I'm curious on opinions from pro's of the water test for residential
heat exchangers advocated by Ellis Prach of
http://www.heatexchangerexperts.com/ In this test, the tech pulls the
blower, douses the exchanger with a water solution from a large
sprayer, and then looks inside the combustion area for water
penetration. If there's water getting in, they reason, you have a
breached heat exchanger that they recommend replacing it.

I'm suspicious of this Prach guy though... a self-proclaimed heat
exchanger expert, and evidently pontificates--in his seminars he holds
all over the country training HVAC techs--that he can even find leaks
in a heat exchanger that's 3 years old. His seminars are apparently
quite hands-on and he travels with several actual heat exchangers and
demonstrates trouble spots on each. I've talked to two attendees and
they concur on these points.

So, do y'all think this is a worthwhile diagnostic test that
correlates with real safety issues, or just a great way to sell new
furnaces and make this Prach guy rich giving seminars from companies
so willing to have him teach techs to find leaks in 3 year old heat
exchangers?

The whole thing seems to hinge on the assumption that if the heat
exchanger isn't water tight, then it isn't air tight, and the further
assumption that pressures inside the furnace are such that combusion
byproducts might actually make it into the airflow of such leakage
areas.

My own situation that motivates the question: a tech (from a
significant, well-respected company in Chicagoland that I've used for
years because they invest in training their techs rather well) had
attended a seminar by this man recently, and had come to give my 15
year old Carrier furnace the annual cleaning and once over. Perhaps
it was the age of the furnace, or the rust on it from the prior owner
not occupying hte house for the prior two years, but soething
compelled him to drop the blower and perform this new test he'd
learned recently. Now, this is a furnace that had a visual inspection
and tested CO free on all chambers last November for whatever that's
worth. I understand that for CO to form and get into ducts you need a
lot more than an HX breach.

Personally, I may go ahead and replace the furnace based on age and
the suspicion alone, and enjoy the comfort and efficiency afforded by
a newer 2-stage and/or variable speed furnace since my time horizons
in this home are long enough to get the payback.

But I remain curious what folks think about this test all the same,
and the likelihood that my current furnace _really_ has a safety
concern.

Thanks in advance for any constructive thoughts or discussion.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

On 13 Sep 2006 23:53:38 -0500, (Todd H.) wrote:


I'm curious on opinions from pro's of the water test for residential
heat exchangers advocated by Ellis Prach of
http://www.heatexchangerexperts.com/ In this test, the tech pulls the
blower, douses the exchanger with a water solution from a large
sprayer, and then looks inside the combustion area for water
penetration. If there's water getting in, they reason, you have a
breached heat exchanger that they recommend replacing it.

I'm suspicious of this Prach guy though... a self-proclaimed heat
exchanger expert, and evidently pontificates--in his seminars he holds
all over the country training HVAC techs--that he can even find leaks
in a heat exchanger that's 3 years old. His seminars are apparently
quite hands-on and he travels with several actual heat exchangers and
demonstrates trouble spots on each. I've talked to two attendees and
they concur on these points.

So, do y'all think this is a worthwhile diagnostic test that
correlates with real safety issues, or just a great way to sell new
furnaces and make this Prach guy rich giving seminars from companies
so willing to have him teach techs to find leaks in 3 year old heat
exchangers?

The whole thing seems to hinge on the assumption that if the heat
exchanger isn't water tight, then it isn't air tight, and the further
assumption that pressures inside the furnace are such that combusion
byproducts might actually make it into the airflow of such leakage
areas.

My own situation that motivates the question: a tech (from a
significant, well-respected company in Chicagoland that I've used for
years because they invest in training their techs rather well) had
attended a seminar by this man recently, and had come to give my 15
year old Carrier furnace the annual cleaning and once over. Perhaps
it was the age of the furnace, or the rust on it from the prior owner
not occupying hte house for the prior two years, but soething
compelled him to drop the blower and perform this new test he'd
learned recently. Now, this is a furnace that had a visual inspection
and tested CO free on all chambers last November for whatever that's
worth. I understand that for CO to form and get into ducts you need a
lot more than an HX breach.

Personally, I may go ahead and replace the furnace based on age and
the suspicion alone, and enjoy the comfort and efficiency afforded by
a newer 2-stage and/or variable speed furnace since my time horizons
in this home are long enough to get the payback.

But I remain curious what folks think about this test all the same,
and the likelihood that my current furnace _really_ has a safety
concern.

Thanks in advance for any constructive thoughts or discussion.

Best Regards,

Seems you've already made up your mind but I'll give you my .03
worth. I previously worked for a national hvac company that adopted
this practice like it came from the bible. This company was also into
high pressure sales practices and tactics. One little twist they added
to the test was to make sure the heat exchanger was nice and hot right
before they started spraying water on the heat exchanger. Common sense
tells you that hot thin metal and cold water are not a good
combination for a homeowners heat exchanger. CO tests, detectors and
visual inspections and cameras are a more advanced way of checking
heat exchangers.
Bubba

1) I thought combustion chambers were supposed to run dry. Isn't
adding a bunch of water a rust hazzard?
2) if you're getting zero monoxide, why are you continuing to test?
Trying to find a reason to think there is a leak?
3) The quote on the manual page that "most of the furnaces had a
crack" only means to me that he's found an indicator that shows
positive on everyone's furnace
4) solution, eh? Some kind of detergent stuff that really soaks
through? Doesn't mean that flue gasses go the other way.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this "new" technique.

--

Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
..

"Todd H." wrote in message
...

I'm curious on opinions from pro's of the water test for residential
heat exchangers advocated by Ellis Prach of
http://www.heatexchangerexperts.com/ In this test, the tech pulls the
blower, douses the exchanger with a water solution from a large
sprayer, and then looks inside the combustion area for water
penetration. If there's water getting in, they reason, you have a
breached heat exchanger that they recommend replacing it.

I'm suspicious of this Prach guy though... a self-proclaimed heat
exchanger expert, and evidently pontificates--in his seminars he holds
all over the country training HVAC techs--that he can even find leaks
in a heat exchanger that's 3 years old. His seminars are apparently
quite hands-on and he travels with several actual heat exchangers and
demonstrates trouble spots on each. I've talked to two attendees and
they concur on these points.

So, do y'all think this is a worthwhile diagnostic test that
correlates with real safety issues, or just a great way to sell new
furnaces and make this Prach guy rich giving seminars from companies
so willing to have him teach techs to find leaks in 3 year old heat
exchangers?

The whole thing seems to hinge on the assumption that if the heat
exchanger isn't water tight, then it isn't air tight, and the further
assumption that pressures inside the furnace are such that combusion
byproducts might actually make it into the airflow of such leakage
areas.

My own situation that motivates the question: a tech (from a
significant, well-respected company in Chicagoland that I've used for
years because they invest in training their techs rather well) had
attended a seminar by this man recently, and had come to give my 15
year old Carrier furnace the annual cleaning and once over. Perhaps
it was the age of the furnace, or the rust on it from the prior owner
not occupying hte house for the prior two years, but soething
compelled him to drop the blower and perform this new test he'd
learned recently. Now, this is a furnace that had a visual inspection
and tested CO free on all chambers last November for whatever that's
worth. I understand that for CO to form and get into ducts you need a
lot more than an HX breach.

Personally, I may go ahead and replace the furnace based on age and
the suspicion alone, and enjoy the comfort and efficiency afforded by
a newer 2-stage and/or variable speed furnace since my time horizons
in this home are long enough to get the payback.

But I remain curious what folks think about this test all the same,
and the likelihood that my current furnace _really_ has a safety
concern.

Thanks in advance for any constructive thoughts or discussion.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Todd H." wrote in message ...

I'm curious on opinions from pro's of the water test for residential
heat exchangers advocated by Ellis Prach of
http://www.heatexchangerexperts.com/ In this test, the tech pulls the
blower, douses the exchanger with a water solution from a large
sprayer, and then looks inside the combustion area for water
penetration. If there's water getting in, they reason, you have a
breached heat exchanger that they recommend replacing it.

I'm suspicious of this Prach guy though... a self-proclaimed heat
exchanger expert, and evidently pontificates--in his seminars he holds
all over the country training HVAC techs--that he can even find leaks
in a heat exchanger that's 3 years old. His seminars are apparently
quite hands-on and he travels with several actual heat exchangers and
demonstrates trouble spots on each. I've talked to two attendees and
they concur on these points.

So, do y'all think this is a worthwhile diagnostic test that
correlates with real safety issues, or just a great way to sell new
furnaces and make this Prach guy rich giving seminars from companies
so willing to have him teach techs to find leaks in 3 year old heat
exchangers?

The whole thing seems to hinge on the assumption that if the heat
exchanger isn't water tight, then it isn't air tight, and the further
assumption that pressures inside the furnace are such that combusion
byproducts might actually make it into the airflow of such leakage
areas.

My own situation that motivates the question: a tech (from a
significant, well-respected company in Chicagoland that I've used for
years because they invest in training their techs rather well) had
attended a seminar by this man recently, and had come to give my 15
year old Carrier furnace the annual cleaning and once over. Perhaps
it was the age of the furnace, or the rust on it from the prior owner
not occupying hte house for the prior two years, but soething
compelled him to drop the blower and perform this new test he'd
learned recently. Now, this is a furnace that had a visual inspection
and tested CO free on all chambers last November for whatever that's
worth. I understand that for CO to form and get into ducts you need a
lot more than an HX breach.

Personally, I may go ahead and replace the furnace based on age and
the suspicion alone, and enjoy the comfort and efficiency afforded by
a newer 2-stage and/or variable speed furnace since my time horizons
in this home are long enough to get the payback.

But I remain curious what folks think about this test all the same,
and the likelihood that my current furnace _really_ has a safety
concern.

Thanks in advance for any constructive thoughts or discussion.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/



Could be fine. Maybe, maybe not.

Bubba writes:
Seems you've already made up your mind but I'll give you my .03
worth. I previously worked for a national hvac company that adopted
this practice like it came from the bible. This company was also into
high pressure sales practices and tactics. One little twist they added
to the test was to make sure the heat exchanger was nice and hot right
before they started spraying water on the heat exchanger. Common sense
tells you that hot thin metal and cold water are not a good
combination for a homeowners heat exchanger. CO tests, detectors and
visual inspections and cameras are a more advanced way of checking
heat exchangers.
Bubba

Thankfully this company didn't do that! Since it's still a bit
A/C season, he didn't want to run the furnace to put the HX through
that thermal stress, but he did clean the burners and everything and
then was curious enough to do the inspection. It was done with a
room temp HX. He did a visual with mirror but I don't think I saw a
camera involved.

Tis interesting though how many different ways there seem to be to
check HX's.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Al Moran writes:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:05:25 GMT, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this "new" technique.


It's a valid technique you knob.

On what basis do you say this Al? One of the reasons for my original
post is to find out whether a study actually been done correlating
this technique's results to actual combustion chamber - duct gas
flow, or is it all based on the assumption that if a water solution
can get in then surely gases will go the other way.

I'm guessing no one would fund such a study aside from a consumer
advocacy group. The manufacturers certainly wouldn't want to
undermine such a wonderful test where the customer can be shown water
on their heat exchanger, and be made to think they're going to kill
their family if they don't replace it.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Oscar_Lives" writes:

Could be fine. Maybe, maybe not.

Yeah, that's what I suspect too. This test is a dealer's wet
(literally) dream, but I suspect has a false positive rate that is
alarmingly high.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:05:25 GMT, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

1) I thought combustion chambers were supposed to run dry. Isn't
adding a bunch of water a rust hazzard?
2) if you're getting zero monoxide, why are you continuing to test?
Trying to find a reason to think there is a leak?

Stormy,
Once again you prove your complete lack of knowledge in the hvac
industry. Here is one for you to suck on for a while.
You do know that you can have a heat exchanger with a hole in it big
enough to put both of your fists through and still not register any CO
reading, dont you?
Of course not, I didnt think so.
So would you let that customer continue to run their fossil fuel
appliance with that large of a hole in it that wasl correctly
registering a "0" CO reading?
You REALLY shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a customers appliances.
You are scary and dangerous.
Bubba
3) The quote on the manual page that "most of the furnaces had a
crack" only means to me that he's found an indicator that shows
positive on everyone's furnace
4) solution, eh? Some kind of detergent stuff that really soaks
through? Doesn't mean that flue gasses go the other way.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this "new" technique.

--

Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
.

"Todd H." wrote in message
...

I'm curious on opinions from pro's of the water test for residential
heat exchangers advocated by Ellis Prach of
http://www.heatexchangerexperts.com/ In this test, the tech pulls the
blower, douses the exchanger with a water solution from a large
sprayer, and then looks inside the combustion area for water
penetration. If there's water getting in, they reason, you have a
breached heat exchanger that they recommend replacing it.

I'm suspicious of this Prach guy though... a self-proclaimed heat
exchanger expert, and evidently pontificates--in his seminars he holds
all over the country training HVAC techs--that he can even find leaks
in a heat exchanger that's 3 years old. His seminars are apparently
quite hands-on and he travels with several actual heat exchangers and
demonstrates trouble spots on each. I've talked to two attendees and
they concur on these points.

So, do y'all think this is a worthwhile diagnostic test that
correlates with real safety issues, or just a great way to sell new
furnaces and make this Prach guy rich giving seminars from companies
so willing to have him teach techs to find leaks in 3 year old heat
exchangers?

The whole thing seems to hinge on the assumption that if the heat
exchanger isn't water tight, then it isn't air tight, and the further
assumption that pressures inside the furnace are such that combusion
byproducts might actually make it into the airflow of such leakage
areas.

My own situation that motivates the question: a tech (from a
significant, well-respected company in Chicagoland that I've used for
years because they invest in training their techs rather well) had
attended a seminar by this man recently, and had come to give my 15
year old Carrier furnace the annual cleaning and once over. Perhaps
it was the age of the furnace, or the rust on it from the prior owner
not occupying hte house for the prior two years, but soething
compelled him to drop the blower and perform this new test he'd
learned recently. Now, this is a furnace that had a visual inspection
and tested CO free on all chambers last November for whatever that's
worth. I understand that for CO to form and get into ducts you need a
lot more than an HX breach.

Personally, I may go ahead and replace the furnace based on age and
the suspicion alone, and enjoy the comfort and efficiency afforded by
a newer 2-stage and/or variable speed furnace since my time horizons
in this home are long enough to get the payback.

But I remain curious what folks think about this test all the same,
and the likelihood that my current furnace _really_ has a safety
concern.

Thanks in advance for any constructive thoughts or discussion.

Best Regards,

"Al Moran" wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep 2006 11:27:18 -0500, (Todd H.) wrote:



On what basis do you say this Al?

You can have a large crack and not
let any co into the supply air stream


Oh yeah? You need to talk to my plumber.

Al Moran writes:

On 14 Sep 2006 11:27:18 -0500, (Todd H.) wrote:



On what basis do you say this Al?

On the basis that I do this stuff for a living. If there is a crack
in the hx and you pour water over it while observing the inside of
the chamber you will see the water. Now whether the crack will let
co in the airstream is another question. You can have a large crack
and not let any co into the supply air stream, it all depends on
whether the system has positive or negative air pressure in relation
to the hx and supply airstream, which depends on a lot of different
things. That still does not mean it is safe to run the damn
thing. It also depends on what state you are in. Some municipality's
require the heat and ac company to disable any heat system with a
cracked hx and inform the utility of same.

But what if the water is coming in at the clamshell joint that's a
manufacturing reality in many HX's and there is no visible crack,
other than the joint itself, which of course is there by design?

What I'm hinting at is this is a test that smells like it may have a
fairly significant false positive rate and no one seems to have any
data on it.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
"Oscar_Lives" writes:

Could be fine. Maybe, maybe not.

Yeah, that's what I suspect too. This test is a dealer's wet
(literally) dream, but I suspect has a false positive rate that is
alarmingly high.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/


Pour a bucket of water over your open gas kitchen range and into your
oven. I guess if a drop of water makes it under the burners, that
should be thrown out too.

(Todd H.) wrote in :


I'm curious on opinions from pro's of the water test for residential
heat exchangers advocated by Ellis Prach of
http://www.heatexchangerexperts.com/ In this test, the tech pulls the
blower, douses the exchanger with a water solution from a large
sprayer, and then looks inside the combustion area for water
penetration. If there's water getting in, they reason, you have a
breached heat exchanger that they recommend replacing it.


New exchangers from the factory aren't water tight.
It has become increasingly difficult to ascertain whether or not a heat
exchanger has been compromised due to rust or cracks.
Newer exchangers are multi-pass, which makes visual inspections very
limited. There can be other tell-tale signs of a faulty exchanger, such as
popped rings on top of the blower housing, but again, very dificult to see
unless you have a boroscope.
A tripped limit or burner spill switch may also indicate a crack,hole, or
separation.
Flame distortion with the blower on, flame roll-out, continuous pilot
outages caused by air from the fan blowing through a crack. (Always a good
idea to operate the fan with the burners off and watch the pilot for
distortion. I got fooled once as a rookie by a cracked heat exchanger. I
replaced the t/couple on an older furnace thinking it was just old and
tired. It blew out after I left and another tech picked up on it with the
fan-on test.)
The best advice I can give for homeowners is to have your furnace cleaned
once a year, and have a CO detector on every level where people sleep.
Replace it before it's old enough to vote.




--
Respectfully, Bob

(Todd H.) wrote in :


I'm curious on opinions from pro's of the water test for residential
heat exchangers advocated by Ellis Prach of
http://www.heatexchangerexperts.com/ In this test, the tech pulls the
blower, douses the exchanger with a water solution from a large
sprayer,

This technique wouldn't do much for all the insulation that is attached to
inside of the furnace compartment....



--
Respectfully, Bob

Oscar_Lives posted for all of us...


"Al Moran" wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep 2006 11:27:18 -0500, (Todd H.) wrote:



On what basis do you say this Al?

You can have a large crack and not
let any co into the supply air stream


Oh yeah? You need to talk to my plumber.



That's methane.
--
Tekkie "There's no such thing as a tool I don't need."

Heat exchangers are fitted for a reason, to seperate the heating media from
the heated media. If you have a cross-over leak you have a problem that
can't be ignored. V9isual inspection with a mirror or a camera is
inadaquate, especially in a multi pass unit. A water test as discribed
is fine however a water pressure test would be better.

Doug