My neighbor tells me he needs a new Honeywell oil burner control unit, and they come in 3 time lengths, 15, 30, and 45 seconds. How do I know which length to buy? I know it doesn't say on the furnace itself and I'm 99% sure it doesn't say on the control box.
My neighbor tells me he needs a new Honeywell oil burner control unit, and they come in 3 time lengths, 15, 30, and 45 seconds. How do I know which length to buy? I know it doesn't say on the furnace itself and I'm 99% sure it doesn't say on the control box.
The timer determines how long the control is willing to wait (for flame to be sensed) before it aborts the ignition sequence. (It also monitors for flame-out while the burner is "successfully" running)
Research the model number of the existing control box.
Too short a delay will result in the safety tripping (manually reset!) before *some* burners achieve ignition (depends on fuel flow, etc.).
Too long a delay results in excess fuel accumulating in the burner when/if it fails to ignite -- or, loses flame while burning.
[FWIW, I think 45 seconds is typical]
Tell your lazy-ass neighbor to grab a flashlight, kneepads and a small inspection mirror and start looking for model numbers.
Or if the old one is still working to try to start the burner, just time it. But cross referencing model #s to make sure the new one is compatible in other respects is a better idea.
That would leave 30 or 45 seconds of oil in the bottom of the firebox. That's a bad idea, isn't it?
Half of the time when the time-out occurs, there is no fuel anyhow, so that doesn't happen. (The other half of the time, there is no ignition or the electrodes are misplaced, and that does pump oil into the fire chamber, but that's the breaks. Not sure but if this happens too much, I think you have to pump out the oil. I'm not prepared to do that.)
The model number was laying low** but I found it and did what you say.
**I think the verb is supposed to be lying, except in the idiom "lay low".BTW, you deleted the other ng from the distribution. AIUI, that's against usenet rules.
Yes, and when I bought the house, second hand, it still came with the furnace owners manual. And 10 years ago when I was too lazy to go upstairs, I found the manual again online. And I've read all 8 or 12 pages several times. But the oil primary control unit has its own part number, from another manufacturer. The furnace manual shows how it's wired in, and even much of its internal wiring, but I'm 99.9% certain that the furnace manual doesn't say how many seconds it permits without a flame, or the control unit part number. (I would verify that now, but I'm on another computer without all my files.)
Most people have their stuff repaired by furnace repairmen, who know what to use, or fudge if they don't. (For example, there's a barometric damper on my flue, and one service man just taped it shut, without asking me or explaining why he did it . When I asked the next guy about it, he untaped it, without telling me what is wrong with it's being taped or what the purpose of the part is. Another examplle, the first few years, the service men would measure the stack temperature (the exhaust gas) maybe one or two other measurements (unburned hydrocarbons--I should be so lucky) , with gauges, but after a few years, they all stopped doing that. They'd look at the flame and think, the flame looks okay, I guess. )
And then there was the guy who changed the large fan motor when it was the squirrel cage that was squeaking. IOW, I don't look for the cheapest but I still haven't found one really reliable company.
So if he used a 30 second timeout when he should have used 45, most of the time the flame starts within a second, at most two, so it would make no difference.. Hmmmm. Frankly after all this trying to get the right time, I think I'd be better off with 15 seconds. Maybe my neighbor would be too. I have never seen it take even 7 seconds to light, and I've watched it quite a bit. But most of them on ebay are 45, and it only matter on those occasions when it doesn't light. Now people might have problems only once every 5 years, but when the time comes, some people will keep pressing the reset button** and letting it run for 45 seconds, hoping it will light, even though they havent' identified the problem and they've done nothing to fix the problem. It's so tempting. Just push that button. And if you don't know that your filling the firebox with unburned oil, there's no reason not to press it . (well you have to let it sit for about 5 minutes before the reset button works) (The idea is to turn off the oil if the flame doesn't light, and I think to turn off the whole furnace, if there's enough dark smoke to keep the cadmium cell from seeing the light of the flame. There is also a high-temp switch that turns off the furnace if somehow it gets too hot.)
**Of course a lot of people don't know about the reset button and don't press it even once. It's behind a 20 by 40" metal panel that has to be lifted and pulled out. And then if you see the red button, you have to wonder. Why is it red? Is it like the fire alarm at school. Or the launch button for ICBMs? I'd better not push it.That's actually a good idea. My oil supply company should have guys who know. I might do that had the problem not been solved. See my other posts.
Two different years I've called them in Sept. or October and tried to make an appointment to clean the furnace, and they say, not surprisingly, We're all booked up. And I say, call me when the rush is over, and they never do. What they should say is We're booked up until January, and I'd say fine, how about January 10th?
Darn, is that obvious or what?
Hmmm. I have the same furnace he does, and I've had the cover off the control box for 10 years or more, so I totally forgot about model numbers. ......okay, I found the cover and.... it has no model number!! It's just grey with the word Honeywell and a red button. Wait, on the inside is glued some paper with writing. No model there either.
Well, I found it in small grey letters stamped on the end, at an angle no less, It doesn't look important, but it was enough to find it in the customer Honeywell pages and indeed.....
it is 45 seconds.
Thanks.
But, Don, I just noticed that you and trader, or your software, deleted the other ng. That's a violation of Usenet rules.
No, it isn't. There are no "rules". There is "netiquette" but no "USENET police". Otherwise, the NNTP protocol could automatically fill in the newsgroups for each reply you submit (if you look at the "References:" header, you can see that the newsgroup knows what you are replying to and can obviously see the distribution list ("Newsgroup:" headers) of that/those messages and save you the trouble of specifying those newsgroups in your reply.
If you send me an email and I reply to you *and* Cc someone else, have I violated a "rule"? (what if I choose not to reply? isn't that a "violation"??)
People routinely add and remove newsgroups to/from posts. Some news agents actually will only reply to the newsgroup in which the user is *reading* the message (you have to take extra steps to include *all* groups).
Some news services don't support all newsgroups. How should those services handle a "reply" that specifies (cc's) a newsgroup to which the subscriber doesn't have access?
You get what you've paid for... :>
I like chatting with you about other subjects, and I hope a detailed reply won't hurt that.
I didn't say laws, I said rules. Netiqette is a bunch of rules, just as etiquette is.
Etiquette, at dictionary.com based on the Random House Dictionary:
1.conventional requirements as to social behavior; proprieties of conduct as established in any class or community or for any occasion. 2.a prescribed or accepted code of usage in matters of ceremony, as at a court or in official or other formal observances. 3.the code of ethical behavior regarding professional practice or action among the members of a profession in their dealings with each other: medical etiquette.The presence or absence of police doesn't determine if there are rules.
Where there are no police, no law enforcement at all, are there not still rules against stealing and murder?
First, email is not the same as Usenet. Everything on Usenet is open to the public, even if only a few people are reading a particular newsgroup. Not only can they see it now, but most posts are archived and they can see them for years to come. Email is generally closed to everyone other than addressees.
Second, you're talking about adding, but I was talking about deleting. If an OP is posting from the ng that is deleted, he doesn't see any of the answers. .
Third, when one adds a newsgroup to the list, he's supposed to point it out in the text. Whether one should do this in an email is dependent on whether the email is personal or a story about a dog who can do tricks.
If you send me a personal email that includes private stuff about you, I shouldn't be cc'ing other people with my reply, even I tell you that I've done it, and yes, that's a rule.
That's not my understanding. We could include the ForteAgent or some other Usenet-related ng. People there might have opinions.
That one's software did this is one of the two possibilities I listed in the first place.
AIUI, when the post reaches a server that supports the ng that the original server did not support, the post will then be propagated to that ng. If the original post went to both newsgroups, there must be such a server. If the original post, by error, listed a name that is not the name of any newsgroup anywhere, the mistaken ng name gets carried along, but no harm is done.
I didn't say "laws".
If you want rules, you frequent a *moderated* newsgroup.
OT posts are "discouraged" (rules of netiquette) -- why have so many groups in so many different hierarchies if you can post anything, anywhere?
Profanity, flames, etc. are similarly discouraged. Failing to trim quoted text is also discouraged. Line lengths are "supposed" to be short (~60 chars). Messages aren't intended to contain non-ASCII characters. .sig's are supposed to be short. Nym-shifting is discouraged. Participants "should" read all of the posted content in a thread *before* offering their own reply -- to minimize the duplication of "answers"/recommendations. It's *suggested* that you include contact information (so one-on-one conversations -- like this -- can be conducted off-list, in email).
Do you want to call each of these practices "rules"? If so, I suspect most posts here "break the rules".
USENET is a voluntary, cooperative effort. There are no guarantees that anyone will follow "encouraged behaviors". No guarantee that the replies you receive will be correct -- or even pertinent.
"You get what you pay for"
I am free (in terms of technology) to Bcc something you've sent me in email to someone else. Have I broken a "rule"? It's up to me to decide if I should Cc, Bcc a recipient NOT listed in an email's distribution list. Likewise, its up to me to decide if I should
*omit* folks in a distribution list from my reply -- if, for example, I think *you* wouldn't want me disclosing something to them (or, if I don't want them to know that I've disclosed something to *you*).When *adding* another newsgroup (or changing the followups header), netiquette suggests making this obvious. Just like adding a recipient to an email has "email etiquette" suggesting that you inform the previous recipients (in case they fail to notice that someone else has been included in the conversation -- that *their* replies will also go to this person unless they explicitly act to prevent that).
"Supposed to" is strong language. Netiquette is just a collection of
*suggested* behaviors. Just like *etiquette* suggests you rise (if seated) when introduced to a person, there is nothing that *requires* you to do so. "Burping" is a frowned on behavior -- yet it's done all the time. etc.No, these are just *suggestions* governing "polite behavior". Just as I am free to tell one neighbor what *another* neighbor has said about him/her. If those neighbors decide this is "undesireable behavior", for me, then they can choose to exclude me from their confidences.
It is *suggested* that you say "Thank You" when you are given a gift. But, there is no *rule* that you do so. If you consistently fail to do so, folks may elect to stop giving you gifts! (There's no *rule* that requires tehm to give you gifts in the first place!)
You can add whatever newsgroups you want. You can choose *not* to draw people's (potential respondents) attention to this. But, at the same time, people can *choose* to drop out of a conversation.
Should I be following every newsgroup that is added to any message to which I choose to reply -- in case someone replies to one of my messages (replies) *there* but not include the group to which *I* subscribe?
I, for example, have a custom "news agent" that sits between my "news client(s)" -- the program that I'm typing into, presently -- and my news *server* (Eternal September, for this post). This "agent" (an agent is a program that looks like a server on one side and looks like a client on the other -- a "proxy", of sorts, that sits between a "real" client and a "real" server) periodically contacts my news servers (Eternal September, in this case) and checks for new messages (because the agent *appears* to as a client to that server!).
When it finds new messages, it dulls down those messages -- headers and bodies -- and stores them locally... in the "agent". When *I* go to read USENET, I actually end up contacting this *agent* -- but, in this case, it is masquerading as a USENET *server* to me! My news client (Thunderbird, in this case) asks that server for any new messages and downloads them to my PC -- based on how I've got Tbird configured.
This allows me to read/reply USENET when *not* connected to the internet and from any of the computers I have, here -- without leaving a "door open" to the outside world (all connections originate from *here*, not from some external host).
When I post a message or a reply, this agent rewrites the message from my news client (Tbird) to make it look like the message is coming from a particular computer, here (regardless of *which* computer I was using, at the time) and NOT the "agent computer".
But, the real reason is it lets that agent *read* all of the messages that it is downloading and decide which ones to "expose" to me (regardless of which computer I use to access those messages!).
So, it can automatically delete/hide messages that contain profanity. Or, political rants. Or, that exceed a certain size. Or, that are from certain people, etc.
In addition, it can "notice" which messages I tend to "look at" (from whichever computer(s) I happen to use to connect to that
*agent*) and, based on how INfrequently I examine certain messages, it can learn not to "bother me" with those messages. E.g., if I never open a message from WillyWonka, then, over time, it will stop showing me WillyWonka's messages (because it has learned that I'm not interested in the sorts of things that WillyWonka has to say!). [I can also *tell* it to ignore specific types of messages by sending a "special message" to the agent that conveys those criteria (e.g., add WillyWonka to killfile). So, it doesn't have to learn all of my preferences "by observation"]If I post a message to alt.chocolatefactory, then the agent starts watching *that* newsgroup as well (obviously, it was of enough interest to me to cause me to specify that newsgroup in the header, so I *must*? want to see messages from that newsgroup as well, right? Or, at least the replies to *that* message??
[See how easily this can get out of control? Just like if I add a group to a message manually -- opening the door for the conversation to wander around the USENET hierarchy at will!] [[This "agent" was designed as a prototype for a "telephone attendant"; a piece of software that would handle incoming telephone calls and decide which ones I would want to receive, which I would want to route to voice mail, which I wouldn't want to answer, etc. (there are far more USENET messages in a day than incoming phone calls! :> So, this lets me test my learning algorithms quickly. And, gives me added value -- by acting as a "USENET attendant"!]]If I can't *see* that newsgroup, then I can't *see* all of the replies to *my* reply -- because someone in *that* newsgroup can opt to elide the group name to which *I* subscribe from the distribution list.
Well, that's exactly what happens when the burner fails to light. And plenty of homeowners have found the tripped button, pushed it and tried again. And again. I wouldn't recommend doing it repeatedly, but doing it once with a stopwatch is OK. The oil in there will burn off once it's lit.
Typical nozzle is putting out under 1 GPH. You'd have to push that reset button a hell of a lot to have something to pump out.
Is there a usenet rule about changing subject line, or is a list of usenet rules under "timeout on oil burner" okay?
BTW, you can criticize me, I didn't trim any text.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .
When I go to my saved files, I can always find the Usenet rules, they are saved under the file name "Re: timeout on oil burner". Everyone knows that, except total stupid idiots.
I wonder how many grams of fructose in a modern soft chewy granola bar?
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .
I'm wondering if we're fixing an oil burner or fixing usenet?
From here, I think the oil burner will be easier to fix. Just flame it good, and see if things heat up, any stupid idiot can do that.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .
But that can't be avoided.
And that's bad too.
Well, I'm not doing to it with my furnace, and his is disabled right now.
No. It comes out as a mist, but if it isn't burned, it falls to the bottom and makes a puddle. If it were water, it would go from mist to vapor, but oil doesn't do that.
True. It woud really only happen if someone bypassed the photocell or if it failed in the closed state AND there was no ignition.
So what? It happens frequently in oil burners with no need to pump oil out and the oil burns off when the burner lights.
Well, do what you please. You came in here asking how to tell if it's a 15, 30, 45 sec reset. Letting it go through one cycle without lighting is a simple test that isn't inconsistent with how oil burners operate all the time. Do the math and figure out how much oil a 1 GPH nozzle puts out in 30 secs, it's insignificant.
In fact, a better question is that if you're so unfamiliar with oil burners, worried about what happens if the burner goes through one cycle without lighting, think there is oil that needs to be pumped out, etc, why are you involved in this at all? Why are you giving advice to a neighbor who doesn't know WTF they are doing either? Tell them to call a pro.
I'm not sure it all winds up on the bottom and per the above math there isn't much oil to "puddle". But whatever oil there is, and wherever it is inside the burner, obviously once the burner fires, it's going to be burned off. And it's not like it suddenly all burns in 1/10th of a sec, it burns off over some period of time. Been there, done that.
Well duh, so why all the other pontificating? I said you could do it for one cycle for a test, not to bypass the safeties and run the damn thing all day with no ignition.
My neighbor tells me he needs a new Honeywell oil burner control unit, and they come in 3 time lengths, 15, 30, and 45 seconds. How do I know which length to buy? I know it doesn't say on the furnace itself and I'm 99% sure it doesn't say on the control box.
HOW ABOUT TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR TO CALL PEOPLE THAT WORK ON FURNACES !!!
I had an oil burner in our basement that was slow to light, altho it did li ght before the timeout timed out. Whenever the burner did not light immedi ately, when it did ignite after a few seconds, it was with a whumpf!!! that you could hear upstairs. That was how I knew it was time to readjust the ignition points where the spark was formed/located that ignited the oil.
The spark had to be in a certain position with respect to the fan/cone shap ed oil pattern out of the oil nozzle. Due to vibration and actual wear of the metal points, an annual adjustment was generally necessary. After the first service call, and watching the repair man closely, I was able to do t he positioning myself. But, it was good to have that backup timeout just i n case.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.