# Londinium Boilers



## pedg (Apr 11, 2017)

Why are the Boilers in Londinium machines NOT insulated when a lot of others (including the Profitec 800) are?

Cheers

GP


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

...


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Why don't you ask the manufacturer


----------



## CallumT (Aug 23, 2013)

The biggest heat sink in any lever machine is the group head/s, insulating the boiler would be mute point considering the thermal systems that are in play.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

CallumT said:


> The biggest heat sink in any lever machine is the group head/s, insulating the boiler would be mute point considering the thermal systems that are in play.


I would completely disagree....The boiler is a large copper object, far hotter than the group and heat loss is a 4th power increase related to temperature. The greater the surface area, the greater the heat loss and the boilers surface area is many times that of the group.

Insulating the boiler costs money and Italian manufacturers often cite the lack of cup warming ability as a reason not to do it, even though most people put a little hot water in cups to warm them and remove any residue/dust. Insulation of service boilers makes sense for 3 reasons....certain internal components last longer in a cool environment, steaming is better on a small boiler and less energy is used overall to run the machine. People do make arguments against insulated boilers, but to be honest it's simply good practice to do this and manufacturers who don't, should be tasked to insulate boilers. I certainly have made this point to the manufacturers of every machine I have ever reviewed, eventually the majority of them started insulating their boilers.


----------



## CallumT (Aug 23, 2013)

The boiler may be hotter but the surface area is not that much larger and when you consider that the coefficient of heat transfer (h) , which is the most significant and difficult parameter to define in all thermal systems and is dependant on air flow and the orientation of the surfaces involved so the severity of the transfer to the surrounding fluid, will be higher for that of the group than the boiler which is sat in its own lumped system consisting of stagnant air within the enclosure and the chassis itself.

At the end of the day, insulation for a machine like this is pointless a system of either having your coffees closer together and keeping the operational times tightly controlled will yield significantly more energy savings than what insulation ever could. At the end of the day the LR is the best lever on the market period and if no boiler insulation means the machine is off the list your probably looking under the wrong rock.


----------



## pedg (Apr 11, 2017)

CallumT said:


> The boiler may be hotter but the surface area is not that much larger and when you consider that the coefficient of heat transfer (h) , which is the most significant and difficult parameter to define in all thermal systems and is dependant on air flow and the orientation of the surfaces involved so the severity of the transfer to the surrounding fluid, will be higher for that of the group than the boiler which is sat in its own lumped system consisting of stagnant air within the enclosure and the chassis itself.


Correct, but every little helps, and surely it's better for the internal components to be sat in cooler stagnant air than hotter stagnant air?



CallumT said:


> At the end of the day, insulation for a machine like this is pointless a system of either having your coffees closer together and keeping the operational times tightly controlled will yield significantly more energy savings than what insulation ever could.


Not pointless at all CallumT. Surely it's even better to have your system of coffees closer together, controlling operating times AND insulation around the boiler. I really can't see any valid and reasonable arguments so far for NOT insulating the boiler, and on a premium machine of the Londiniums' class, feel it is an oversight.



CallumT said:


> At the end of the day the LR is the best lever on the market period and if no boiler insulation means the machine is off the list your probably looking under the wrong rock.


That is a very biased view CallumT, which are generally not helpful on these forums. I am not 'looking under the wrong rock' at all, just asking a perfectly reasonable question as to why you would choose not to insulate a boiler on an espresso machine. I personally can't see any negatives to doing so.



DavecUK said:


> I would completely disagree....The boiler is a large copper object, far hotter than the group and heat loss is a 4th power increase related to temperature. The greater the surface area, the greater the heat loss and the boilers surface area is many times that of the group.
> 
> Insulating the boiler costs money and Italian manufacturers often cite the lack of cup warming ability as a reason not to do it, even though most people put a little hot water in cups to warm them and remove any residue/dust. Insulation of service boilers makes sense for 3 reasons....certain internal components last longer in a cool environment, steaming is better on a small boiler and less energy is used overall to run the machine. People do make arguments against insulated boilers, but to be honest it's simply good practice to do this and manufacturers who don't, should be tasked to insulate boilers. I certainly have made this point to the manufacturers of every machine I have ever reviewed, eventually the majority of them started insulating their boilers.


I am looking into things in quite some depth, and every other Espresso machine in this price range that I have looked at, including the Profitec 800 (and some considerably cheaper ones), all have insulated boilers. DavecUK Is quite correct and you CallumT of anyone should be in a good position to answer this question with a sensible and reasonable answer.


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

clearly Reiss does not see the necessity of insulating the boiler, others have asked the same question and carried out the insulation themselves. Rest assured Londinium machines will not get the boilers insulated.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

The boiler in the Londinium won't come insulated, so your gonna have to decide if that is a deal breaker for you . There are other differences between it and the profitec also, so it's not as simple as a machine insulated or not , and which one therefore should you buy.

Callum's knowledge of lever's outshines most here and his dissertation at Uni was even on them ( and PID's i think ) Anyway.

Ultimately ask the manufacturer ( as i said before ) to get an insight into why they chose not too insulate the machine.

@lespresso might help , remember there is a time difference between here and New Zealand . @coffeechap also .


----------



## pedg (Apr 11, 2017)

Mrboots2u said:


> The boiler in the Londinium won't come insulated, so your gonna have to decide if that is a deal breaker for you.


Not a deal breaker, just interested.



Mrboots2u said:


> There are other differences between it and the profitec also, so it's not as simple as a machine insulated or not , and which one therefore should you buy.


I know.



Mrboots2u said:


> Callum's knowledge of lever's outshines most here and his dissertation at Uni was even on them ( and PID's i think ) Anyway.


He should be the perfect person to give me an un-biased, well reasoned and well referenced answer then.



Mrboots2u said:


> Ultimately ask the manufacturer ( as i said before ) to get an insight into why they chose not too insular the machine.
> 
> @lespresso might help , remember there is a time difference between here and New Zealand . @coffeechap also .


Awaiting reply.

Cheers GP


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

CallumT said:


> The boiler may be hotter but the surface area is not that much larger and when you consider that the coefficient of heat transfer (h) , which is the most significant and difficult parameter to define in all thermal systems and is dependant on air flow and the orientation of the surfaces involved so the severity of the transfer to the surrounding fluid, will be higher for that of the group than the boiler which is sat in its own lumped system consisting of stagnant air within the enclosure and the chassis itself.
> 
> At the end of the day, insulation for a machine like this is pointless a system of either having your coffees closer together and keeping the operational times tightly controlled will yield significantly more energy savings than what insulation ever could. At the end of the day the LR is the best lever on the market period and if no boiler insulation means the machine is off the list your probably looking under the wrong rock.


You are not right, far more heat is lost by the boiler, compared to the group...*If you measure the boiler and the group and do the calculations, you will find a 2.3 litre boiler has a surface area at least 3 times larger than the lever group itself. The actual water to metal contact area (steady state), is probably in the region of 15+ times greater (very important).* In addition the group might sit at a steady state of around 80C average, and the boiler will be sitting at approx 124C. Air is also convected through the case from top to bottom and heat is radiated off of the case panels.



> and if no boiler insulation means the machine is off the list your probably looking under the wrong rock.


Not sure what you mean here, I'm not looking to buy a machine, looking under rocks?? I was simply disagreeing with your earlier view that boiler insulation was pointless and gave 3 main reasons why boilers should be insulated. *You could of course do some simple tests yourself to try and verify your views*. I can say that on any espresso machines I tested this on, they use far less energy when the boiler is insulated vs uninsulated and with the exception of dual boilers with single loop PIDs, also steam better. It's not really going to be any different for a lever, as it radiates heat at a similar rate to an E61 group. it's why I asked for the Duetto (when I did the top level design) and the Verona (after I reviewed the prototype) to have insulated boilers.

I notice some likes to your reply, which is strange because you offer no reasoned argument except an incorrect one re surface area sizes. In my first paragraph, I have given you some rough calculations, why not get a ruler and measure things (you can confirm whether I am right or not). Look at the group diagram to see the actual area of the group with water contact (because the rest is all conducted heat), the boiler has water touching every part of the copper. I note someone said you did your university dissertation or something on lever groups, so this should be childs play for you. You can go further and measure the outer and inner case temperatures once a steady state has been reached and rough out the heat loss calculations.....then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

The simple fact is machines should have the boilers insulated, just because historically they didn't do it doesn't make it right....but it does make it cheaper.


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

DavecUK said:


> The simple fact is machines should have the boilers insulated, just because historically they didn't do it doesn't make it right....but it does make it cheaper.


Yep you are right it makes it cheaper and easier for the manufacturer and keeps the cost down


----------



## CallumT (Aug 23, 2013)

All opinions are my own and are unbiased, Energy efficiency and espresso will never go hand in hand your holding a large amount of thermal mass at elevated temperature. Would you go and buy an M3/ C63 based on the mpg? - There are costs associated with owning and running espresso machines, insulating the boiler would make no difference to the user so why install the insulation in the first place? - Not to mention even if it did it would have *no effect* on the output of the coffee brewed.

I wrote my thesis about the implementation of PID control on the L1 with the conclusion that it had no measurable effect on the thermal stability of the grouphead and that changes in environment were more of a concern due to the coupling of the group to ambient conditions. This was something I thought would effect the machine in a positive manner, yet had no effect. In fact was measurable difference was an *increase* in energy consumption; the increased frequency of the heating element being under load for less time meant the machine consumed *more* electricity.

The simple answer to the first post there is no insulation because there has been a widespread acknowledgment that there is no requirement for it, the machine has been reiterated over a number of years and insulation was never added again, thus further supporting the statement that the insulation is irrelavent. There are a lot of things that can be done/changed, but if there is no benefit then one would usually suggest to not bother with the change and to continue with the same path.


----------



## espressotechno (Apr 11, 2011)

I have not come across any commercial espresso machine which has any boiler insulation or any panel insulation.....and most of them give off LOTS of heat.

Again, it's probably "custom & practice" + cost saving.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

CallumT said:


> I wrote my thesis about the implementation of PID control on the L1 with the conclusion that it had no measurable effect on the thermal stability of the grouphead and that changes in environment were more of a concern due to the coupling of the group to ambient conditions. This was something I thought would effect the machine in a positive manner, yet had no effect. In fact was measurable difference was an *increase* in energy consumption; the increased frequency of the heating element being under load for less time meant the machine consumed *more* electricity.


Are we talking PIDs controlling the boiler temps here? the "mechanics" of the Bosco groups are based on thermosyphons, so why would a PID have an effect on how stable the group temperatures are? common sense suggests that there's very little if any relation between how the boiler temp is maintenained (ie. type of control algorythm), as long as it's not some very crude on-off algorythm with long lags. Also how well was the PID tuned, how was the temperature measured and where was the sensor? I'm really surpised seeing that a well tuned PID controlled loop would have a larger energy consumption that an on-off method with the factory fitted pstat.

As for insulating boilers, consider that if you want to do a full wrap it's best to disconnect the entire boiler from the rest of the system. Wrapping with all pipes intact is doable, but fairly annoying and requires quite a lot of fit checks. Main positives after wrapping would be less energy consumption, slower cycling of the heating element and in general making it easier for whatever controller you have (PID / pstat) to do what it's supposed to do, as the temp changes slower.

T.


----------



## Dylan (Dec 5, 2011)

dsc -

Not anywhere near the level of understanding you guys have on this but just a question to pose:

During discussion on leaving your machine on all day vs turning it on and off the conclusion I read into was that thermodynamics proves that keeping a machine at temp will always consume more energy than switching it off and on.

Does it not therefore follow that a pstat which switches an element on and off at intervals of say 10 minutes would consume less energy than a PID which switches the element on and off at much smaller intervals?

Apologies if I am barking up a completely different tree.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Dylan said:


> dsc -
> 
> Not anywhere near the level of understanding you guys have on this but just a question to pose:
> 
> ...


1. Yes, the laws of physics make this true

2. In essence, yes the laws of physics would also make this true, *although the effect would be very small*, because the temperature only varies by perhaps 7-10C. Trouble is this would mostly if not completely be mitigated by the larger overshoots of a pressurestat. so the average difference over time would be so small as to be meaningless.

Of course the nature of pressurestat control via an SSR does give the heating element an easier life!


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Indeed it's all about overshooting, on-off algorythms tend to overshoot quite a bit when controlling fast changing objects which means the heater staying on for longer then it needs and also on being activated fast enough when it should go on. A well tuned PID will "predict" (doesn't really predict anything, it's just the way it works) the moment when the heater should be on and trigger it earlier to avoid over / undershoot, thus increasing the efficiency of the control loop from an energy point of view. You also have to remember that a heater gives out heat even after it's been switched off and also doesn't start generating heat straight away after being activated. An on-off algorythm acts purely on temperature and any lag will simply be a characteristic of the controlled element (heater) wheras with a PID you can effectively lower / eliminate this lag by tuning the loop.

T.


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

A wemo with a simple on off protocol will save far more than insulating the tank , coffee machines are inefficient by nature , in fact the whole idea of producing espresso isn't exactly efficient .

I agree insulation will create a saving, but I liken that to not eating the cherry off your ice cream sundae because you are watching the calories.


----------



## NickR (Jul 1, 2011)

Going back to insulation - is there any material that will last the typical life of a lever machine (say 20 years)? The insulation on my Andreja was turning to dust at about 4 years.


----------



## Wiji (Jan 17, 2017)

I remember reading a discussion about this on the Londinium forums - and from what I recall, some people who did insulate their boilers on the Londinium 1 did not notice as big reduction in the cycle time of the pstat as they expected (I think I recall that it increased by approx 20 seconds from 1:30 - 1:50 or so). This does suggest that a big chunk of the heat losses for the Londinium are at the grouphead. Whilst I agree that the boiler surface area is much larger - the temperature differential between the boiler surface and the hot air inside the machine will be much smaller than that between the grouphead and the ambient air. Plus - this air isn't moving much, so convection losses will be much less from the boiler than from the grouphead.

I also recall that one of the main reasons that Reiss said he didn't fit insulation as standard was ease of maintenance and servicing, and that the insulation could get sticky/break down over time.

Besides, the actual amount of money you'd save from insulation would be tiny compared to the actual cost of the machine. It's like buying a ferrari and then worrying about the fuel consumption.


----------



## danielpugh (Oct 26, 2016)

Realise this is a very old thread and so pointless bringing it back to life. However it keeps coming up in searches over the last few days, and I keep reading the last post. Increase by 20 seconds out of 1:30 is a 22% (20/90) increase in efficiency. This seems quite a lot. It reminds me of my dad refusing to insulate our lift when I was young. It was cold in winter - eventually as a penny pincher like me has insulated his loft (and installed radiators) as it saves money (and is now warmer) ...


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

@danielpugh I would hope views have changed and people would begin to see a lack of insulated boilers as ECO unfriendly and a negative aspect of the good old days. It saves energy and with proper case ventilation can prolong the life of electronics and other components within the machine


----------

