Comparing two Lambda Systems (Microplan) with one Siemens Ultramat 23

We have updated the tests done in December 2009 (read more) using two of our Lambda Systems (read more). The experiments have been conducted with the same configuration as the previous, the only difference being a second Lambda System that has been added. In other words in the chimney of a gas condensing boiler we have inserted three sampling pipes leading, the first two to two Microplan Lambda Systems, and the third to a system based on a Siemens Ultramat 23. 

Lambda System (Microplan): 25 seconds faster than system based on Siemens Ultramat 23 with the same accuracy

The results are very similar to those of our December test, that is to say that the error between our 2 Lambda Systems and the Siemens Ultramat 23 is less than 0,1%. The main target of this new test was to check if two different Lambda Systems have identical behaviour and the following graph can confirm it. 

The second result is the same we got from December test: reaction time of Microplan Lambda System is 25 seconds faster.

by Alessandro Nosé

How does your lambda system work?

There are three types of Microplan lambda systems: BASIC, STAND ALONE and INTEGRATED. 

BASIC: speed up your test time

The BASIC works on its own, it’s enough to insert the lambda probe in the chimney and look at the display. What are its limitations? First, on the display you see the oxygen percentage, not the CO2. Second, this percentage is measured in fumes that contain water steam, while the measure should be made dry. The second problem is actually causing an error in the measurement (to be corrected) so this type is less accurate.

Lambda probe (Microplan) Vs. system based on Ultramat 23 (Siemens)

by Marco Ragno

We have recently compared our Lambda probe (fitted with temperature compensation kit) with a flue analyser system based on an Ultramat 23 from Siemens (fitted with fumes cooler).

The experiments have been conducted with a BAXI Prime HT 280 condensing boiler over a period of 5 consecutive days in December 2009. The target was to find out the most effective, of the two systems, for end-of-line combustion analysis of gas boilers and water heaters.

The main results of the experiments can be summarised as follow:

• at steady conditions the fumes concentration error between the two instruments is <= 0.1%
• the reaction time of Lambda is of few seconds while the system based on Ultramat 23 has a 30 seconds delay (25 if compared to Lambda)