Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Robin wrote
jon wrote

What is this nonsense, heat is dissipated by radiation,
convection or conduction so how come efficiency becomes a
problem.

As I think I said the last time this came up, my physics is
nowhere near good enough to decide "by inspection" whether a
vertical or horizontal radiator is better at transferring
heat to a room.

Yes, you clearly have that problem. Plenty of us dont.

I don't know why you say that,

Because its true ? Novel concept I realise.

as the chimney effect can sometimes be very good at providing
a good airflow.

They both have that. The difference is that the
horizontal radiators have the air moving over
much less of the radiator so the radiator has
more cold air moving over it and so you will
see more heat moving out of the radiator
into the airstream.

So at first sight it's not obvious which orientation is best.

Only for those who dont have a clue about the basics.

Only those with hindsight will think differently.

Wrong.

And (like some others)

Who have the same problem.

I saw too many /known/ unknowns - e.g laminar flow?
temperature of air exiting top? chimney effect? - quite
apart from the possible unknown^2

None of that matters. What matters is the vertical distance.

There is no chimney effect with a radiator.

The gap between the radiator and the wall and radiator height
will determine air speed over the radiator.

But that isnt different with the two types of radiator.

What matter is the distance that the cold air at the bottom of
the radiator moves over before it gets to the top of the
radiator.

If you think differently, please feel free to cite an
explanation why this isn't the case.

Just did. And dont need a cite, just an explanation.

You haven't explained why a larger temperature difference within
an enclosed space such as a flue or the space around a radiator
won't create a bigger draught when we know the opposite is
generally true.

This paper for instance:
http://cit.edu.ly/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/15-091.pdf

University of Zawia, hardly one of the world's great universitys.

A preferred reference over one individual whose chosen speciality
is claimed to be chemistry.

Another of your bare faced lies. Your trademark.

My trademark is to cite the source of my accusations.

You clearly didnt with that allegation just above,
you pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

I did,

Everyone can see for themselves that you didnt.

just you don't like the fact

No such fact.

or remember saying it.

I never said that.

You confirmed you were a chemist in a thread titled "Ethanol".

I did nothing of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a lying bull****
artist.

And you provided no cite for that lie either.

No lie, just senility on your part:

We'll see...

https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...-3102366-3.htm

and I thought you had a chemical background?

Thats not saying I was ever a chemist, ****wit.

No, but it was what you said. On an even earlier thread you eluded to
being a chemist,

No I did not.

hence my comment.

Which was another of your lies.

Are you now saying you failed your physical chemistry research degree?

Corse not.

My BSc did indeed major in chemistry.

My research degree was in physical
chemistry and involved no chemistry,
only electronics and computing.

Then you were had with being offered a physical-chemistry course.

It wasnt a course, it was a research degree.

So you were had.

Wrong, as always. Its what got me into
computing and that left chemistry for dead.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs