Rod Speed wrote:
Stan Brown wrote
Lou wrote
Stan Brown wrote

My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to
at least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no
more than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high
30%s and low 40%s.)

I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor
told me it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the
same setting 24/7.

The contractor wasn't trying to sell me anything, by the way. He was the
teacher of a home-maintenance class offered by a local non-profit group.

Then he's a fool that doesnt have a clue.

I wonder what the definition of "most efficiently" is.

In this context, "efficient" might mean less heat lost up the
chimney, less unburned fuel passing through a cold furnace at
startup in the morning.

My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

Thats just plain wrong.

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

And that is just plain wrong too.

It may also be significant that my furnace heats hot water used for washing

Nope.

-- the thing in the basement that looks like a water heater is
actually just a holding tank. Maybe if I had hot water heat but
a separate water heater, the efficiency would go another way.

Nope.

But it might be possible that by turning the temperature down at
night and while the house is empty during the day results in lower
overall costs because you're heating less of the time, even though
those few hours in the morning/evening might have the furnace
operating at less than peak efficiency.

I'll ask my furnace maintenance guy about this and see what he says.

Waste of time, he clearly doesnt have a clue.

Whatever you say, welfare boy.

Of course if I could use less energy I'd be happy about that.

In article ,
says...
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:35:01 GMT from Lou :

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
t...
My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to
at least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no
more than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high
30%s and low 40%s.)

I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor
told me it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the
same setting 24/7.

The contractor wasn't trying to sell me anything, by the way. He was
the teacher of a home-maintenance class offered by a local non-profit
group.

That may be, but he's clearly clueless about heat transfer. There
is a lot of such misinformation around. I can believe such things
with other forms of heat, not because the science changes, rather
the psychology. Some heat, for instance, has a very long recovery
time. If this isn't taken into account for people will tend to
change the thermostat too often and "chase" the ideal temperature,
wasting a lot of energy. Baseboard hot-water isn't such a system.

I wonder what the definition of "most efficiently" is.

In this context, "efficient" might mean less heat lost up the
chimney, less unburned fuel passing through a cold furnace at
startup in the morning.

My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

Clearly wrong. The heat needed is proportional to the difference
(indoor to outdoor) in temperature. Less heat is needed for any
hours where you can lower that differential. Baseboard hot-water
recovers relatively fast so there isn't a huge lag so heat isn't
wasted "hunting". A setback thermostat can easily deal with this
sort of heat (simply lead the set times by a half hour or so).

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

The same "excess energy" comes back out of the water as went in.
That "excess energy" is still heating the house, even when
throttling back. If you dumped the heat outside, maybe but it isn't
a lot of water in any case.

It may also be significant that my furnace heats hot water used for
washing -- the thing in the basement that looks like a water heater
is actually just a holding tank. Maybe if I had hot water heat but a
separate water heater, the efficiency would go another way.

Nope. Same deal. The water in the furnace is hot all the time
anyway (in yours, even in the summer). The only water that can "go
cold" is in the pipes to the baseboard radiatiors; not a lot of
water. As I said, that heat isn't lost anyway.

But it might be possible that by turning the temperature down at
night and while the house is empty during the day results in lower
overall costs because you're heating less of the time, even though
those few hours in the morning/evening might have the furnace
operating at less than peak efficiency.

I'll ask my furnace maintenance guy about this and see what he says.
Of course if I could use less energy I'd be happy about that.

Don't worry about it at all. Just use a setback thermostat and be
comfortable. What wastes energy is the "hunting" (over
temperature). For every 1F you set the thermostat back you may save
about 3% in your heat bill. If you can set back ten degrees for
twelve hours that's a 15% savings that will *NOT* be wasted by
heating the water in the pipes later.

--
Keith

Sat, 5 Jul 2008 05:11:02 +1000 from Rod Speed
:
Stan Brown wrote
My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

And that is just plain wrong too.

Now I know you're a loony. Some of your other statements IU don't
have the expertise to evaluate, but there is no doubt that the
specific heat of air is much lower than that of water.

*plonk*

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote
Rod Speed
Stan Brown wrote

My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

Thats just plain wrong.

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

And that is just plain wrong too.

Now I know you're a loony.

This is from the stupid clown thats so stupid it cant even work out for itself
that the industry wouldnt be flogging set back thermostats if they didnt work.

Some of your other statements IU don't have the expertise to evaluate,

None of them, actually, nothing viable between the ears to do any evaluation of anything at all, ever.

but there is no doubt that the specific heat of air is much lower than that of water.

The specific heat is completely irrelevant to the FACT that you dont use
more fuel with a setback with either air or water based heating systems.

*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will do you, you stupid plonker.

wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre 1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely closed
off) and using heavy drapes/curtain/blankets to enclose the living room and
adjacent bedroom - which would be the only rooms with open registers - other
than the bathroom - and supplementing with a kerosene heater (which I have
had for 25 years). But considering that the rooms would be closed/curtained
off - with reduced air flow - thinking also one of the oil filled electric
heater might be safer. If power goes (which it can) would open the curtains
and use the kero heater. Last winter I had the thermostat at 64. I am
disabled - 69 - and having increasing problems with mobility and keeping
warm.

Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
be much, much more costly this next heating season.

Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.

JonquilJan

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying

In article ,
Stan Brown wrote:
My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it at
that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and heat it
back to the desired temperature at time 2.

Here's how to see that. You need to know two facts of physics first.

(1) Imagine the object surrounded by something that can measure the
heat energy entering or exiting the object. You'll find that when heat
energy leaves the object, the temperature goes down. When heat energy
enters, the temperature goes up. You'll also find that there is a
conservation law at work here. If the temperature is at a given
temperature, and a given amount of heat energy leaves, then to get the
object back to the original temperature, you have to put that amount of
heat energy back.

Basically, the temperature of the object is the integral of the heat
flow over time.

The important point here is that the temperature just depends on the net
change in heat energy of the object.

(2) The rate the object loses heat to its surroundings goes up as the
temperature difference goes up. If the ambient temperature is, say, 50,
and the object is 70, it will lose more heat energy per second than it
would if the object temperature were 60.

Putting these two together, let's do a thought experiment. We have two
objects, both at, say, 70. The ambient temperature is 50.

Object 1 we keep at a constant 70. Object 2 we allow to cool, until
just before we need to use it again, and then we heat it back to 70.

For object 1, it is at a constant 20 above ambient, so is losing heat at
a constant rate. So, the total energy lost is the amount it loses per
second at 70 times the number of seconds between time 1 and time 2.
That's how much total energy our furnace has to put into the object to
keep it at a constant 70 from time 1 to time 2.

For object 2, it starts out at 20 above ambient, so in the first second
it loses about as much energy as the first object. But we are letting
it cool, so it gets colder. That slows the rate of heat loss slightly.
In the second second, it loses slightly less energy than the first
object. The advantage grows as time goes on. Finally, time 2
approaches, and we have to use the furnace to heat the object. The
amount of heat we have to supply is exactly the amount it has lost since
time 1, which is LESS than object 1 has lost.

So, strictly from the viewpoint of energy required to have an object at,
say, 70 at time 1 and at time 2, with an ambient temperature of 50, much
less energy is required to let the object cool between time 1 and 2 and
then heat it back to 70 at time 2, than just keeping it at a constant 70.

However, it is possible that there could be other considerations in
practice. If you had some kind of furnace that takes a while to reach
full efficiency after startup, that could change things, depending on
how much time is between time 1 and time 2.


--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:
In article ,
Stan Brown wrote:
My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it
at that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and
heat it back to the desired temperature at time 2.

Here's how to see that. You need to know two facts of physics first.

(1) Imagine the object surrounded by something that can measure the
heat energy entering or exiting the object. You'll find that when
heat energy leaves the object, the temperature goes down. When heat
energy enters, the temperature goes up. You'll also find that there
is a conservation law at work here. If the temperature is at a given
temperature, and a given amount of heat energy leaves, then to get the
object back to the original temperature, you have to put that amount
of heat energy back.

Basically, the temperature of the object is the integral of the heat
flow over time.

The important point here is that the temperature just depends on the
net change in heat energy of the object.

(2) The rate the object loses heat to its surroundings goes up as the
temperature difference goes up. If the ambient temperature is, say,
50, and the object is 70, it will lose more heat energy per second
than it would if the object temperature were 60.

Putting these two together, let's do a thought experiment. We have
two objects, both at, say, 70. The ambient temperature is 50.

Object 1 we keep at a constant 70. Object 2 we allow to cool, until
just before we need to use it again, and then we heat it back to 70.

For object 1, it is at a constant 20 above ambient, so is losing heat
at a constant rate. So, the total energy lost is the amount it loses
per second at 70 times the number of seconds between time 1 and time
2. That's how much total energy our furnace has to put into the
object to keep it at a constant 70 from time 1 to time 2.

For object 2, it starts out at 20 above ambient, so in the first
second it loses about as much energy as the first object. But we are
letting it cool, so it gets colder. That slows the rate of heat loss
slightly. In the second second, it loses slightly less energy than
the first object. The advantage grows as time goes on. Finally,
time 2 approaches, and we have to use the furnace to heat the object.
The amount of heat we have to supply is exactly the amount it has
lost since time 1, which is LESS than object 1 has lost.

So, strictly from the viewpoint of energy required to have an object
at, say, 70 at time 1 and at time 2, with an ambient temperature of
50, much less energy is required to let the object cool between time
1 and 2 and then heat it back to 70 at time 2, than just keeping it
at a constant 70.

However, it is possible that there could be other considerations in practice.

Yes, particularly with heat pump systems that are stupid enough
to turn on their aux electrical resistance heating when the outside
coils ice up when you try to pump too much heat when coming
back off the setback temp to the higher operating temp in the morning.

If you had some kind of furnace that takes a while to reach full
efficiency after startup, that could change things, depending on
how much time is between time 1 and time 2.

There arent any where that makes as much difference
as the heat you saved with the setback temp.

Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:35:40 +1000 from Sambo :
This is from the stupid clown thats so stupid it cant even work out
for itself that the industry wouldnt be flogging set back
thermostats if they didnt work.

Right, because American business never sells us anything we don't
need.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:17:02 -0700 from Tim Smith reply_in_group@mouse-
potato.com:
In article ,
Stan Brown wrote:
My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the heating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it at
that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and heat it
back to the desired temperature at time 2.
[snip logical explanation]

Yes, that makes perfect sense -- basic thermodynamics.

The problem, and the difference between physics and engineering :-)
is that no device is not 100% efficient. What I don't know is how
that affects things.

I also wonder about effects on the house structure of letting the
indoor temperature fluctuate 10 or 15 degrees twice a day. And I
wonder about mold too -- maybe I misremembered what my mold guy said
and it's just that he said to keep the temp above 65 to prevent mold
formation -- though presumably that's more of an issue in spring and
fall since winter humidity is too low for mold.

It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
"yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
because ..."

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote:
Sambo wrote

This is from the stupid clown thats so stupid it cant even work out for itself
that the industry wouldnt be flogging set back thermostats if they didnt work.

Right, because American business never sells us anything we don't need.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

Stan Brown wrote:
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:17:02 -0700 from Tim Smith reply_in_group@mouse-
potato.com:
In article ,
Stan Brown wrote:
My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the heating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it
at that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and
heat it back to the desired temperature at time 2.
[snip logical explanation]

Yes, that makes perfect sense -- basic thermodynamics.

The problem, and the difference between physics and engineering :-)
is that no device is not 100% efficient.

Doesnt need to be.

What I don't know is how that affects things.

It should be obvious to anyone with a clue. The efficiency needs to be
worse by more than the setback saves to not be worth a setback, stupid.

I also wonder about effects on the house structure of letting
the indoor temperature fluctuate 10 or 15 degrees twice a day.

Its irrelevant to the reduced loss of heat with the lower setback temp.

And I wonder about mold too -- maybe I misremembered what my mold guy said

That individual is completely irrelevant.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to check the basics on mold and temperature using google.

and it's just that he said to keep the temp above 65 to prevent mold formation

Mindlessly silly.

-- though presumably that's more of an issue in spring
and fall since winter humidity is too low for mold.

Gets sillier by the minute.

It's not a simple question.

Yes it is and even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the whole question
of setback has been discussed endlessly for more than a century or more now.

The answer could well turn out to be, "yes, setting back the
temperature uses less energy, but it's worse because ..."

Nope. If that was true, you wouldnt see so many authoritative
sources recommending the use of setback thermostats if you
care about the cost of running a heating system.

"JonquilJan" wrote in message
. ..
wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air
with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre
1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely
closed
off) and using heavy drapes/curtain/blankets to enclose the living room
and
adjacent bedroom - which would be the only rooms with open registers -
other
than the bathroom - and supplementing with a kerosene heater (which I have
had for 25 years). But considering that the rooms would be
closed/curtained
off - with reduced air flow - thinking also one of the oil filled electric
heater might be safer. If power goes (which it can) would open the
curtains
and use the kero heater. Last winter I had the thermostat at 64. I am
disabled - 69 - and having increasing problems with mobility and keeping
warm.

Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
be much, much more costly this next heating season.

Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.

One of the things I find useful is an electric throw. This is essentially a
small electric blanket you put over your lap and down to the floor when
you're sitting down. They generally have three or four settings - off, low,
medium, and high. Using one, you can have the room quite cool and still be
comfortable, and they don't use much electricity.

These things were pretty popular a decade or two ago, though I haven't seen
one for sale for quite a while. On the other hand, I have mine and haven't
had to look. I suppose you could use a regular electric blanket the same
way.

Another item that was popular during the energy crisis days of the 70's was
a lightweight quilt with a few strategically placed buttons/snaps that
allowed you to wear it sort of like a serape with a hood. Didn't use any
electricity.

Basically, look for ways to warm you instead of the house.

JonquilJan

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying

"JonquilJan" wrote in message
wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air
with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre
1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely
closed
off)...


Insulate the 2nd level from the first level.

I did this by tearing out my 1st level ceiling and adding insulation, then
replacing the ceiling.

You can do this on the cheap by just laying insulation on the 2nd level
floor. Or cheaper would be to get many boxes filled with those packing
peanuts and placing them on the 2nd level floor.

JonquilJan wrote:
h wrote in message ...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
"Bill" wrote in message
...
It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!

For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two
families
into one house. Then each pays half.
How would that help? You'd still need the other house heated to at
least
55F. So you might be saving about 20%, but what's the point?

Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?

I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age (69) and
disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had it at
a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat. My
very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other than
building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank walls)
can't do much more.

Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
since I did my 1920 home.

Jeff


JonquilJan

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying

In article ,
JonquilJan wrote:
wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre 1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely closed
off) and using heavy drapes/curtain/blankets to enclose the living room and
adjacent bedroom

I suppose you could carpet the walls; a layer of Tyvek HomeWrap under it would
cut down on air infiltration and not cause moisture buildup.

- which would be the only rooms with open registers - other
than the bathroom - and supplementing with a kerosene heater (which I have
had for 25 years). But considering that the rooms would be closed/curtained
off - with reduced air flow - thinking also one of the oil filled electric
heater might be safer. If power goes (which it can) would open the curtains
and use the kero heater. Last winter I had the thermostat at 64. I am
disabled - 69 - and having increasing problems with mobility and keeping
warm.

Have you considered radiant floor heat, something like these:

http://www.suntouch.com/underfloor/

http://www.heatizon.com/products/rad...ating/retrofit

http://www.warmzone.com/retrofit-radiant-heat.asp

These are a few results from searching for "radiant floor heat retrofit
electric"; there are many more options.

Radiant floor heating keeps your feet warm, a major comfort factor in
cold weather.

Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
be much, much more costly this next heating season.

Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.

Cover your windows with clear shrink film; caulk around door and window
frames (if you're not already doing so).


Gary

--
Gary Heston http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"a member or members of Osama bin Ladens' Al Qaeda network, posing as
computer programmers, were able to gain employment at Microsoft..."
claim made by Mohammed Afroze Abdul Razzak to police in India, 12/01.

In article ,
Jeff wrote:
JonquilJan wrote:
[ ... ]
I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age (69) and
disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had it at
a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat. My
very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other than
building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank walls)
can't do much more.

Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
since I did my 1920 home.

You can't put insulation into "thick plank walls", they're solid wood.

Now, if you want to go build the stud walls on the inside of the planks,
as Jan indicated would be necessary, then install insulation and drywall,
at your expense, I suspect Jan would be glad to hear from you.


Gary

--
Gary Heston http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"a member or members of Osama bin Ladens' Al Qaeda network, posing as
computer programmers, were able to gain employment at Microsoft..."
claim made by Mohammed Afroze Abdul Razzak to police in India, 12/01.

On Jul 4, 9:42*pm, "JonquilJan" wrote:
Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. *Hot water
heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. *I expect propane will
be much, much more costly this next heating season.

Wow. $4k is about 2.5 years of propane for my house. I guess the
double walls and special windows pay off!

Can you get one of those thermal cameras to see where heat is
escaping? Check on air infiltration, that's always a problem with
older houses.

Bill wrote:
"JonquilJan" wrote in message
wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air
with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre
1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely
closed
off)...


Insulate the 2nd level from the first level.

I did this by tearing out my 1st level ceiling and adding insulation, then
replacing the ceiling.

You can do this on the cheap by just laying insulation on the 2nd level
floor. Or cheaper would be to get many boxes filled with those packing
peanuts and placing them on the 2nd level floor.


That is bad advice to use flammable foam peanuts in that fashion.

George wrote:

Bill wrote:

"JonquilJan" wrote in message

wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced
air with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house
(pre 1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely
closed
off)...


Insulate the 2nd level from the first level.

I did this by tearing out my 1st level ceiling and adding insulation,
then replacing the ceiling.

You can do this on the cheap by just laying insulation on the 2nd
level floor. Or cheaper would be to get many boxes filled with those
packing peanuts and placing them on the 2nd level floor.

That is bad advice to use flammable foam peanuts in that fashion.


Could be a source of heat, for a few hours.

On Jul 4, 12:11*pm, "Rod Speed" AKA Sambo
spewed:


Then he's a fool that doesnt have a clue.

More commie nonsense


Thats just plain wrong.

Again you don't know what you are taking about.



And that is just plain wrong too.

Nothing but a bare face lie


Nope.

Yep


.

Nope.

Yep
.

Waste of time, he clearly doesnt have a clue.

You are a bald faced PIG liar.

Gowd, this is so much fun! And I even feel smarter. How about everyone
else; do I seem smart?

In article ,
says...
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:17:02 -0700 from Tim Smith reply_in_group@mouse-
potato.com:
In article ,
Stan Brown wrote:
My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the heating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.

My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.

In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it at
that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and heat it
back to the desired temperature at time 2.
[snip logical explanation]

Yes, that makes perfect sense -- basic thermodynamics.

The problem, and the difference between physics and engineering :-)
is that no device is not 100% efficient. What I don't know is how
that affects things.

"Efficency" of the mass doesn't matter. The heat used is
proportional to the difference in temperature between inside and
outside only. Any energy you put into latent heat will come back
later. Though as Stan points out that a longer running fire would
likely be more efficient.

I also wonder about effects on the house structure of letting the
indoor temperature fluctuate 10 or 15 degrees twice a day. And I
wonder about mold too -- maybe I misremembered what my mold guy said
and it's just that he said to keep the temp above 65 to prevent mold
formation -- though presumably that's more of an issue in spring and
fall since winter humidity is too low for mold.

As long as you don't get condensation mold shouldn't be an issue.
The issue here would be the minimum temperature not the difference.
However, there are things in the house that might not like the
constant temperature and humidity variation. IOW, there may be
other reasons to not go wild here.


It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
"yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
because ..."

Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
isn't cutting it. ;-)

--
Keith

On Jul 4, 9:42*pm, "JonquilJan" wrote:

Suggestions - ideas. *I live in northern New York state.

Convert to natural gas if you can.

Have you put in energy efficient windows?

--
Ron

Ron Peterson wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 9:42 pm, "JonquilJan" wrote:

Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.

Convert to natural gas if you can.

Not available.

Have you put in energy efficient windows?

Don't have the funds for that. Use heavy drapes/blankets/old quilts.

JonquilJan

--
Ron

If I was living back north, and had to stay in a house like that, and
had seriously limited resources, I would seriously consider building a
room within a room, where I would spend most of my time while at home.
A few rolls of insulation, some studs, some sheetrock and/or plastic,
and an electric heater and light and tv, comfy chair and bed. Let the
rest of the house drop into the 40s, scoot to the kitchen to cook, but
otherwise live in the heated small space. It would be cabin fever
time, but at least it would be survivable.


Interesting point. I am considering something along that line with the
curtains and drapes. Big problem is heating the bathroom (and pipes) very
old house has weird setup. And not too thoughful additions (before my
purchase). As for cabin fever - been there - every winter when the weather
gets bad/icy and/or the car gets 'sick' and spends time at the mechanics (5
times last winter)

My snip took out mention of a college student/boarder. College is 15 miles
and is a local community college. Besides I have a lot of 'stuff' on the
second floor. Perhaps not important to others - but it's 'my' stuff.

JonquilJan a stubborn old lady.

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying

"Ron Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 9:42 pm, "JonquilJan" wrote:

Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.

Convert to natural gas if you can.

Have you put in energy efficient windows?


I'm in upstate NY and natural gas is not an option (no gas lines here).
Propane would be the only alternative, and it's not that much less than oil,
especially once you factor in dumping a fairly new oil burning and
buying/installing the propane unit.

My house is slightly older than the OPs (about 1815), and we used about
$2,500 worth of oil last year for a 2000 sq ft house. Of course, I don't
heat much past 55F. We've insulated all we can and have brand new (2006)
sheathing, clapboards, windows, etc., and frankly, my very old house is much
better built and secure than any new econbox being built around here. Moving
to a "new" structure is not only not an option, it's not even smart. The OP
shouldn't even think about moving just yet.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:42:48 -0400, "JonquilJan"
wrote:

wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre 1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely closed
off) and using heavy drapes/curtain/blankets to enclose the living room and
adjacent bedroom - which would be the only rooms with open registers - other
than the bathroom - and supplementing with a kerosene heater (which I have
had for 25 years). But considering that the rooms would be closed/curtained
off - with reduced air flow - thinking also one of the oil filled electric
heater might be safer. If power goes (which it can) would open the curtains
and use the kero heater. Last winter I had the thermostat at 64. I am
disabled - 69 - and having increasing problems with mobility and keeping
warm.

Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
be much, much more costly this next heating season.

Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.

JonquilJan

Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying


I hate to say it, but it might be time to consider a move to a house
that is more efficient. Sometimes there is only so much you can do.
If you have decreased mobility, can't deal with wood or coal, and have
essentially cordoned off the second floor, sounds like you might be a
prime candidate for such an extreme measure, and possibly even a move
south. I've been reading a bunch of stuff recently about solar
fluctuations, and I anticipate this winter to be *at least* as cold as
the last one.

In a Vermont forum, I mentioned early this year that there would be a
possibility of a lot of people trying to move south come November, due
to increased heating costs. I can vouch that north Alabama is a lot
warmer than northern New York state, has lower taxes, and has some
great people, like Gary.

Another option that you might consider if you are in a college area,
is to take on a boarder for the winter months, with the understanding
that they get the upstairs, and the rent is the cost of heating the
house.

If I was living back north, and had to stay in a house like that, and
had seriously limited resources, I would seriously consider building a
room within a room, where I would spend most of my time while at home.
A few rolls of insulation, some studs, some sheetrock and/or plastic,
and an electric heater and light and tv, comfy chair and bed. Let the
rest of the house drop into the 40s, scoot to the kitchen to cook, but
otherwise live in the heated small space. It would be cabin fever
time, but at least it would be survivable.

In article ,
JonquilJan wrote:

[room within a room]

Interesting point. I am considering something along that line with the
curtains and drapes. Big problem is heating the bathroom (and pipes) very
old house has weird setup. And not too thoughful additions (before my
purchase).

The plumbing can be helped with electric heat tapes (on the drains as well;
a ex-coworker had hers freeze in her apartment), and insulation where it's
possible.

As for cabin fever - been there - every winter when the weather
gets bad/icy and/or the car gets 'sick' and spends time at the mechanics (5
times last winter)

Yes, the Internet isn't everything...

My snip took out mention of a college student/boarder. College is 15 miles
and is a local community college. Besides I have a lot of 'stuff' on the
second floor. Perhaps not important to others - but it's 'my' stuff.

And you value your space. Reasonable.

JonquilJan a stubborn old lady.

Which means you'll be around for quite a while longer. :-)


Gary

--
Gary Heston http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"a member or members of Osama bin Ladens' Al Qaeda network, posing as
computer programmers, were able to gain employment at Microsoft..."
claim made by Mohammed Afroze Abdul Razzak to police in India, 12/01.

On Jul 5, 7:49*pm, wrote:
In a Vermont forum, I mentioned early this year that there would be a
possibility of a lot of people trying to move south come November, due
to increased heating costs. *I can vouch that north Alabama is a lot
warmer than northern New York state, has lower taxes, and has some
great people, like Gary.

You can actually end up WORSE by doing that. A few years ago I worked
with some guys from southern California. They were complaining about
their heating bills and asked what mine (in Minnesota) was. When I
told them they didn't believe me because theirs were running 2x to 4x
mine. And that was in my old house which wasn't all that well
insulated. It had been a "cold" (for CA) winter and their houses
basically weren't insulated.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:32:57 -0400, "h"
wrote:

and frankly, my very old house is much
better built and secure than any new econbox being built around here. Moving
to a "new" structure is not only not an option, it's not even smart. The OP
shouldn't even think about moving just yet.

I used to think that way. I also like DOS. **** changes.

Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:33:10 -0400 from krw :
In article ,
says...
It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
"yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
because ..."

Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
isn't cutting it. ;-)

Just a reminder -- despite Sambo/Rod Speed's posturing, I'm not
trying to persuade anyone of anything. Like others here I'm hoping to
learn.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote:
Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:33:10 -0400 from krw :
In article ,
says...
It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
"yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
because ..."

Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
isn't cutting it. ;-)

Just a reminder -- despite Sambo/Rod Speed's posturing, I'm not trying
to persuade anyone of anything. Like others here I'm hoping to learn.

But the ear to ear dog **** prevents that from happening.

In article ,
says...
Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:33:10 -0400 from krw :
In article ,
says...
It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
"yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
because ..."

Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
isn't cutting it. ;-)

Just a reminder -- despite Sambo/Rod Speed's posturing, I'm not
trying to persuade anyone of anything. Like others here I'm hoping to
learn.

Understood. Ronnie is an ass.

--
Keith

"JonquilJan" wrote in message

Big problem is heating the bathroom (and pipes) very
old house has weird setup. And not too thoughful additions (before my
purchase). As for cabin fever - been there - every winter when the
weather
gets bad/icy and/or the car gets 'sick' and spends time at the mechanics
(5
times last winter)


Why don't you contact the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and
Washington Post. Let them know about your situation.

clams_casino wrote:
George wrote:

Bill wrote:

"JonquilJan" wrote in message

wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced
air with
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house
(pre 1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )

thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely
closed
off)...


Insulate the 2nd level from the first level.

I did this by tearing out my 1st level ceiling and adding insulation,
then replacing the ceiling.

You can do this on the cheap by just laying insulation on the 2nd
level floor. Or cheaper would be to get many boxes filled with those
packing peanuts and placing them on the 2nd level floor.

That is bad advice to use flammable foam peanuts in that fashion.


Could be a source of heat, for a few hours.

I would say more likely 5 minutes but since the hotspot created by the
burning foam will insure ignition of the rest of the house it may be a
few hours...

Bill wrote:
"JonquilJan" wrote in message
Big problem is heating the bathroom (and pipes) very
old house has weird setup. And not too thoughful additions (before my
purchase). As for cabin fever - been there - every winter when the
weather
gets bad/icy and/or the car gets 'sick' and spends time at the mechanics
(5
times last winter)


Why don't you contact the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and
Washington Post. Let them know about your situation.


If JJ truly does not have the cash to make her house warm in winter, and
doesn't want to (or have the cash to) move, she should investigate any
local senior assistance programs for home repairs. Many areas have
programs where volunteers will assist in making plastic interior storms
for the old leaky windows, caulking any visible gaps, sealing and
insulating ducts that go through unheated spaces, sealing foundation
leaks, etc, etc. Discount electric space heaters are usually part of the
deal as well. Blankets and quilts hung on walls or over windows for
insulation are a BAD idea. (Ask your fire department why.)

--
aem sends....

Gary Heston wrote:
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
JonquilJan wrote:
[ ... ]
I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age (69) and
disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had it at
a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat. My
very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other than
building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank walls)
can't do much more.

Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
since I did my 1920 home.

You can't put insulation into "thick plank walls", they're solid wood.

You may be right, but I read this differently than you do. I can't say
that I've seen a house of that era that had vertical plank walls that
was completely solid. Building styles vary depending on access to
materials but I would be surprised if her walls were solid.

Jeff


Now, if you want to go build the stud walls on the inside of the planks,
as Jan indicated would be necessary, then install insulation and drywall,
at your expense, I suspect Jan would be glad to hear from you.


Gary

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Gary Heston wrote:
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
JonquilJan wrote:
[ ... ]
I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age
(69) and
disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had
it at
a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat.
My
very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other
than
building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank
walls)
can't do much more.

Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
since I did my 1920 home.

You can't put insulation into "thick plank walls", they're solid wood.

You may be right, but I read this differently than you do. I can't say
that I've seen a house of that era that had vertical plank walls that was
completely solid. Building styles vary depending on access to materials
but I would be surprised if her walls were solid.


I would. I'd expect they're just like mine (1815 or so). I've got 4x4 studs
12-15" apart, with brick and mortar filling the entire space in between.
Over that is shiplap, then clapboards. Not exactly possible to blow anything
in.

Jeff wrote:
Gary Heston wrote:
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
JonquilJan wrote:
[ ... ]
I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age
(69) and
disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I
had it at
a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit
hat. My
very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible -
other than
building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick
plank walls)
can't do much more.

Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of
that since I did my 1920 home.

You can't put insulation into "thick plank walls", they're solid wood.

You may be right, but I read this differently than you do. I can't say
that I've seen a house of that era that had vertical plank walls that
was completely solid. Building styles vary depending on access to
materials but I would be surprised if her walls were solid.

Jeff

Solid plank walls are not all that unusual in old homes. The better ones
had double planking run at diagonals for strength and were commonly
called "double boarded".




Now, if you want to go build the stud walls on the inside of the planks,
as Jan indicated would be necessary, then install insulation and drywall,
at your expense, I suspect Jan would be glad to hear from you.


Gary

In article , Ron Peterson wrote:
On Jul 2, 8:15=A0am, "Bill" wrote:
It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!

Convert to natural gas. It's cheaper, cleaner, and the utility can't
cut you off.


Some people can't get gas except propane. Geothermal heat pump is the way
to go. I wish I had one. If I had more info I might have tried to install one myself.

I had oil for one season. That cost me about $1000 for the winter. I save a little
since I had a gas line installed and use natural gas. New line, furnace, air, hot water
heater for about $5500. My electric is cheap. Just wish I had the geopump.

Man that oil furnace used to pump out 160 degree heat from the vents, or what ever
the overtemp setting was. Two of the cold air returns were blocked by rugs when I moved
in. I also insreased fan speed. That oil furnace was 55 years old and still working. Could
burn type I or II fuel.

greg

"JonquilJan" wrote:

wondering about heating this next winter...

How about solar heat from a commercial plastic film greenhouse perpendicular
to the east or west side of the house on the south side? For $1K and 3 days
labor you can have a 14'x96' solar hot air collector...

Nick