating system has been proposed because it was "more efficient" than the old steam system. The main culprit behind the high cost of running the steam system, was a big condensate pump had a failed coupling, so the condensate had been merrily running to a floor drain for at least a couple of years. What's the right solution - re-do the whole heating system for a $100 K, or spend a couple of hundred dollars to fix the pump? The steam system won't be quite as efficient as the hot water, but the payback for the coupling is probably about an hour, vs at least 10 years the conversion, now that the existing system is funtioning properly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question