Replacing my 21 year old Propane pool heater. Raypak options...

[JamesR]

So I have decided on a Raypak 399,000 BTU, digital, electroninc ignition LP heater to replace the old rusted out Teledyne Laars.
My options are the Raypak #014953 Pool Heater Digital Propane Gas - Cupro Nickel for about $2600
or
the Raypak #009227 Pool Heater Digital Propane Gas for about $2500.
I don't run salt water, but am still considering the Nickel +$100 for some added corrosion protection.
Are these 2 heaters good options for me? Any advice on one vs the other. These prices look good?
Thanks in advance,
JIm

 

[ajw22]

Get the cupro nickel. It is worth $100 more.

 

[JamesR]

Thanks AJW. That's what I figured. Probably kick myself 3 years later had I not done so.
Since the higher nickel content makes it a bit less thermally conductive, it looks like they rate this 399,000 btu heater actually at 360,000 for Cupro-Nickel vs a true 399,000 for copper.
Hopefully the 10% hit in BTU is not a big deal.

 

[ajw22]

Thanks AJW. That's what I figured. Probably kick myself 3 years later had I not done so.
Since the higher nickel content makes it a bit less thermally conductive, it looks like they rate this 399,000 btu heater actually at 360,000 for Cupro-Nickel vs a true 399,000 for copper.
Hopefully the 10% hit in BTU is not a big deal.

Copper heater is not 399,999. Both heaters are about 80% efficient. 400,000 btu's in give you 320,000 BTUs heat out. I think cupro nickel is about a 6% difference from copper.

 

[JamesR]

Correct on the x0.8 for the in/out efficiency. I was wondering why the spec sheet for the copper reads 399,000 btu in while the cupro reads 360,000 btu in. This is for the residential models.
The commercial ASME version of the cupro reads 399,000 btu in.

 

[ajw22]

I never noticed that. I doubt you will see a difference in actual operation.

 

[JamesR]

FYI from the Raypak rep;
"The cupro-nickel heat exchanger is 25% NICKEL AND 75% COPPER (denoted by an “X” at the end of the model number.) The other unit is 100% copper (denoted by a “C” at the end of the model number.) The copper heat exchanger is the most efficient material for heat transfer, so the cupro-nickel is derated. The purpose of the cupro-nickel is to give additional protection to the heat exchanger that can be attacked with poor water chemistry. That is the advantage, but it also has less ability to transfer heat.
The input BTUH accounts for the heat exchanger material, and the heater efficiency is 82%"

 

[ajw22]

The input BTUH accounts for the heat exchanger material, and the heater efficiency is 82%"[/I]

The input BTUs is defined by the gas input volume BTUs. The output BTUs is defined by the water heat rise. Heater efficiency is output BTUs/input BTUs.

Saying the residential cupro-nickel heater is 366K BTU input versus the copper 399K heater says the cupro-nickel has small gas burners and uses less input gas. That makes no sense to me to not have 399K burners.

Both the copper and cupro-nickel heater efficiency is around 82%.

 

[JamesR]

I’m glad that I’m not the only one confused by that.

 

[ajw22]

If you want to dig into it find the parts diagrams online for the copper and cupronickel models and see if the burner nozzle part numbers are the same or different.

 

[JamesR]

That was exactly my thought!

 

[swamprat69]

The difference in input is probably accounted for by the difference in heat transfer and design considerations. It would seem that in an attempt to make as many parts interchangeable as possible, that because of the difference in heat transfer the cupro-nickel heat exchanger would have to be considerably larger than the copper heat exchanger or the input BTUs would have to be lowered. If the heat exchangers were the same size and the input BTUs were the same, the cupro-nickel heat exchanger would extract much less heat from the flue gas and the temperature of the flue gas at the vent exit would be much higher. Just a thought as to possible reasons for the differences

 

[JamesR]

According to the parts breakdown, the copper unit has a #57 burner orifice, the cupro-nickel has a #58 burner orifice. So they are indeed different as far as input. This is for each being the low altitude 0-2000' model.
I'm not sure why they do that. I ordered the Nickel version anyway.