"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:18:04 UTC, "tim....."
wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:41:51 UTC, wrote:

ISTR hearing that the story began with experiments on immersion
heaters and was erroneously extrapolated to central heating which is,
of course, completely different.

It's not valid for them anyway.

You have something which, left to its own devices, loses heat over
time.
The rate of heat loss will reduce as its temperature gets nearer to
that
of its surroundings (heat transfer rate depends on difference in
temperature).

If left to cool, there is reducing heat loss over whatever time
elapses.
If kept at same temperature, there is heat loss over the same time, but
it's constant (-ish) because the temperature difference does not reduce
- i.e. more heat is lost over the same time.

In both cases, that heat loss has to be made up. That's how much
fuel/cost will be involved. More heat lost - more cost.

I'm confused. Is that a yes or a no to the original question?

In summary - anyone who says that it's cheaper to leave it on, rather
than turn it off and then heat it up again later, is talking nonsense.
No matter whether it's an immersion heater, central heating or whatever.

That's what I thought, but it wasn't clear

tim