Home-Made Power
Oil, coal, hydrogen, fuel cells, hybrid cars, renewables, geothermal, economical growth
100% effficient? I wonder why the consumption of wall baseboard resitive heat is higher than a central electrical resistive furnace.
"m Ransley" wrote in message
I dont understand you, maybe nor do you, 1500 watts is 1500 watts, all electric heat is 100% efficient. But you must compare your Kwh costs per btu to your other fuels for your area. for me electricity is still twice the price of Ng in the midwest.
To know if one of your heaters was more efficient you have to measure is power use, I think you will find 1 kwh used produces x amount of heat , and that is what you pay for, none are more efficient overall. Radiant quartz heats objects and can give immediate comfort. In the end its all just the amount Btus needed to heat your home .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:06:53 -0500, Solar Flare wrote:
100% effficient? I wonder why the consumption of wall baseboard resitive heat is higher than a central electrical resistive furnace.
Care to explain what you're thinking, top-poster? Resistive heat is resistive heat. By definition, all of the energy turns into heat and is therefore 100% efficient. What esoteric distinction do you think you understand?
Hallelujah! Finally! Someone understands the direction of the inquiry. Placement is a factor... OK. Circulation... OK. Two elements affecting efficiency. However... looks like no one has seen a study on the subject. It seems - at this point - that something with a circulating fan may have edge up. But then... the oil bath heater - properly placed - might beat the circulating fan heater due to its ability to give off heat from the oil bath while maintaining that heat using less energy (shorter run time).
Thanks for your input, daestrom. "daestrom" wrote in message
"John Gregory" wrote in message I can see this isn't going to be easy and I'll accept responsibility for failure to make it clear. Let me try again. There's no trick question involved but there is a distinction to be made between efficiency and effectiveness. We're talking about the efficiency of a mechanical heater verse its cost effectiveness.
Assume an array of common mechanical heating devices available to the general public; electric heating element types, heating elements with ceramic whatever, heating elements that heat oil baths, heating elements accompanied with blowers, and whatever other type of space heaters are commonly available to the public for purchase ( I didn't know there were such things as a corn and a pellet heaters).
You raise an interesting question. If I understand your question, you're looking for any information that compares different types of heaters and how well they distribute their output.
Ten 100 watt light bulbs put just as much heat energy into a room as a single 1000 watt heater. But how well it is distributed can determine which heating method can make the room more comfortable. The simplistic view is that since both put energy into the room at the same rate, there is no difference. But the more practical view looks at how well the heat gets distributed throughout, and how it's controlled.
Some heaters depend on natural convection currents to distribute the heat throughout the room, and so may not heat the room as evenly say as a heater equipped with a circulating fan. Some parts of the room could be hotter than the desired temperature long before other parts of the room warm up to the desired temperature.
I think such differences are more complex than just the heater itself. Placement in the room (low/high/inside-wall/outside-wall/center) would have a lot to do with things. And so would the placement of any thermometer and/or thermostat. A oil-bath type placed in the 'wrong' spot might have to run a lot more to make/maintain the room 'comfortable' than if the same heater is placed in the 'right' spot.
daestrom
The oil bath heater has more thermal mass, and therefore will take longer to come up to temperature, and warm the room with it.
In a test room, ideally, a 1 kW fan heater and a 1kW oil bath heater, should, over the long term, consume the same amount of energy to maintain the room at a set temperature.
Having said that, my personal preference would be for the oil-filled heater, because it is quiet in operation, and gives off radiant heat which is sensible to your body, even for long periods that it is not actually drawing power. You might well find that the oil-filled radiant heater permits you to be comfortable with a lower air temperature in the room. That translates into less money spent on energy.
Please take the time to learn the difference between power and energy. Heaters are not rated in kWh, they are rated in kW (or watts, as the case may be). A heater rated at 1 kW (power consumption rate) run for 1 hour will consume 1 kWh of electrical energy, which is what you pay for on your electric bill.
People DO get flamed on this group for confusing energy and power, and it is characteristic for the free-energy cranks and scam artists to do so.
Gordon Richmond
Ok, I understand your question better now. No, I haven't seen a any studies on this subject, but then again, I haven't looked.
I think it would be important to integrate the comfort factor into your question - remember that perceived temperature is a function of both air temperature and nearby surface temperature. And we are talking about heating for people, aren't we? If it's for a storage room maybe we can take comfort out of the equition...
This means, for exemaple, that with electric convector heating you will typically need to have the thermostat at 21C to feel as comfortable as you would at 19C with radiant heaters (whatever thier energy source, electricity, fuels heating water......)
I intuitivly think that the energy loss and thermal mass of your room will need to be specified; if the surface temperatures (walls, floors) are close to your desired heating temperature the comfort factor will become less important.
So I stand by what I said, the most efficient heating source probably depends on the environment to be heated and the purpose of the heating.
You'll notice lots of "inuititvely" and "probablies", I'll leave the hard stuff for others. :-)
Mel
John Gregory a crit :
I can see this isn't going to be easy and I'll accept responsibility for failure to make it clear. Let me try again. There's no trick question involved but there is a distinction to be made between efficiency and effectiveness. We're talking about the efficiency of a mechanical heater verse its cost effectiveness.
Assume an array of common mechanical heating devices available to the general public; electric heating element types, heating elements with ceramic whatever, heating elements that heat oil baths, heating elements accompanied with blowers, and whatever other type of space heaters are commonly available to the public for purchase ( I didn't know there were such things as a corn and a pellet heaters).
Assume further that a 12' x 12' room is at 68 degree Fahrenheit. Taking each machine separately (type of heater). with the same kwh rating, how long does it take to raise the room one degree? After reaching that temperature, how much run-time is used by that heater to maintain the temperature?
This would speak to the "efficiency" of the various heaters. Cost of operation has nothing to do with the equation; cost speaks to "cost/effectiveness" and that's not what we're measuring here.
Where I'm trying to go with this is to a conclusion that one type of heater is quicker than another in raising the temperature of a room a few degrees above a reasonably low level and keeping it there. I suspect that an oil bath space heater may take a tad longer (however long a "tad" is) to raise the temperature, however, it makes up for it's delay by lower run-times once the temperature is reached. That's a guess on my part. I've never seen nor heard of anyone or anything along the lines of such a test that could lead to a quantitative conclusion as opposed to the subjective kind everyone is prone to give.
Perhaps the answer is simple "no one here knows". and that's OK. Nothing lost.
"Mel" wrote in message John Gregory a crit :
Has anyone done a recent "study" that resulted in a determination of what type of area heater (ceramic, element, oil bath, kerosene, etc) is the most cost effective?
Your question really isn't very clear.
Are you asking about energy sources, energy diffusion or both?
And add a bit more information, because the local situation is important - the most cost effective heating for a 20m spanish flat is nt going to be the same as the most cost effective for a 200 year old stone farmhouse in Denmark...
Mel
m Ransley wrote:
To know if one of your heaters was more efficient you have to measure is power use...
How do you use power?
Nick
You are absolutely right bottom poster.
On 29 Nov 2005 00:43:12 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Care to explain what you're thinking, top-poster? Resistive heat is resistive heat. By definition, all of the energy turns into heat and is therefore 100% efficient. What esoteric distinction do you think you understand?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
John Gregory wrote:
Has anyone done a recent "study" that resulted in a determination of what type of area heater (ceramic, element, oil bath, kerosene, etc) is the most cost effective?
Mine is wood. Very effective, and cheap to use. Paying $40 / face cord, cut/split. Heats my 2100 sq. ft. home with no problem, even when temps drop below -30F.
-- Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
"Steve Spence"> wrote
John Gregory wrote: Has anyone done a recent "study" that resulted in a determination of what type of area heater (ceramic, element, oil bath, kerosene, etc) is the most cost effective?
Mine is wood. Very effective, and cheap to use. Paying $40 / face cord, cut/split. Heats my 2100 sq. ft. home with no problem, even when temps drop below -30F.
What brand and model is it? BTW: I found lots of interesting stuff on your site. I'll be back.
The conversion of electrical energy to thermal energy is nearly 100% efficient. However the placement of the heat makes the technique not as efficient as in floor heating or central furnace resistive heating.
What specific part of efficiency did you not understand? Did you think that only the parts apparent to you were important or was this just a case of blind truth?
"Adiabatic" wrote in message
You are absolutely right bottom poster.
On 29 Nov 2005 00:43:12 GMT, Dave Hinz DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
Care to explain what you're thinking, top-poster? Resistive heat is resistive heat. By definition, all of the energy turns into heat and is therefore 100% efficient. What esoteric distinction do you think you understand?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:17:40 -0500, Solar Flare wrote:
The conversion of electrical energy to thermal energy is nearly 100% efficient.
Where, specifically, is the energy going if not heat, to have you use the qualifier of "nearly" instead of the more technically accurate "absolutely"?
However the placement of the heat makes the technique not as efficient as in floor heating or central furnace resistive heating.
Delivery doesn't enter into efficiency calculations.
What specific part of efficiency did you not understand? Did you think that only the parts apparent to you were important or was this just a case of blind truth?
Words have specific meanings. Efficiency in this context means "how much of the energy turns into heat". If you claim that it's "nearly 100%", where do you propose the part that doesn't, is going to, and in what form please?
I am glad delivery doesn't count into efficiency formulas for you. Then I have a 100% efficient gas furnace and water heater too.
Here is the OP "I dont understand you, maybe nor do you, 1500 watts is 1500 watts, all electric heat is 100% efficient. But you must compare your Kwh costs per btu to your other fuels for your area. for me electricity is still twice the price of Ng in the midwest"
What context were you referring to?
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:17:40 -0500, Solar Flare sf.lare@hotmail.invalid> wrote: The conversion of electrical energy to thermal energy is nearly 100% efficient.
Where, specifically, is the energy going if not heat, to have you use the qualifier of "nearly" instead of the more technically accurate "absolutely"?
However the placement of the heat makes the technique not as efficient as in floor heating or central furnace resistive heating.
Delivery doesn't enter into efficiency calculations.
What specific part of efficiency did you not understand? Did you think that only the parts apparent to you were important or was this just a case of blind truth?
Words have specific meanings. Efficiency in this context means "how much of the energy turns into heat". If you claim that it's "nearly 100%", where do you propose the part that doesn't, is going to, and in what form please?
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:51:59 -0500, Solar Flare wrote:
I am glad delivery doesn't count into efficiency formulas for you. Then I have a 100% efficient gas furnace and water heater too.
If you want to redefine the industry terminology, take it up with the industry. Until then, if you want to use their terms, you have to use them the way they use it, or of course you can just complain and be ignored.
What context were you referring to?
The one where I don't waste time with a top-posting, nym-shifting troll.
Had you addressed:
Where, specifically, is the energy going if not heat, to have you use the qualifier of "nearly" instead of the more technically accurate "absolutely"?
then it would have been evident that you had anything to contribute. As usual, it's just word games and bullshit from you.
If you don't have an answer because you are embarrased maybe just do ad hominem attacks and whine about the question being invalid. Your history here indicates this is your repetitive style. I am sure this will be no different. You next response is well documented as in previous disagreements due to your persecution complex.
Better yet try trolling about posting style as a distraction. Not many can even see your posts anyway.
Hope you have a better day tommorow.
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:51:59 -0500, Solar Flare sf.lare@hotmail.invalid> wrote: I am glad delivery doesn't count into efficiency formulas for you. Then I have a 100% efficient gas furnace and water heater too.
If you want to redefine the industry terminology, take it up with the industry. Until then, if you want to use their terms, you have to use them the way they use it, or of course you can just complain and be ignored.
What context were you referring to?
The one where I don't waste time with a top-posting, nym-shifting troll.
Had you addressed:
Where, specifically, is the energy going if not heat, to have you use the qualifier of "nearly" instead of the more technically accurate "absolutely"?
then it would have been evident that you had anything to contribute. As usual, it's just word games and bullshit from you.
Energy, oil and gas > Home-Made Power
Travelers and hotels or travel site. Flights by vacation and cars.