By the way, the boiler specs indicate .95 - 1.35 gal/hour so the 1
gal/hour is within spec. It just runs lousey.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:52:52 GMT, mstrspy wrote:

I think your right, He probably did screw it up. I think I'm going to
fire this guy. I usually have to call him several times before he
comes out. Not very reliable. Meanwhile, I hope that my boiler isn't
getting ruined. By the way, last year I aved an estimate of about 400
gallons of oil with this new system.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:15:14 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"mstrspy" wrote in message
. ..
He put in a smaller nozzle for two reasons:
(1) To cut down on fue consumption
(2) He felt that the burner was runig too hot because the paint
blistered off of the site window cover.

Not sure if this is valid, but I don't like the rumbling. I'm
concerend about damage to th combustion chamber due to rumbling.

First of all, if it is burning efficiently, it won't save fuel. It will just
run longer with a smaller flame to put out the same amount of heat. As long
as that heat is getting to the water in the boiler and not up the stack, it
is OK. What does the factory recommend? More important that nozzle size is
the proper air/fuel ratio. It sounds like he screwed it up.

New units often have paint on places that may get singed. The sight glass
is going to bet hooter than the insulated places around it.