Okofen heating curve adjustment, lower consumption?

[dedeleco]

Apparently in Switzerland, it seems like in France, a little ahead of us, to insulate poorly insulated houses at best from the outside at a high price with a little help !!!

Canadians do not have many badly insulated houses to radically transform almost at the cost of rebuilding them for us !!!

In addition their prices are lower !!

Even their very old houses are well insulated, consuming little !!

Like this testimony from a Canadian on econology who discovered that the walls of his 1900 house were not insulated, but strangely it consumes 3 times less than a 1950 house without insulation in France ???????

So, we have a lot to learn !!!!!!!!!

[Alain G]

Apparently in Switzerland, it seems like in France, a little ahead of us, to insulate poorly insulated houses at best from the outside at a high price with a little help !!!

The Canadians do not have in number in number of very badly insulated houses to transform radically almost at the cost of rebuilding them for us !!!

In addition their prices are lower !!

Even their very old houses are well insulated, consuming little !!

Like this testimony from a Canadian on econology who discovered that the walls of his 1900 house were not insulated, but strangely it consumes 3 times less than a 1950 house without insulation in France ???????

So, we have a lot to learn !!!!!!!!!

I looked long and wide at the Minergie site in addition to doing an hour of research to find the bottom of the construction without success, but I strongly doubt that it is as advanced as we by what I saw , good points like waterproofing and superior insulation are there, but that's what we did 25 years ago!

Governments have research programs for more than 30 years to improve fuel efficiency, note that the taxes levied on fuel oil and heating are ridiculous compared to 80% on gasoline for the automobile!


It is true that our old houses are well insulated but it is mainly due to the subsidies for renovation which helped to reach this yield, year for year they were surely better insulated but considering the climate I think it was normal!

[Did67]

I just had the following experience on Did's recommendation: stop the heating and observe. Easy. It's in my strings: lol:
- 21h, last night: heating off, room temperature: 19,5 °
- 23h: 18,5 °
- 6am, this morning: 30 °, heating again. Well yes, because 16,5 ° in underwear is a bit limited for my "base camp". Not quite ready for the ascent of Dhaulagiri the boy ...
- 7h30: 17 °
The outer T ° on the night had to vary between 3 ° and -0,5 °.

If you're still here, let's go back to our sheep.

1) Your curve seems adjusted. At the most, perhaps, quibbles of "micro-adjustments", but nothing that will upset your parameters given elsewhere. So nothing that will upset the settings of your curve.

2) The above test gives a completely reasonable inertia. Nothing to do with what happens to me with my PCs.

At the start, heating off, you lose 1 ° in 2 h.

Then 2 ° in 7 hours ...

In reality, the lowering is not linear: as the internal temp decreases, the losses decrease. If you left infinitely, the internal temp would tend asymptotically towards the external temp.

3) In reality, by leaving your heating, it will decrease much less, because your regul does nothing but lower the starting temp (and not stop the heating).

What I suggest you try:

1) Comfort setpoint temp = 19 ° (what you want, on the presence ranges; bine heating curve set, this is what you should get regardless of the outside temp; to 0,1 or 0,2)

2) According to the "manet method", you exaggerate the lowering instruction; tries = 15 ° (with a lowering objective obtained by 17 °).

3) In the evening, currently, your "comfort / reduced" switch is very early. This is good from an economic point of view if you don't "curdle" (what we would call "Dhaulagiri base camp").

Because there, 1 hour later (so 20 pm weekdays / 21 pm weekends) you would be around 18,5 ° and 2 hours later, around 18 °.

[in reality a little more, because chuaffage lowered and not cut].

So try, and if not, add an hour ...

4) Assuming that you actually reached 17 ° at the end of the lowering, it takes about 4 hours to go back to 19 °.

This would lead you to switch from "reduced" mode to "comfort" mode around 2 am.

To refine, I would try 3 am. To be corrected after +/- 1 h.

5) Similarly, your 15:30 p.m. on "working days" may be a little late for 18 p.m. ... even if the duration between 6:30 a.m. and 15 p.m. may not have allowed a reduction to 17 p.m. ° ...

6) As a bonus, too (but where? I'm losing my mind!):

a) puts the correction on an average factor (3 or 5, maybe 5); this will exaggerate the lowering at the start (and will approach a heating cut-off), then attenuate the lowering as we approach the programmed lowering temp ...

Suddenly, this will avoid you in cold weather, to be late because the lowering will have been further than expected (due to the exaggeration of the deposit).

Likewise, this will correct upwards the starting temp when restarting the comfort mode, which will speed up the ascent.

b) Leave an anticipation of 120 min (factory factor, from memory): this is the time it will take the boiler to start in advance, stabilize its temperature, by - 15 °; the regul calculates the actual advance proportionally to the difference between 15 ° and the outside temperature; so by 5 ° C xtréieurs, it will only anticipate 30 min or 40 ... Just enough time to light up and go up in temperature ...

And in very cold weather, the effective lowering will have been lower than expected and you will be happy that the boiler has left a little early ...

This is what I would try.

To observe and recall half an hour or an hour here and there ...

With a recording, retable room sensor, reprogrammed lowering setpoint, you will have real curves and it will be very easy to recall everything on the comfort you want ...

And don't forget: we are playing there, given the inertia, on a few% of consumption. Don't take the cabbage!

The "big gain" you already have by imposing 19 ° instead of 20 or 21 ° (because this degree there, or these 2 ° there, it is 24 hours a day!). The 24 or 1 ° over a few hours, it is not nothing, but it is not worth to impose on oneself the permanent discomfort because the regulation is "late" ...

[dhaulagiri]

Hello,

I'm still here. For almost 3 days, I tested my heating curve with the programming and no longer in forced comfort mode. I tested at the same time the USB recording: a recording every 5 minutes. Here is what it looks like in Excel (with two graphs, including one on which I compare the set atmosphere, added by me, and measured atmosphere).

Result: not great. While I stabilized without problem at the level of the set point (19 °), I never manage with programming. Maybe the delay you just mentioned Did? Another remark, in comfort mode, when the interior probe measured 19 °, my interior thermometer also indicated 19 ° battery. No longer: the offset is 0,7 ° or 0,8 ° less for the probe. When the probe gives 18,8 °, I only have 18 ° on the thermometer. I do not understand. At the end of the period, I therefore increased my setpoint (comfort and reduced) by 0,5 ° to have a little more. But I don't understand this.
Another remark, I anticipated my comfort schedules a little more (3:30 in the morning for example on weekdays instead of 4:30) and that does not seem to be enough. Overall, the rise in T ° is slower than the fall. This may be linked to Manet's advice: I reduced the hysteresis (1 ° instead of 2 ° so as to stop the heating when we go from comfort to reduced). I also increased the compensation: 5 instead of 1 (for a maximum of 10).

Finally, I wonder if I would rather be interested in seeking continuity of operation rather than stopping the heating with a smaller difference between comfort and reduced (1 ° eg instead of 2 °) to minimize the temperature rise time. What do you think?

Here are my statements (between Thursday evening and Sunday noon): https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... 0OJBdU.xls

[Did67]

Same remark as the one made to tomgey: I don't know why these records have a step of 0,3 or 0,4.

Suddenly, on the graph, one has the impression of enormous zigzag, which I doubt that it could happen anisi in reality. At most, there is an uagmenttaion of a tenth, which switches to the upper rounding and then suddenly, we fall back to 17,8 and then suddenly a rounding to 0,3 inferior...

So I think the best thing is to already "get" all these peaks out of sight!

The fact remains that the temp goes down very quickly and goes up more slowly.

I have an idea, difficult to verify.

The operation of the boiler should be observed during the restart. Or see, as you are more gifted than me in data processing, if you manage to record the cycles on the piloting card; on a CompactFlash.

On the plate, on the top edge, in the middle, there is a window that can be opened with a wing screw and slide a CF.

And then this is programmed on P2xx ??? To check.

Otherwise, stay overnight with the boiler.

Or simulate a fall and then a rise in broad daylight.

My hypothesis: during this phase, you go through "oscillations":

- hot water request, the V3V opens
- the temp of the boiler is dropping; below 63 °, the V3V closes (to save the boiler)
- the boiler is completely down, the temp goes up
- beyond approximately 65, the V3V opens, by pulses (little by little)
- the boiler reaches its maximum (76 °) and switches off before the V3V is fully open
- the V3V opens; hot water disappears
- the boiler restarts and everything starts again.

Suddenly, the boiler stops, restarts, stops, restarts when we are in maximum need!

With the new regul, we can get away with adjusting the opening speed!

But first make the diagnosis!

A good clue: stabilize for 24 hours and note the number of starts; then 24 h with lowering and the number of starts. If my assumption is true, the number of starts explodes!

[Did67]

Another remark, in comfort mode, when the interior probe measured 19 °, my interior thermometer also indicated 19 ° battery. No longer: the offset is 0,7 ° or 0,8 ° less for the probe. When the probe gives 18,8 °, I only have 18 ° on the thermometer. I do not understand. At the end of the period, I therefore increased my setpoint (comfort and reduced) by 0,5 ° to have a little more. But I don't understand this.

I can explain this because of the different reactions of your two measuring "devices" by support.

When you are in "stabilized": air temperature and support temperature are equal, at 19 °.

When you lower: the air temperature varies easily and rises quickly to 19 °, the support less (maybe it will only be 18 °, him ...)

So depending on how your probe is made, depending on where the sensor is inside, you can have one that is closer to air (and indicates 19 °), the other to the support (and indicates 18,5, XNUMX °) ...

In short, at this stage, don't take the cabbage with it and trust your feelings too. It doesn't matter if it's 19 on one and 18,5 on the other. After all, the goal is not to "get 19 tails"; the objective is "The Dhaulagiri are happy"!

[Did67]

Finally, I wonder if I would rather be interested in seeking continuity of operation rather than stopping the heating with a smaller difference between comfort and reduced (1 ° eg instead of 2 °) to minimize the temperature rise time. What do you think?

Me, out of a taste for challenge, I would still persist a little in controlling the lowering.

In order therefore:

- check whether there is "oscillatory" operation in the rise phase; or not !

- if so, exit with the setting of the opening speed of the V3V; it is necessary to arrive at a situation where possibly the V3V opens and closes (to protect the boiler), but where the boiler remains fully without stopping until the setpoint is reached... So it is necessary that the hot water is withdrawn quickly enough so that the boiler does not reach one of the maximum that stops it ...

- after that, once it no longer oscillates, we will know the time required for the ascent which allows to call the time at which it is necessary to switch ...

What is happening to you is quite normal. The power being low, once cooled, house and circuit "ask too much" at once. So if you don't want the boiler to drop below 55 °, you have to go up in stages. So you have to let the V3V open when the boiler is hot, then close (when the boiler temperature drops too much), then reopen ...

Little by little, the average temperature of this system rises ... at each cycle, until the V3V no longer needs to close ...

So you have to manage this ascent in stages ... As we would do the final ascent of Dhaulagiri! We must leave in time. All up at 3:30 am! Let's go ???

[dhaulagiri]

Thank you for all these remarks,

The second graph ("All data" tab) confirms oscillatory periods (based on the boiler setpoint temperature = 8 °), just before or after a reduction period, including one almost all Saturday, where I ask for the all day comfort. Problem of opening time or lack of power ... The first hypothesis seduces me all the more since the other worries me, even if I still doubt it a little in view of previous tests and T ° ext over the period ...

[Did67]

where lack of power ... The first hypothesis appeals to me all the more that the other worries me, even if I still doubt it a little in view of previous tests and T ° ext over the period ...

You forget and sleep quiet!

This is excluded (otherwise, in continuous operation, you would have had: a) a boiler at the bottom all the time - maximum modulation; and b) cold! (setpoint not reached).

On the other hand, that it can not reassemble your system suddenly, normal. Even a 25 kW would not succeed.

You just have to avoid "oscillations" and ... take the time you need.

So first, confirm the diagnosis!

[dhaulagiri]

Hi,

Here are my current settings:

Function van mel: 5 sec (duration of the opening pulse)
Van.mel pause: 10 sec (pause time between two opening pulses)
Close function: 5 sec (duration of the pulse emitted on closing the V3V)

So I have 3 ways to speed up the opening:
- either by increasing the 1st param.
- either by lowering the 2nd param (I therefore potentially increase the frequency of the pulses)
- either both

So I'm going to play on these two elements gradually and see what happens.

Besides, I had already changed this:
- reg range. TC: 5 ° instead of 10 °: the period during which the valve opens more slowly corresponds to a boiler T ° between 61 ° and 66 ° (instead of 71 °)
- reg range. TD: 2 ° instead of 10 °: the valve opens more slowly in an interval of 2 ° on either side of the starting T ° instead of 10 °
It had been very conclusive to avoid oscillations.

Concerning the operating time, I went roughly from cycles of 200 mn in period of forced comfort to 72 mn in period with lowerings (but with certain very long cycles). The duration is basically the same: there are therefore more starts.

Your hypothesis on the differences in T ° is very plausible: the probe is placed on a cross wall. I did not think about that. This may explain that:
if I have 18 ° while I ask for 19 ° and external inputs (oven for example) very quickly raise the internal T ° to 19 ° on the thermometer, this new T ° which corresponds to the set point tends to decrease thereafter, when the supplies cease. Wall inertia. If it was a pb of power, the T ° would then remain at 19 ° and the boiler would have said thank you to my oven for the boost ...