York Heatpumps - any experience?

[sharpener]

12 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Installer should be allowed to update if it's software controlled, but of course the min, which is critical doesn't change.

 

Other things being equal then it is important that you try and avoid getting a model which is software restricted, because you will automatically get a worse turndown ratio.

 

The York range seems to achieve quite a high output from their middle frame size, 16kW from a package 1040 x 865 x 410mm is pretty good - a "thin" design and well inside the 0.6 cu m.

 

Unfortunately I am looking for 12kW which is the lowest of the three ratings with 1.8 kg of R32, so the turndown ratio would almost certainly be poor (?min o/p of 16kw/2 so maybe only 1.5:1). In these circs better to choose a different mfr with the break point at a different rating.

 

From the engineering point of view I am not sure about the modular concept, it's nice in theory but there are a lot of things (pcbs, reversing valves, pumps) where the costs don't increase much if at all with rating). And installation would be a faff unless like Pylontech batteries you just physically stack them one on top of another and all the interconnections are made automatically. Which I can see being expensive on the hydraulic side.

[Beelbeebub]

9 hours ago, sharpener said:

 

Other things being equal then it is important that you try and avoid getting a model which is software restricted, because you will automatically get a worse turndown ratio.

 

The York range seems to achieve quite a high output from their middle frame size, 16kW from a package 1040 x 865 x 410mm is pretty good - a "thin" design and well inside the 0.6 cu m.

 

Unfortunately I am looking for 12kW which is the lowest of the three ratings with 1.8 kg of R32, so the turndown ratio would almost certainly be poor (?min o/p of 16kw/2 so maybe only 1.5:1). In these circs better to choose a different mfr with the break point at a different rating.

 

From the engineering point of view I am not sure about the modular concept, it's nice in theory but there are a lot of things (pcbs, reversing valves, pumps) where the costs don't increase much if at all with rating). And installation would be a faff unless like Pylontech batteries you just physically stack them one on top of another and all the interconnections are made automatically. Which I can see being expensive on the hydraulic side.

Have a word with York. I think the 12 & 16kw units are identical like the 6,7,9 lower units and Habe identical "bottom.ends" of performance, just different maximums. The frame sizes are nice and compact it seems.

 

As for the modular concept, yes the idea would be the units could stack vertically and sideways.  Electrically they would daisy chain i.e. the control would go to the master unit and then the other units would daisy chain off that for control, power and Comms.  As for hydraulics, I assume they would be run in parallel, so a premade manifold would be provided and you Flexi connect all the flows to one and all the returns to another (prob only 22mm, maybe 15mm if the.nunbers work out) and then in the appropriate feed and return pipes into the building 

 

In fact grant make an external volumiser, basically an insulated box that sits behind the HP and provides 30L or so of volume.  If you added extra ports into and out of the box, your volumiser would also be your manifold 

 

As I said it's a bit of a pie in the sky concept, more to provoke discussion than actually be a serious proposal 

[sharpener]

35 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

I think the 12 & 16kw units are identical

Precisely my point, which means if the 16kW has 2:1 modulation (which I don't know  but would be reasonable) and turns down to 8kW then so will the 12kW which is quite poor and would not cope with the small coil in my cylinder without cycling.

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by sharpener

[Beelbeebub]

54 minutes ago, sharpener said:

Precisely my point, which means if the 16kW has 2:1 modulation (which I don't know  but would be reasonable) and turns down to 8kW then so will the 12kW which is quite poor and would not cope with the small coil in my cylinder without cycling.

 

Sent you DM

[sharpener]

48 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Sent you DM

 

Thanks, presumably you didn't want to publish the tables here. Even if the turndown is better than I expected the big takeaway for me is that they will not achieve 65C flow below an OAT of 5C.

 

As you may have read on this thread, because of the small coil I will need a high flow temp to drive the heat through the small surface area. Hence my interest in R290 HPs which will provide up to 75C flow, the CoP is not good but it would be running on E7 whlile producing the DHW.

[JamesPa]

11 hours ago, sharpener said:

 

Thanks, presumably you didn't want to publish the tables here. Even if the turndown is better than I expected the big takeaway for me is that they will not achieve 65C flow below an OAT of 5C.

 

As you may have read on this thread, because of the small coil I will need a high flow temp to drive the heat through the small surface area. Hence my interest in R290 HPs which will provide up to 75C flow, the CoP is not good but it would be running on E7 whlile producing the DHW.

You may want to read my latest post in this thread which contains written confirmation from MCS that, where an existing cylinder is reused and it it unreasonable to upgrade insulation on the primaries leading to it, MCS will not insist that the insulation is upgraded unless the upgrade is required by Building Regs (which generally it isnt). 

 

MCS3005-D clause 5.6.7 could easily be interpreted that MCS does insist on this (crazy) upgrade, and I suspect many installers may hide behind it if pushed, given the assumption built into the heat pump industry that new heat pump = new cylinder.  Of course your primaries may already be insulated and/or you may have a flexible installer.