CJT wrote:
dpb wrote:
CJT wrote:

dpb wrote:

CJT wrote:

...

...it will certainly be more expensive


I don't see why, ...


Because the input to reach the higher setpoint will also have higher
proportional losses owing to the higher delta-T to the outside.

--
Sure, and I recognized that (in the part you snipped), but I think it's
small relative to the heat required to heat up the house and everything
in it.

But, it's as real as the heat going into the material is and at higher
dT the loss proportion goes up at the same rate as the gain portion so
you can't win -- you might come close to breaking even, but you can't
win. Well, actually I guess you could possibly break even in one
specific instance but it would take really detailed measurements or
calculations to come to that point--if you were to be able to find the
time at which the exterior wall temperatures would first reach their
steady-state temperature and cut the extra input at the time when the
heat input on the inside surface would then be transferred to reach that
exterior temperature, then it would be the break-even point. Once the
interior temperature is higher than that, then the exterior temperature
also would rise above its steady-state value and then the previous
conclusion would also hold.

The point in my view is that the two paths are identical owing to the
fixed input until the lower setpoint is reached so there's absolutely no
advantage there. The only question is whether then raising the
temperature above the end setpoint perhaps aids a little _from that
point_ in "creature comfort" -- my opinion is that unless the house is
one that is actually designed as a thermal mass rather than conventional
likely to be essentially unchanged although it just might aid a little
bit in "taking the chill" off in comfort level. But it can't help but
be more energy-costly and can't help the initial recovery.

--

--