Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home. Family of 2 adults + 2 children
a. if you crank them up that high, you'll get no useable flow to speak of
b. i'd never have an antiscald shower valve
c. the hotter the water is to begin with, the longer it'll last mixed down.
steve
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail,com > wrote in message
news:c664bdf6-9751-4672-9fc9-3fec1a19eabd@u10g2000prn.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 8, 10:37 am, "S. Barker" <ichasetra...@coldmail,com > wrote:
>> BUT, can you get 140 - 160 degree water out of it?
>>
>> I thought not. It doesn't matter if the junk mf's are FREE to run if you
>> can't get what you need out of them.
>
> The Bosch units can be dialed up to 140 degrees. I realize that you
> get more water at a given temperature when you start with hotter water
> and mix in cold, but what do you need 160 degree water for?
> Considering that most of the time you'll mix it down to 120 degrees
> and the anti-scald showers won't let you go anywhere near 160, what's
> the point of heating water just to cool it down? If your system is
> undersized for the amount of hot water you need, cranking up the water
> temperature is a backwards way of adjusting it.
>
> R
a. if you crank them up that high, you'll get no useable flow to speak of
b. i'd never have an antiscald shower valve
c. the hotter the water is to begin with, the longer it'll last mixed down.
steve
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail,com > wrote in message
news:c664bdf6-9751-4672-9fc9-3fec1a19eabd@u10g2000prn.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 8, 10:37 am, "S. Barker" <ichasetra...@coldmail,com > wrote:
>> BUT, can you get 140 - 160 degree water out of it?
>>
>> I thought not. It doesn't matter if the junk mf's are FREE to run if you
>> can't get what you need out of them.
>
> The Bosch units can be dialed up to 140 degrees. I realize that you
> get more water at a given temperature when you start with hotter water
> and mix in cold, but what do you need 160 degree water for?
> Considering that most of the time you'll mix it down to 120 degrees
> and the anti-scald showers won't let you go anywhere near 160, what's
> the point of heating water just to cool it down? If your system is
> undersized for the amount of hot water you need, cranking up the water
> temperature is a backwards way of adjusting it.
>
> R
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
Hi everyone.
I'd like to try and elevate the tankless vs. tank discussion a little
bit. Let me just say however, kudos for actually bringing a citation into
the conversation (WP article). Unfortunately the cited article is
severely flawed. It attempts to generalize from anecdotal evidence, and
neglects to mention a key benefit of tankless systems: they have an
expected life time of OVER 20 YEARS (citation below).
The US department of energy discusses the pros and cons of the system, and
I hope we can all agree that they are a reasonably reliable and unbiased
source.
Check out:
http :// www .eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/
mytopic=12820
I recommend reading the whole page. It's brief and highly informative.
QUOTED from the DOE website:
-Most tankless water heaters have a life expectancy of more than 20
years. They also have easily replaceable parts that extend their
life by many more years. In contrast, storage water heaters last 10?15
years.
-[tankless water heaters] don't produce the standby energy losses
associated with storage water heaters, which can save you money.
Whether or not a tankless system is good for your requires a little
thought. If you have a problem with instantaneous flow (e.g. you want to
be able to run your washer, dishwasher, and have everyone take a shower
simultaneously), a tankless system to meet your needs will likely be
impractical. Your problem seems to be more length periods of continuous
use, which would indicate that you could seriously benefit from a tankless
system.
If you really need water > 140F, they probably aren't a good solution for
you. The vast majority of homeowners however do not.
If all you care about is the dollars and cents of it, the solution is to
get a couple of quotes from reliable contractors, look at your personal
energy rates, and do the math. It's pretty easy math, but if you have
trouble with it, I'll be glad to help.
If you care about energy conservation, then you can rest assured that you
will be doing a good thing for the environment, you won't lose any money
in the long run, and you might even profit from it. The latter case seems
to be the most likely, in my analysis.
GS
www .glenstark,net
Hi everyone.
I'd like to try and elevate the tankless vs. tank discussion a little
bit. Let me just say however, kudos for actually bringing a citation into
the conversation (WP article). Unfortunately the cited article is
severely flawed. It attempts to generalize from anecdotal evidence, and
neglects to mention a key benefit of tankless systems: they have an
expected life time of OVER 20 YEARS (citation below).
The US department of energy discusses the pros and cons of the system, and
I hope we can all agree that they are a reasonably reliable and unbiased
source.
Check out:
http :// www .eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/
mytopic=12820
I recommend reading the whole page. It's brief and highly informative.
QUOTED from the DOE website:
-Most tankless water heaters have a life expectancy of more than 20
years. They also have easily replaceable parts that extend their
life by many more years. In contrast, storage water heaters last 10?15
years.
-[tankless water heaters] don't produce the standby energy losses
associated with storage water heaters, which can save you money.
Whether or not a tankless system is good for your requires a little
thought. If you have a problem with instantaneous flow (e.g. you want to
be able to run your washer, dishwasher, and have everyone take a shower
simultaneously), a tankless system to meet your needs will likely be
impractical. Your problem seems to be more length periods of continuous
use, which would indicate that you could seriously benefit from a tankless
system.
If you really need water > 140F, they probably aren't a good solution for
you. The vast majority of homeowners however do not.
If all you care about is the dollars and cents of it, the solution is to
get a couple of quotes from reliable contractors, look at your personal
energy rates, and do the math. It's pretty easy math, but if you have
trouble with it, I'll be glad to help.
If you care about energy conservation, then you can rest assured that you
will be doing a good thing for the environment, you won't lose any money
in the long run, and you might even profit from it. The latter case seems
to be the most likely, in my analysis.
GS
www .glenstark,net
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 6:25 am, glen stark <m...@nospam.glenstark,net > wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I'd like to try and elevate the tankless vs. tank discussion a little
> bit. Let me just say however, kudos for actually bringing a citation into
> the conversation (WP article). Unfortunately the cited article is
> severely flawed. It attempts to generalize from anecdotal evidence, and
> neglects to mention a key benefit of tankless systems: they have an
> expected life time of OVER 20 YEARS (citation below).
>
http :// www .eere.energy.gov/consumer/your home/water heating/index.cfm/%20mytopic820
note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
For homes that use 41 gallons or less of hot water daily, demand water
heaters can be 24%-34% more energy efficient than conventional storage
tank water heaters. They can be 8%-14% more energy efficient for homes
that use a lot of hot water--around 86 gallons per day. You can achieve
even greater energy savings of 27%-50% if you install a demand water
heater at each hot water outlet.
On Apr 9, 6:25 am, glen stark <m...@nospam.glenstark,net > wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I'd like to try and elevate the tankless vs. tank discussion a little
> bit. Let me just say however, kudos for actually bringing a citation into
> the conversation (WP article). Unfortunately the cited article is
> severely flawed. It attempts to generalize from anecdotal evidence, and
> neglects to mention a key benefit of tankless systems: they have an
> expected life time of OVER 20 YEARS (citation below).
>
http :// www .eere.energy.gov/consumer/your home/water heating/index.cfm/%20mytopic820
note it appears in homes that use more water, the typical 2 adults and
2 teenagers savings are less, probably because the standard tank
spends more time heating water and less time standing by. this is a
new wrinkle on the tank vs tankless discussion
For homes that use 41 gallons or less of hot water daily, demand water
heaters can be 24%-34% more energy efficient than conventional storage
tank water heaters. They can be 8%-14% more energy efficient for homes
that use a lot of hot water--around 86 gallons per day. You can achieve
even greater energy savings of 27%-50% if you install a demand water
heater at each hot water outlet.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
http :// www .eere.energy.gov/consumer/your home/water heating/index.cfm...
also note this word of warning
For example, taking a shower and running the dishwasher at the same
time can stretch a demand water heater to its limit. To overcome this
problem, you can install two or more demand water heaters, connected
in parallel for simultaneous demands of hot water. You can also
install separate demand water heaters for appliances--such as a clothes
washer or dishwater--that use a lot of hot water in your home.
then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
tankless?
it also points out that a tankless with a pilot light can wipe out any
savings.....
wonder if the posters here who say their tankless works in a power
failure have tankless with pilot light? if so they arent saving
anything......
given the tankless high BTU and the flue gas requirements wonder how
many could afford multiple tankless around their home????????
http :// www .eere.energy.gov/consumer/your home/water heating/index.cfm...
also note this word of warning
For example, taking a shower and running the dishwasher at the same
time can stretch a demand water heater to its limit. To overcome this
problem, you can install two or more demand water heaters, connected
in parallel for simultaneous demands of hot water. You can also
install separate demand water heaters for appliances--such as a clothes
washer or dishwater--that use a lot of hot water in your home.
then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
tankless?
it also points out that a tankless with a pilot light can wipe out any
savings.....
wonder if the posters here who say their tankless works in a power
failure have tankless with pilot light? if so they arent saving
anything......
given the tankless high BTU and the flue gas requirements wonder how
many could afford multiple tankless around their home????????
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On 2008-04-09, hallerb@aol,com <hallerb@aol,com > wrote:
> then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> tankless?
No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
use until the showering is done.
> it also points out that a tankless with a pilot light can wipe out any
> savings.....
This shows the article is somewhat out of date. Tankless heaters with
pilot lights are pretty old technology.
Cheers, Wayne
On 2008-04-09, hallerb@aol,com <hallerb@aol,com > wrote:
> then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> tankless?
No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
use until the showering is done.
> it also points out that a tankless with a pilot light can wipe out any
> savings.....
This shows the article is somewhat out of date. Tankless heaters with
pilot lights are pretty old technology.
Cheers, Wayne
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 11:14 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> > tankless?
>
> No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
> a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
> are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
> use until the showering is done.
Particularly now that washing machines are coming equipped with
delayed start options.
Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
R
On Apr 9, 11:14 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> > tankless?
>
> No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
> a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
> are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
> use until the showering is done.
Particularly now that washing machines are coming equipped with
delayed start options.
Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
R
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all
the passion?
Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all
the passion?
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
"Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all the passion?
Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
"Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all the passion?
Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
> news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>> Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all the passion?
>
> Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
(I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on
America). We don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply analytical
thinking to practical everyday problems. We aren't taught to be critical
consumers.
I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a place
where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. They all knew
the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking them
through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it
into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.
American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
their decisions afterward. Then they go to a lot of effort to justify
their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds
about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler').
Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
them. The more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, the more
pissed off they will get, and impossible to convince.
Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. We like to paint things
in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. The water heater thing isn't
so simple. Whether a tankless system is good for you depends on your use,
and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision.
On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
the majority of people, not to mention the environment.
Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. Humility is not taught as a
virtue in our culture. So we take it as a personal shortcoming, or a loss
of face, when we are proven wrong. The more passionately we argue for
something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. It's important to
struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
solutions.
For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a
passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
do for tankless water heaters :)
glen
www .glenstark,net
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
> news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>> Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all the passion?
>
> Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
(I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on
America). We don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply analytical
thinking to practical everyday problems. We aren't taught to be critical
consumers.
I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a place
where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. They all knew
the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking them
through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it
into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.
American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
their decisions afterward. Then they go to a lot of effort to justify
their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds
about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler').
Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
them. The more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, the more
pissed off they will get, and impossible to convince.
Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. We like to paint things
in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. The water heater thing isn't
so simple. Whether a tankless system is good for you depends on your use,
and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision.
On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
the majority of people, not to mention the environment.
Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. Humility is not taught as a
virtue in our culture. So we take it as a personal shortcoming, or a loss
of face, when we are proven wrong. The more passionately we argue for
something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. It's important to
struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
solutions.
For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a
passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
do for tankless water heaters :)
glen
www .glenstark,net
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 11, 4:52=EF=BF=BDam, glen stark <m...@nospam.glenstark,net > wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> > "Glenn" <pilc...@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
> >news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> >> Curious. =EF=BF=BDIt's just a damn 'hot' water heater. =EF=BF=BDWhy all=
the passion?
>
> > Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
>
> My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
> (I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on=
> America). =EF=BF=BDWe don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply an=
alytical
> thinking to practical everyday problems. =EF=BF=BDWe aren't taught to be c=
ritical
> consumers.
>
> I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a place=
> where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. =EF=BF=BDThey =
all knew
> the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
> but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking them
> through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it
> into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.
>
> American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
> far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
> although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
> their decisions afterward. =EF=BF=BDThen they go to a lot of effort to jus=
tify
> their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds=
> about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
> mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler'). =EF=BF=BD
>
> Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
> justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
> them. =EF=BF=BDThe more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, t=
he more
> pissed off they will get, and impossible to convince. =EF=BF=BD
>
> Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. =EF=BF=BDWe like to paint =
things
> in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe water heater thin=
g isn't
> so simple. =EF=BF=BDWhether a tankless system is good for you depends on y=
our use,
> and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision. =
=EF=BF=BD
> On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
> the majority of people, not to mention the environment.
>
> Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. =EF=BF=BDHumility is not taught a=
s a
> virtue in our culture. =EF=BF=BDSo we take it as a personal shortcoming, o=
r a loss
> of face, when we are proven wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe more passionately we argue=
for
> something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. =EF=BF=BDIt's impo=
rtant to
> struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
> solutions.
>
> For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a=
> passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
> do for tankless water heaters :)
>
> glenwww .glenstark,net
i liove endless hot water and my 50 gallon high BTU tank provides over
twice what my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU one did. its a small luxury and
my gas bill appeared unchanged after its install
another tankless issue is the ones with heat modulation, where the
burners go up and down automatically. these changes can be so fast a
temperature compensating shower valve may have trouble keeping up, and
be terrible for someone without temperature control.
On Apr 11, 4:52=EF=BF=BDam, glen stark <m...@nospam.glenstark,net > wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> > "Glenn" <pilc...@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
> >news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> >> Curious. =EF=BF=BDIt's just a damn 'hot' water heater. =EF=BF=BDWhy all=
the passion?
>
> > Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
>
> My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
> (I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on=
> America). =EF=BF=BDWe don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply an=
alytical
> thinking to practical everyday problems. =EF=BF=BDWe aren't taught to be c=
ritical
> consumers.
>
> I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a place=
> where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. =EF=BF=BDThey =
all knew
> the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
> but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking them
> through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it
> into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.
>
> American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
> far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
> although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
> their decisions afterward. =EF=BF=BDThen they go to a lot of effort to jus=
tify
> their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds=
> about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
> mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler'). =EF=BF=BD
>
> Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
> justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
> them. =EF=BF=BDThe more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, t=
he more
> pissed off they will get, and impossible to convince. =EF=BF=BD
>
> Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. =EF=BF=BDWe like to paint =
things
> in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe water heater thin=
g isn't
> so simple. =EF=BF=BDWhether a tankless system is good for you depends on y=
our use,
> and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision. =
=EF=BF=BD
> On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
> the majority of people, not to mention the environment.
>
> Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. =EF=BF=BDHumility is not taught a=
s a
> virtue in our culture. =EF=BF=BDSo we take it as a personal shortcoming, o=
r a loss
> of face, when we are proven wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe more passionately we argue=
for
> something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. =EF=BF=BDIt's impo=
rtant to
> struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
> solutions.
>
> For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a=
> passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
> do for tankless water heaters :)
>
> glenwww .glenstark,net
i liove endless hot water and my 50 gallon high BTU tank provides over
twice what my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU one did. its a small luxury and
my gas bill appeared unchanged after its install
another tankless issue is the ones with heat modulation, where the
burners go up and down automatically. these changes can be so fast a
temperature compensating shower valve may have trouble keeping up, and
be terrible for someone without temperature control.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 11, 6:49=C2=A0am, "hall...@aol,com " <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:52=EF=BF=BDam, glen stark <m...@nospam.glenstark,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> > > "Glenn" <pilc...@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
> > >news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> > >> Curious. =EF=BF=BDIt's just a damn 'hot' water heater. =EF=BF=BDWhy a=
ll the passion?
>
> > > Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
>
> > My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational syste=
m
> > (I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert =
on
> > America). =EF=BF=BDWe don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply =
analytical
> > thinking to practical everyday problems. =EF=BF=BDWe aren't taught to be=
critical
> > consumers.
>
> > I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a pla=
ce
> > where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. =EF=BF=BDThe=
y all knew
> > the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
> > but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking the=
m
> > through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it=
> > into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.
>
> > American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) ar=
e
> > far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
> > although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
> > their decisions afterward. =EF=BF=BDThen they go to a lot of effort to j=
ustify
> > their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their min=
ds
> > about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
> > mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler'). =EF=BF=BD
>
> > Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
> > justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with=
> > them. =EF=BF=BDThe more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken,=
the more
> > pissed off they will get, and impossible to convince. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. =EF=BF=BDWe like to pain=
t things
> > in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe water heater th=
ing isn't
> > so simple. =EF=BF=BDWhether a tankless system is good for you depends on=
your use,
> > and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision. =
=EF=BF=BD
> > On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for=
> > the majority of people, not to mention the environment.
>
> > Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. =EF=BF=BDHumility is not taught=
as a
> > virtue in our culture. =EF=BF=BDSo we take it as a personal shortcoming,=
or a loss
> > of face, when we are proven wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe more passionately we arg=
ue for
> > something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. =EF=BF=BDIt's im=
portant to
> > struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal=
> > solutions.
>
> > For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more=
a
> > passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they=
> > do for tankless water heaters :)
>
> > glenwww .glenstark,net
>
> i liove endless hot water and my 50 gallon high BTU tank provides over
> twice what my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU one did. its a small luxury and
> my gas bill appeared unchanged after its install
>
> another tankless issue is the ones with heat modulation, where the
> burners go up and down automatically. these changes can be so fast a
> temperature compensating shower valve may have trouble keeping up, and
> be terrible for someone without temperature control.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only a junk unit would not modulate, I will bet all do now, no
modulation means its on 100% all the time and that is a waste of
money, my shower is fine, ive never had an issue. With no modulation
and a 100f rise 70f incomming would be heated to 170f.
On Apr 11, 6:49=C2=A0am, "hall...@aol,com " <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:52=EF=BF=BDam, glen stark <m...@nospam.glenstark,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> > > "Glenn" <pilc...@kc.rr,com > wrote in message
> > >news:47fcf4bb$0$17339$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> > >> Curious. =EF=BF=BDIt's just a damn 'hot' water heater. =EF=BF=BDWhy a=
ll the passion?
>
> > > Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.
>
> > My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational syste=
m
> > (I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert =
on
> > America). =EF=BF=BDWe don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply =
analytical
> > thinking to practical everyday problems. =EF=BF=BDWe aren't taught to be=
critical
> > consumers.
>
> > I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a pla=
ce
> > where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. =EF=BF=BDThe=
y all knew
> > the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
> > but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking the=
m
> > through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it=
> > into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.
>
> > American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) ar=
e
> > far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
> > although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
> > their decisions afterward. =EF=BF=BDThen they go to a lot of effort to j=
ustify
> > their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their min=
ds
> > about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
> > mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler'). =EF=BF=BD
>
> > Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
> > justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with=
> > them. =EF=BF=BDThe more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken,=
the more
> > pissed off they will get, and impossible to convince. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. =EF=BF=BDWe like to pain=
t things
> > in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe water heater th=
ing isn't
> > so simple. =EF=BF=BDWhether a tankless system is good for you depends on=
your use,
> > and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision. =
=EF=BF=BD
> > On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for=
> > the majority of people, not to mention the environment.
>
> > Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. =EF=BF=BDHumility is not taught=
as a
> > virtue in our culture. =EF=BF=BDSo we take it as a personal shortcoming,=
or a loss
> > of face, when we are proven wrong. =EF=BF=BDThe more passionately we arg=
ue for
> > something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. =EF=BF=BDIt's im=
portant to
> > struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal=
> > solutions.
>
> > For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more=
a
> > passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they=
> > do for tankless water heaters :)
>
> > glenwww .glenstark,net
>
> i liove endless hot water and my 50 gallon high BTU tank provides over
> twice what my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU one did. its a small luxury and
> my gas bill appeared unchanged after its install
>
> another tankless issue is the ones with heat modulation, where the
> burners go up and down automatically. these changes can be so fast a
> temperature compensating shower valve may have trouble keeping up, and
> be terrible for someone without temperature control.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only a junk unit would not modulate, I will bet all do now, no
modulation means its on 100% all the time and that is a waste of
money, my shower is fine, ive never had an issue. With no modulation
and a 100f rise 70f incomming would be heated to 170f.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 11:37 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:14 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> > > tankless?
>
> > No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
> > a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
> > are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
> > use until the showering is done.
>
> Particularly now that washing machines are coming equipped with
> delayed start options.
>
> Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
> R
hallerb ignores all logic, he just posts shit.
On Apr 9, 11:37 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:14 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> > > tankless?
>
> > No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
> > a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
> > are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
> > use until the showering is done.
>
> Particularly now that washing machines are coming equipped with
> delayed start options.
>
> Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
> R
hallerb ignores all logic, he just posts shit.
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 9, 11:37 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:14 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> > > tankless?
>
> > No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
> > a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
> > are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
> > use until the showering is done.
>
> Particularly now that washing machines are coming equipped with
> delayed start options.
>
> Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
> R
Hallerb ignores all facts , he is Hallerb
On Apr 9, 11:37 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:14 am, Wayne Whitney <whit...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-04-09, hall...@aol,com <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
>
> > > then 2 showers and a dishwasher at same time will require multiple
> > > tankless?
>
> > No, but it may require a larger, more expensive unit than 1 shower and
> > a dishwasher at the same time. Personally I don't think dishwashers
> > are a big issue, it's no problem to defer dishwasher/clothes washer
> > use until the showering is done.
>
> Particularly now that washing machines are coming equipped with
> delayed start options.
>
> Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
> R
Hallerb ignores all facts , he is Hallerb
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
> Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
> R
heres your link its about boilers, remember were talking hot water
tanks:)
The Talk of The Town Online Only Subscribe About Us Archive Store
The New Yorker
Welcome to NewYorker,com Log in | Register
In the Basement
The Boiler Man
by Robert Sullivan
March 17, 2003 Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text Print E-Mail Feeds Keywords
Gifford, Henry; Boiler Rooms, Boilers; Tours; New York City; New York
City Boiler Tour; Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc.; Apartments One thing that
distinguishes Henry Gifford's New York City Boiler Tour is the fact
that there are no boiler tours quite like it in New York City, not to
mention anywhere else in the United States or, possibly, the world.
Another is the singular passion for boilers that is exhibited by Henry
Gifford, of Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc. Gifford came to boilers late in
life, when he was twenty and had already worked as a bicycle mechanic,
a window-gate welder, and a landlord. As a landlord, Gifford had
calculated that the biggest variable in terms of expenses was the
boiler. He observed that in the boiler arena there seemed to be what
he called a "knowledge vacuum," and he set out to fill it. "I miss
having buildings," Henry, who is now forty-two, said the other day, as
his tour was about to kick off. "But I would have gotten tired of it
by now, and I would have missed all the fun I've had with boilers."
Not surprisingly, some of the forty-one people who signed up for this
inaugural boiler tour did so as much to be with Henry as to see the
boilers. Tim Baker, the managing editor of a mechanical-engineering
magazine, flew in from Cleveland. "I mean, you can just sense the love
that this guy has for boilers," Baker said.
The three-day tour started early on a cold Thursday on the ground
floor of a multifamily apartment building on East Fifth Street. Over
coffee and bagels, Henry introduced people. "You know when you want to
see what kind of an airflow you've got in a room, so you measure it
with a blower door? Well, this guy makes them," he said, pointing to
Gary Nelson, who had flown in from Minnesota, and who was scanning the
room with an infrared camera, searching for heat leakage. There was
the usual run of boiler enthusiasts: architects, alternative-energy
marketers, officials from the Building Performance Institute, and a
landlord named Ralph, who looked like an old sailor.
Henry began with a lecture, accompanied by slides. In his view, the
two most prominent New York City heat-related phenomena--open windows
in overheated apartments, and clanking radiators--are prime examples of
boiler ignorance and waste. To no one's surprise, Henry's talk went
long.
When he was done, the tour group set out to look at some boilers.
There was a quick stop at a building on Avenue C, to watch a boiler-
related film, "Carmelita Tropicana: Your Kunst is Your Waffen,"
starring Carmelita Tropicana, a superintendent/performance artist.
That was followed by a lunch break at Katz's Delicatessen, on Houston
Street, where a woman in a fur coat said to the group, "What? Are you
bird-watching?" Someone told her what they were up to. "Boilers!" she
said. "Oh, that's not very exciting." In the afternoon, Henry sneaked
his people into the basement of an old church, where they saw the
history of boilers encapsulated: turn-of-the-century coal to eighties
super-efficient natural-gas-fired pulse combustion, then back to oil.
On the way out, an engineer from Massachusetts said, "I feel
excitingly illicit."
from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisThe next day, everyone met up in
Harlem, in a brownstone with hundred-year-old radiators, each with a
thermostat attached, a detail that made Henry ecstatic, even though
Con Edison hadn't hooked up the gas and everyone was shivering. In the
basement, with a single light bulb dangling above his head, he
described the Gifford formula for calculating pipe friction and flow,
a formula that, despite Henry's best efforts, has yet to be embraced
by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning.
All told, the boiler tour went on for seven days--four days and many
heating systems more than Henry had planned. But it was during the
lecture/slide show, on the first day, that Tim Baker, the engineering-
magazine editor, asked the question that seemed to sum it all up.
"Henry," he said, his pen in the air. "You've talked about the
ignorance, the dishonesty. Why is this?"
Henry's face broke into a grin that was bright enough to heat a loft
space. He turned to an associate, who was working the slide projector.
"Put the Madonna slide on," he said. The slide showed young people
standing in line on a Greenwich Village sidewalk. "O.K., so these
people want to be dancers with Madonna's world tour," Henry said.
"Look at this--the line stretches around the block. I asked these
people, 'How much does this job pay per hour?' And none of them knew.
This has to do with what I call the Gifford Status-Money Ratio: the
amount of money a job pays is inversely correlated to the amount of
status the job has. The dancers get paid with social status. Boiler
work has zero or negative social status. And this ratio also
influences the quality of work to be gotten from a person working in
that field. In the basement, there's money, but there's no status.
This doesn't mean you're dumb if you work in the basement. It just
means that you're not expected to be smart. The fact is, excellence is
not expected in the basement."
> Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
> R
heres your link its about boilers, remember were talking hot water
tanks:)
The Talk of The Town Online Only Subscribe About Us Archive Store
The New Yorker
Welcome to NewYorker,com Log in | Register
In the Basement
The Boiler Man
by Robert Sullivan
March 17, 2003 Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text Print E-Mail Feeds Keywords
Gifford, Henry; Boiler Rooms, Boilers; Tours; New York City; New York
City Boiler Tour; Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc.; Apartments One thing that
distinguishes Henry Gifford's New York City Boiler Tour is the fact
that there are no boiler tours quite like it in New York City, not to
mention anywhere else in the United States or, possibly, the world.
Another is the singular passion for boilers that is exhibited by Henry
Gifford, of Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc. Gifford came to boilers late in
life, when he was twenty and had already worked as a bicycle mechanic,
a window-gate welder, and a landlord. As a landlord, Gifford had
calculated that the biggest variable in terms of expenses was the
boiler. He observed that in the boiler arena there seemed to be what
he called a "knowledge vacuum," and he set out to fill it. "I miss
having buildings," Henry, who is now forty-two, said the other day, as
his tour was about to kick off. "But I would have gotten tired of it
by now, and I would have missed all the fun I've had with boilers."
Not surprisingly, some of the forty-one people who signed up for this
inaugural boiler tour did so as much to be with Henry as to see the
boilers. Tim Baker, the managing editor of a mechanical-engineering
magazine, flew in from Cleveland. "I mean, you can just sense the love
that this guy has for boilers," Baker said.
The three-day tour started early on a cold Thursday on the ground
floor of a multifamily apartment building on East Fifth Street. Over
coffee and bagels, Henry introduced people. "You know when you want to
see what kind of an airflow you've got in a room, so you measure it
with a blower door? Well, this guy makes them," he said, pointing to
Gary Nelson, who had flown in from Minnesota, and who was scanning the
room with an infrared camera, searching for heat leakage. There was
the usual run of boiler enthusiasts: architects, alternative-energy
marketers, officials from the Building Performance Institute, and a
landlord named Ralph, who looked like an old sailor.
Henry began with a lecture, accompanied by slides. In his view, the
two most prominent New York City heat-related phenomena--open windows
in overheated apartments, and clanking radiators--are prime examples of
boiler ignorance and waste. To no one's surprise, Henry's talk went
long.
When he was done, the tour group set out to look at some boilers.
There was a quick stop at a building on Avenue C, to watch a boiler-
related film, "Carmelita Tropicana: Your Kunst is Your Waffen,"
starring Carmelita Tropicana, a superintendent/performance artist.
That was followed by a lunch break at Katz's Delicatessen, on Houston
Street, where a woman in a fur coat said to the group, "What? Are you
bird-watching?" Someone told her what they were up to. "Boilers!" she
said. "Oh, that's not very exciting." In the afternoon, Henry sneaked
his people into the basement of an old church, where they saw the
history of boilers encapsulated: turn-of-the-century coal to eighties
super-efficient natural-gas-fired pulse combustion, then back to oil.
On the way out, an engineer from Massachusetts said, "I feel
excitingly illicit."
from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisThe next day, everyone met up in
Harlem, in a brownstone with hundred-year-old radiators, each with a
thermostat attached, a detail that made Henry ecstatic, even though
Con Edison hadn't hooked up the gas and everyone was shivering. In the
basement, with a single light bulb dangling above his head, he
described the Gifford formula for calculating pipe friction and flow,
a formula that, despite Henry's best efforts, has yet to be embraced
by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning.
All told, the boiler tour went on for seven days--four days and many
heating systems more than Henry had planned. But it was during the
lecture/slide show, on the first day, that Tim Baker, the engineering-
magazine editor, asked the question that seemed to sum it all up.
"Henry," he said, his pen in the air. "You've talked about the
ignorance, the dishonesty. Why is this?"
Henry's face broke into a grin that was bright enough to heat a loft
space. He turned to an associate, who was working the slide projector.
"Put the Madonna slide on," he said. The slide showed young people
standing in line on a Greenwich Village sidewalk. "O.K., so these
people want to be dancers with Madonna's world tour," Henry said.
"Look at this--the line stretches around the block. I asked these
people, 'How much does this job pay per hour?' And none of them knew.
This has to do with what I call the Gifford Status-Money Ratio: the
amount of money a job pays is inversely correlated to the amount of
status the job has. The dancers get paid with social status. Boiler
work has zero or negative social status. And this ratio also
influences the quality of work to be gotten from a person working in
that field. In the basement, there's money, but there's no status.
This doesn't mean you're dumb if you work in the basement. It just
means that you're not expected to be smart. The fact is, excellence is
not expected in the basement."
Re: 40 gal just not enough: Replacing water heater for 2400 sq home.
On Apr 10, 8:54 am, "hall...@aol,com " <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
> > Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> > the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> > rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> > author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
>
> heres your link its about boilers, remember were talking hot water
> tanks:)
{snip the entire article about the author }
No, the original link with the article from the trade journal, not my
second post asking why you ignored the first. Here's the pertinent
excerpt from the first post.
hallerb wrote:
> again please post a link that says 20% go up the chimney........
> please a link....... please........ all i see is someone stating it
> must be....
And my response with the link:
You mean like this one?
http :// www .hpac,com /Issue/Article/27578/Choosing a Domestic HotWater ...
An excerpt: "Energy efficiency is another problem with a typical
direct-fired water heater. A standard water heater is rated at about
84-percent steady state efficiency. That means that while the fire is
on, 84 percent of the heat from the fire enters the tank, while 16
percent of the heat goes up the chimney. That sounds pretty good, but
a water heater is not a steady state device: the fire turns on and
off. While the heater is off heat is still going up the chimney.
The annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) rating of a typical
water heater is much lower, in the range of 70 percent for a 40-gal.
heater and dropping to 51 percent for a 75-gal. heater. An AFUE of 51
percent means that 51 percent of the heat in the fuel leaves the
heater by going out the hot water pipe. Except for a little heat lost
through the jacket of the heater, the rest goes up the chimney. So
while about 16 percent of the heat goes up the chimney while the fire
is burning, about another 15 to 35 percent, called "standby loss" goes
out the chimney while the fire is not burning."
R
On Apr 10, 8:54 am, "hall...@aol,com " <hall...@aol,com > wrote:
> > Hey Haller, how come you're ignoring the link and quote I posted from
> > the engineering trade journal about standby loss? Trade journals are
> > rarely run by wacky bastards that print/post bad information. The
> > author is an interesting guy: http :// www .newyorker,com /archive/2003/03/17/030317ta talk sullivan
>
>
> heres your link its about boilers, remember were talking hot water
> tanks:)
{snip the entire article about the author }
No, the original link with the article from the trade journal, not my
second post asking why you ignored the first. Here's the pertinent
excerpt from the first post.
hallerb wrote:
> again please post a link that says 20% go up the chimney........
> please a link....... please........ all i see is someone stating it
> must be....
And my response with the link:
You mean like this one?
http :// www .hpac,com /Issue/Article/27578/Choosing a Domestic HotWater ...
An excerpt: "Energy efficiency is another problem with a typical
direct-fired water heater. A standard water heater is rated at about
84-percent steady state efficiency. That means that while the fire is
on, 84 percent of the heat from the fire enters the tank, while 16
percent of the heat goes up the chimney. That sounds pretty good, but
a water heater is not a steady state device: the fire turns on and
off. While the heater is off heat is still going up the chimney.
The annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) rating of a typical
water heater is much lower, in the range of 70 percent for a 40-gal.
heater and dropping to 51 percent for a 75-gal. heater. An AFUE of 51
percent means that 51 percent of the heat in the fuel leaves the
heater by going out the hot water pipe. Except for a little heat lost
through the jacket of the heater, the rest goes up the chimney. So
while about 16 percent of the heat goes up the chimney while the fire
is burning, about another 15 to 35 percent, called "standby loss" goes
out the chimney while the fire is not burning."
R
