any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

thanks.

-mike (remove _nospam in email to reply)

Michael Sutton wrote in message
om...
any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

thanks.

-mike (remove _nospam in email to reply)

Looked into it for a new house last year. Found an article at:
http://www.stateind.com/new/new.htm
called, "What's the Big Deal About Tankless Water Heaters". It's biased, of
course; but there is some good information. Decided not to go that way
because any energy savings appear to be minimal, tankless heaters make more
noise than conventional types and tankless are more complex and therefore
more costly to repair.

TKM

On 16 Jan 2004 11:45:22 -0800, (Michael
Sutton) wrote:

any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

thanks.

-mike (remove _nospam in email to reply)
We have a Paloma tankless hot water heater coupled with a
Grunfoss(SP?) water pump. It works great but we do live in Hawaii at
about the 2000 foot elevation. It is in the low 50's in the morning
here.You can only run on hot water thing at a time as we have a PH6
size Paloma, but it works well for us.

aloha,
Thunder
http://www.smithfarms.com
Farmers & Sellers of 100%
Kona Coffee & other Great Stuff

(Michael Sutton) wrote in message . com...
any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

thanks.

-mike (remove _nospam in email to reply)

Try a search of the group. This is a frequent topic.
TB

On 16 Jan 2004 11:45:22 -0800, (Michael Sutton)
wrote:

|any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?
|
|They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
|in a large 40gallon type tank.
|
|Do you like it?
|how is energy usage compared to your old one?
|
|would you reccomend it?

I'm also looking at these.
My house is total electric, so that may change the picture.
Rex in Fort Worth

(Michael Sutton) wrote:

any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

Please go to http://groups.google.com and do a search on this topic. It's been
discussed to death. With a couple of specific installation exceptions, it costs
more than a storage heater if you consider total cost of install and use.

I checked into this for about 6 months before I bought mine. Yes there great
and yes you save on the gas bill. I save about as it is advertised 25 - 50%.
I checked them ALL out and here is the link to the best one in my option.
http://www.takagi.com/web2003/c02.htm
Make sure you watch the videos on the main page. They go into more detail.
We can run two showers and the dishwasher with no trouble. This unit is
about $949.00 but if you save half on you gas bill it is cheap.

Thanks
DD
"Michael Sutton" wrote in message
om...
any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

thanks.

-mike (remove _nospam in email to reply)

Forgot to add that I'd prefer an electric one since
my current water heater (tank'd model) is in a closet
on the first floor that doesn't have access to an
outside wall for Gas-tankless to vent the exhaust.

It would be nice to be able to have two showers
run at once also.

I'm afraid that an electric of this model won't
be able to run on the 220v 30amp existing service
run to this closet though.

I've done a searh on this in the groups, but it
seems that alot of the articles are 'dated' back
to the mid or late 1990's, and hopefully with this
being 2004, tankless waterheaters have made some
advances since then.

-mike (remove the _nospam to reply via email)


(Michael Sutton) wrote in message . com...
any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

thanks.

-mike (remove _nospam in email to reply)

(Michael Sutton) wrote:

I've done a searh on this in the groups, but it
seems that alot of the articles are 'dated' back
to the mid or late 1990's, and hopefully with this
being 2004, tankless waterheaters have made some
advances since then.

We're dealing with basic physics here. Unfortunately, those laws haven't
changed.

As an example, even when you compare the worst gas storage heater to the most
efficient gas tankless, you will only see about US$50 of operating savings per
year. When you factor in the increased cost to purchase, install and maintain a
tankless heater, they don't make economic sense for most common situations.

A few years ago, someone from State Waterheater company (who make both types)
sent me a PDF of a whitepaper a PHD from their technology center did that
explains why the economics don't work. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if I shared
it. Requests by email, if your email can handle 1M attachments...

Clark W. Griswold, Jr. 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in
message ...
(Michael Sutton) wrote:

I've done a searh on this in the groups, but it
seems that alot of the articles are 'dated' back
to the mid or late 1990's, and hopefully with this
being 2004, tankless waterheaters have made some
advances since then.

We're dealing with basic physics here. Unfortunately, those laws haven't
changed.

As an example, even when you compare the worst gas storage heater to the
most
efficient gas tankless, you will only see about US$50 of operating savings
per
year. When you factor in the increased cost to purchase, install and
maintain a
tankless heater, they don't make economic sense for most common
situations.

A few years ago, someone from State Waterheater company (who make both
types)
sent me a PDF of a whitepaper a PHD from their technology center did that
explains why the economics don't work. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if I
shared
it. Requests by email, if your email can handle 1M attachments...

That paper from State is still available on line at:
http://www.stateind.com/new/new.htm as I indicated above.

TKM

"TKM" wrote in
:


Clark W. Griswold, Jr. 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in
message ...
(Michael Sutton) wrote:

I've done a searh on this in the groups, but it
seems that alot of the articles are 'dated' back
to the mid or late 1990's, and hopefully with this
being 2004, tankless waterheaters have made some
advances since then.

We're dealing with basic physics here. Unfortunately, those laws
haven't changed.

As an example, even when you compare the worst gas storage heater to
the
most
efficient gas tankless, you will only see about US$50 of operating
savings
per
year. When you factor in the increased cost to purchase, install and
maintain a
tankless heater, they don't make economic sense for most common
situations.

A few years ago, someone from State Waterheater company (who make
both
types)
sent me a PDF of a whitepaper a PHD from their technology center did
that explains why the economics don't work. I'm sure they wouldn't
mind if I
shared
it. Requests by email, if your email can handle 1M attachments...

That paper from State is still available on line at:
http://www.stateind.com/new/new.htm as I indicated above.

TKM




I HATE MY TANKLESS HEATER!!! It is integrated with the furnace (not a
major problem, though people do look at me funny when we get an oil
delivery late in the spring)

I can take a shower all day and not get cold water, but can't fill a bath
more than half way before the water goes cold. The heater can't keep up
with the load. Some of the dedicated heaters work just fine and their
advantage is that they can be placed just anywhere you can run gas, and
water and exhaust it. (You don't have to worry about the weight of all
that stored water).

NJBrad

"TKM" wrote:

That paper from State is still available on line at:
http://www.stateind.com/new/new.htm as I indicated above.

Cool. I'm glad they made it available on their web site. It wasn't when the
State person sent it to me.

If you look closely at the last page, you'll see it was published in April 2002
- not the mid to late 90s.

You must watch where you are using it. I had one installed, while
living on the south shore of lake Erie. When the wind blew too
strongly, the water heater went out. Just a precaution, as the water
instantly gets very cold, especially when you or your wife is in the
shower. Finally had to take it out and install a regular tank with a
power draft.

Don

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:06:25 -0700, "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." 73115
dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote:

"TKM" wrote:

That paper from State is still available on line at:
http://www.stateind.com/new/new.htm as I indicated above.

Cool. I'm glad they made it available on their web site. It wasn't when the
State person sent it to me.

If you look closely at the last page, you'll see it was published in April 2002
- not the mid to late 90s.

Don wrote:

You must watch where you are using it. I had one installed, while
living on the south shore of lake Erie. When the wind blew too
strongly, the water heater went out.

snip

I assume that you mean that a gas burner "went out". I've only seen
electric ones.

--
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:14:03 -0600, someone wrote:

I checked into this for about 6 months before I bought mine. Yes there great
and yes you save on the gas bill. I save about as it is advertised 25 - 50%.


That sounds extremely rare.

What are you comparing it to as the baseline.

Since you heat the same amount of water for use, what you save is the
storage loss. Now a gas hot water tank DOES have more loss than an
electric one due to the "hole in the donut" up the middle. But the
only installations that I'd think would have that much storage loss,
would be ones that use very little water but sit for a long long time.


Extreme example: a single person who travels for business all week and
is only home on weekends.

I'd be very surprised if a family that uses lots of HW every day of
the week would see that much relative savings.

If you have gas you probably have more chance for saving than if it
had to be electric.

BTW, ok you can run several things with a big unit, but how does that
unit work for low flow, like one sink running a trickle. This is a
serious Q, not a slam. Early units had trouble with throttling their
output for low flow, if they were rated for high, people complained
about scalding hot low flows. Just wondering if there had been any
advance, use of thermostatic mixing valves, etc.

-v.

v wrote:

snip

Since you heat the same amount of water for use, what you save is the
storage loss. Now a gas hot water tank DOES have more loss than an
electric one due to the "hole in the donut" up the middle. But the
only installations that I'd think would have that much storage loss,
would be ones that use very little water but sit for a long long time.


snip

The big, ol' tank is not the primary source of heat loss. It is the
piping running for many yards in an unheated crawlspace, for example.
When you open a hot water fauct and wait on the flow "get hot", this
demonstrates the lost heat. Since heat loss is reduced as the pipes
cool down, I expect that things would actually IMPROVE with less hot
water use, not get worse. (Of course, eventually, it would still cost
to maintain tank temperature with NO hot water use. So, the "sweet
spot" is in the middle somewhere.)

--
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.

Ron Hammon wrote:

The big, ol' tank is not the primary source of heat loss. It is the
piping running for many yards in an unheated crawlspace, for example.
When you open a hot water fauct and wait on the flow "get hot", this
demonstrates the lost heat. Since heat loss is reduced as the pipes
cool down, I expect that things would actually IMPROVE with less hot
water use, not get worse. (Of course, eventually, it would still cost
to maintain tank temperature with NO hot water use. So, the "sweet
spot" is in the middle somewhere.)

All true. But here's the deal: Most people who discover tankless heaters for the
first time think they have discovered an amazing secret that is going to save
them hundreds, if not thousands in energy costs.

What they are thinking is that they will replce their storage tank heater with a
demand (tankless) heater. In that situation, you can exclude pipe loss as it is
the same for both types of heaters. Install costs on new construction is
similar. On retrofit instructions, it can be more for tankless than a
replacement tank. The only savings left is heat loss from the tank, which as
been documented, is not that great.

Ah ha, they say! They'll install heaters at each point of use. Well, great. No
pipe loss, but now they are dealing with approximately 3X capital cost *for each
location*, extended install cost (you do have gas or 220 50A service to every
bathroom, right?), and annual service costs.

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in
message ...
Ron Hammon wrote:

The big, ol' tank is not the primary source of heat loss. It is the
piping running for many yards in an unheated crawlspace, for example.
When you open a hot water fauct and wait on the flow "get hot", this
demonstrates the lost heat. Since heat loss is reduced as the pipes
cool down, I expect that things would actually IMPROVE with less hot
water use, not get worse. (Of course, eventually, it would still cost
to maintain tank temperature with NO hot water use. So, the "sweet
spot" is in the middle somewhere.)

All true. But here's the deal: Most people who discover tankless heaters
for the
first time think they have discovered an amazing secret that is going to
save
them hundreds, if not thousands in energy costs.

What they are thinking is that they will replce their storage tank heater
with a
demand (tankless) heater. In that situation, you can exclude pipe loss as
it is
the same for both types of heaters.

I would think that a big reason for putting in a tankless heater is that it
is smaller and therefore capable of
bieng installed closer to the long run sink and thus giving less warmup
time/loss.
and thus is a convenience even more than an energy saving.

There are 2 advantages only, one is space saving. They can be hung on
the wall and do not take up floor space, next is you do not have to
heat the water stored in the tank. They are much more efficient.
Unless you want to rewire, repipe, and reflue your entire house, they
will still be placed in a central location and 1 unit will feed the
entire house/building. No matter what, you will still have the heat
loss in the standing water in the pipes, just no heat loss from water
stored in the tank. Basicly you will just heat the water to be used,
thus the savings.

Don
Been there, done that.....

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:40:57 -0800, "Blue" wrote:


"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in
message ...
Ron Hammon wrote:

The big, ol' tank is not the primary source of heat loss. It is the
piping running for many yards in an unheated crawlspace, for example.
When you open a hot water fauct and wait on the flow "get hot", this
demonstrates the lost heat. Since heat loss is reduced as the pipes
cool down, I expect that things would actually IMPROVE with less hot
water use, not get worse. (Of course, eventually, it would still cost
to maintain tank temperature with NO hot water use. So, the "sweet
spot" is in the middle somewhere.)

All true. But here's the deal: Most people who discover tankless heaters
for the
first time think they have discovered an amazing secret that is going to
save
them hundreds, if not thousands in energy costs.

What they are thinking is that they will replce their storage tank heater
with a
demand (tankless) heater. In that situation, you can exclude pipe loss as
it is
the same for both types of heaters.

I would think that a big reason for putting in a tankless heater is that it
is smaller and therefore capable of
bieng installed closer to the long run sink and thus giving less warmup
time/loss.
and thus is a convenience even more than an energy saving.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:22:42 -0600, someone wrote:


The big, ol' tank is not the primary source of heat loss. It is the
piping running for many yards in an unheated crawlspace, for example.

And when making a direct replacement of a central tankless for a
central tank, that loss would be similar. Maybe not identical, but
unless you have one of those circulating loops running all the time,
with no flow in the bare pipe you are not gonna lose much more heat
after the initial cooldown, which would be the same for both. With no
flow, in theory the warm tank would lose some heat out of the first
few feet of pipe whereas the cold standing tankless would not, but I
don't think it would be much unless you kept the tank in a very cold
place.

-v.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:34:49 -0500, someone wrote:


.... They are much more efficient. rest cut
..... Basicly you will just heat the water to be used,

The heating phase of an electric (tank) heater is pretty close to 100%
efficient. You are not going to beat the efficiency of that phase
with a tankless. Both kinds heat the water which is to be used. The
tank, you use water that is already hot, it was heated first and then
stored ready to go, no further heating required. The tankless needs a
huge btu capacity to suddenly heat up cold water on demand. Same btu
to heat cold to hot, just doing it over a longer period with a
(relatively) small element vs. all at once with a larger one.

(If the local utility charges a "demand charge" there goes your
savings, also for the same useage you generally need more electrical
capacity for tankless since you don't have a long period to slowly
heat water to be stored; you need to heat it all at once, so there are
initial wiring implications.)

Now, yes, since the storage is not 100% perfect and has some standing
loss, you do pay for that. But you do NOT actually heat *any* more
water "to be used". The water in the tank that has been heated gets
used. You do not have to heat any "extra" water with a tank, while it
is service. (Pedantically, I suppose you could say that when the tank
is taken out of service, there is one last tanklfull that was heated
but not used, out of the tens of thousands of gallons hot water used
over the years.)

Anyways, I actually think we kinda agree, in a direct replacement
situation what little savings is the storage loss. If you designed
the house differently with multiple units you could also reduce piping
loss.

But then you could reduce piping losses with multiple tanks too! Most
American home can find the space for a tank more easily than in
European (or Japanese) homes, so space saving is probably NOT the
reason most Americans are thinking of these.

Bottom line, I doubt most Americans could justify these for a
retrofit, on a "saves money" basis. TANSTAAFL.

-v.

On 16 Jan 2004 11:45:22 -0800, (Michael
Sutton) wrote:

any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

I researched this to death also......

check the flowrates - like filling my bathtub wide open is 10 gpm-
next to none of them will keep up with that-- of course patience is a
virtue...most of them will do 3-4 gpm easily - showers(most if not all
new heads are 2.5 gpm mand. gov. reg I think) however you can usually
remove that little orifice restriction.....

gas is probably the best money-saving bet, right now, the future being
contingent on gas/electric rates

the newest invention for these is the miniature (hydro-electric)
generator that produces enough electrical current to light the pilot
when the water flows- saving the pilot light costs

another consideration (along with all the others covered in previous
posts) is maintenance..unless you install (recommended) a water filter
in front of this thing it should be cleaned and inspected yearly
(scaling will kill these things efficiency and life expectancy)


good insulation and a timer on a standard water heater is probably
better.....if you are creatures of habit.....include a timer override
button and you can handle the occasional "out of ordinary schedule"
event...if you can wait the 15-30 min for water to heat

Don wrote in message . ..
There are 2 advantages only, one is space saving. They can be hung on
the wall and do not take up floor space, next is you do not have to
heat the water stored in the tank. They are much more efficient.
Unless you want to rewire, repipe, and reflue your entire house, they
will still be placed in a central location and 1 unit will feed the
entire house/building. No matter what, you will still have the heat
loss in the standing water in the pipes, just no heat loss from water
stored in the tank. Basicly you will just heat the water to be used,
thus the savings.

Don
Been there, done that.....

I believe one of their chief advantages, and one that figures
prominently in the marketing, is that they are *endless*. They will
heat water for as long as you draw it. Once a month you let the
soccer team shower at your place? And then you want to fill the hot
tub? No problem - until the gas bill comes.

Now, multiple *concurrent* showers, that has to be reckoned when you
buy the unit.

So, I see them as being of benefit to big families, or guest houses,
or anyone who finds they occasionally empty even a large tank WH.

However, in the literature for some of the units, it mentions a
60-second ramp-up time. IE, your water runs cold for a minute, *after*
you get past the water standing in the pipes. That could get tired
fast. Do owners see this in the real world?

Chip C
Toronto

[ I have deleted hsv.general from the posting list 'cause I have no
idea what that group's for.]

Don wrote in message
...
There are 2 advantages only, one is space saving. They can be hung on
the wall and do not take up floor space, next is you do not have to
heat the water stored in the tank. They are much more efficient.
Unless you want to rewire, repipe, and reflue your entire house, they
will still be placed in a central location and 1 unit will feed the
entire house/building. No matter what, you will still have the heat
loss in the standing water in the pipes, just no heat loss from water
stored in the tank. Basicly you will just heat the water to be used,
thus the savings.

Don
Been there, done that.....

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:40:57 -0800, "Blue" wrote:


"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in
message ...
Ron Hammon wrote:


SNIP

I would think that a big reason for putting in a tankless heater is that
it
is smaller and therefore capable of
bieng installed closer to the long run sink and thus giving less warmup
time/loss.
and thus is a convenience even more than an energy saving.

Keep the potential noise problem in mind. The tankless heater probably
requires a forced air vent. Also, they can't be installed just anywhere in
the house since they need air, exhaust and a gas supply or heavy-duty
electric service plus the plumbing.

I'm living in a new house with two forced air tank type gas water heaters.
The one in the laundry area is fine; but the one in a small utility closet
next to the upstairs bathroom lets you know when it's running. The fan
noise doesn't make it through the bedroom walls thanks to good insulation.
Yes, I avoided a 50 foot hot water pipe run and long waits to get hot water,
but the noise is more than I expected.

TKM

Again, the problem with how long it takes for the water to get warm
is no different, the one I had was 5-10 feet from the tub, mounted on
the other side of the shower wall, thus no real lengthy pipes to deal
with. I did not notice any 60 sec. wait, in fact I think I got hot
water rarther quickly.
A regular tank will fire up when a certain water temp is reached in
the tank, and will stay on until the entire tank is reheated, and then
come on and go off as needed to maintain a temp. This is where the
savings comes into play, as you are not cycling on and off when no
water is being used. The only time the gas was used was when there was
a demand for water. The one I had used a pilot, so there was no wait
for heated water once the water started to flow.
The system worked very well, but where I lived, I could not keep the
pilot lit, nor the burner going. Imagine instant freezing cold water
when the burner went off in the middle of your hot shower.........

Don


On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:33:38 GMT, "TKM" wrote:


Don wrote in message
.. .
There are 2 advantages only, one is space saving. They can be hung on
the wall and do not take up floor space, next is you do not have to
heat the water stored in the tank. They are much more efficient.
Unless you want to rewire, repipe, and reflue your entire house, they
will still be placed in a central location and 1 unit will feed the
entire house/building. No matter what, you will still have the heat
loss in the standing water in the pipes, just no heat loss from water
stored in the tank. Basicly you will just heat the water to be used,
thus the savings.

Don
Been there, done that.....

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:40:57 -0800, "Blue" wrote:


"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." 73115 dot 1041 at compuserve dot com wrote in
message ...
Ron Hammon wrote:


SNIP

I would think that a big reason for putting in a tankless heater is that
it
is smaller and therefore capable of
bieng installed closer to the long run sink and thus giving less warmup
time/loss.
and thus is a convenience even more than an energy saving.

Keep the potential noise problem in mind. The tankless heater probably
requires a forced air vent. Also, they can't be installed just anywhere in
the house since they need air, exhaust and a gas supply or heavy-duty
electric service plus the plumbing.

I'm living in a new house with two forced air tank type gas water heaters.
The one in the laundry area is fine; but the one in a small utility closet
next to the upstairs bathroom lets you know when it's running. The fan
noise doesn't make it through the bedroom walls thanks to good insulation.
Yes, I avoided a 50 foot hot water pipe run and long waits to get hot water,
but the noise is more than I expected.

TKM

A friend has an always warm recirculating system. It uses a small pump
rotor that is in the pipe and powered by an external field. You can't beat
it for comfort and is great for a family in regular residence. It is not
without problems though.

One is the the extra loss of constantly heated pipes.

Another is the bearings which have limited life.

A third is the rather unexpected wear constantly circulating water has on
the copper pipes.

Another is the difficutly of putting an extral pipe to the long run sink.

The first three are reduced by running the pump with a timer which runs it
only when people can be expected to use it most often.
Blue


"Don" wrote in message
...
Again, the problem with how long it takes for the water to get warm
is no different, the one I had was 5-10 feet from the tub, mounted on
the other side of the shower wall, thus no real lengthy pipes to deal
with. I did not notice any 60 sec. wait, in fact I think I got hot
water rarther quickly.
A regular tank will fire up when a certain water temp is reached in
the tank, and will stay on until the entire tank is reheated, and then
come on and go off as needed to maintain a temp. This is where the
savings comes into play, as you are not cycling on and off when no
water is being used. The only time the gas was used was when there was
a demand for water. The one I had used a pilot, so there was no wait
for heated water once the water started to flow.
The system worked very well, but where I lived, I could not keep the
pilot lit, nor the burner going. Imagine instant freezing cold water
when the burner went off in the middle of your hot shower.........

Don

"Blue" wrote:

A friend has an always warm recirculating system. It uses a small pump
rotor that is in the pipe and powered by an external field. You can't beat
it for comfort and is great for a family in regular residence. It is not
without problems though.

One is the the extra loss of constantly heated pipes.

Keep in mind that this only a problem when the furnace is not running. The heat
loss during the heating season reduces the furnace load for interior pipes.

Chip C wrote:

However, in the literature for some of the units, it mentions a
60-second ramp-up time. IE, your water runs cold for a minute, *after*
you get past the water standing in the pipes. That could get tired
fast. Do owners see this in the real world?

When I was in Germany one place I stayed had a tankless water heater and
while it wasn't 60 seconds it did take a while to get going.

(Michael Sutton) wrote in message . com...
any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

I considered getting one of these when I converted my electric
water heater to gas. One reason I did not is that if the power
goes out, which it does occasionally where I live, a regular
gas tank water heater will still provide me with hot water. A
tankless will only keep working if it uses gas for the heating
and a battery for the controls. This did not exist at the time
I was looking although it may exist now.

-David,

(David Martin) wrote in message . com...
I considered getting one of these when I converted my electric
water heater to gas. One reason I did not is that if the power
goes out, which it does occasionally where I live, a regular
gas tank water heater will still provide me with hot water. A
tankless will only keep working if it uses gas for the heating
and a battery for the controls. This did not exist at the time
I was looking although it may exist now.

-David,

Bosch is now advertising a unit that requires no power hookup; gas
ignition is millivolt (uses a turbine in the water flow, if I
understand it) and venting is unforced. So you do forgo the advantages
of sealed combustion (you need a flue, and combustion air) and high
efficiency - it's billed as an 80% unit.

Sounds like a neat unit for a cottage, if you could get it to use
propane.

Chip C
Toronto

I considered getting one of these when I converted my electric
water heater to gas. One reason I did not is that if the power
goes out, which it does occasionally where I live, a regular
gas tank water heater will still provide me with hot water. A
tankless will only keep working if it uses gas for the heating
and a battery for the controls. This did not exist at the time
I was looking although it may exist now.

Err... We've got one that we go "camping"[1] with that
runs off a propane pilot light, with a mechanical flow-sensor,
when water goes through it, at some minimum rate,
the main gas comes on. That's all there is to it.

Oh, there *IS* a cold/hot dial, but as near as I can tell,
all it does is restrict the flow so that the water that DOES
go through is hotter. Not really useful when you're mixing
at the point-of use, anyway.

--Goedjn

[1] Well, ok, it's more like setting up an over-funded
refuge town than normal camping, but still...

(Michael Sutton) wrote:
any one have one these tankless hot water heaters?

They heat the water on demmand and don't store it
in a large 40gallon type tank.

Do you like it?
how is energy usage compared to your old one?

would you reccomend it?

I have a Takagi TK-2 (installed about a year ago).

In general, I'm glad I went with it. I can now fill my whirlpool tub without
running out of hot water halfway through the process (although it takes longer
to fill -- flow rate through the tankless units is lower than that from a tank).
I got a big enough unit that capacity is very seldom a problem (I've taken a
shower with both the washing machine and dishwasher running with no significant
loss in pressure).

I've noticed no significant change in energy usage (good or bad). Part of the
problem is that my space heating costs totally swamp out the water heating
costs. If you're wanting to save tons of $$$ on your water heating bill, don't
waste your time.

I'd recommend the unit as long as you're familiar with the limitations --
especially flow rate with a very cold water input (flow rate reduces the colder
the water gets, so you gotta be familiar with the flow curves).

(Chip C) wrote:
60-second ramp-up time. IE, your water runs cold for a minute, *after*
you get past the water standing in the pipes. That could get tired
fast. Do owners see this in the real world?

I have a Takagi TK-2. The only significant ramp-up I've noticed is for small
loads (i.e. turning on a facet). Since the heater doesn't turn on "full bore"
for such a small flow, it takes a minute or so longer to get hot water than when
I had a tanked unit. That extra minute can be a bit annoying. For larger
loads (such as a bath or a shower), the extra lag over a tanked unit, if any,
isn't noticeable.

(Michael Sutton) wrote:
Forgot to add that I'd prefer an electric one since
my current water heater (tank'd model) is in a closet
on the first floor that doesn't have access to an
outside wall for Gas-tankless to vent the exhaust.

It would be nice to be able to have two showers
run at once also.

I'm afraid that an electric of this model won't
be able to run on the 220v 30amp existing service
run to this closet though.

I've done a searh on this in the groups, but it
seems that alot of the articles are 'dated' back
to the mid or late 1990's, and hopefully with this
being 2004, tankless waterheaters have made some
advances since then.

I wouldn't recommend an electric tankless for whole-house use. The unit I have
(a gas Takagi TK-2) is the smallest unit I'd recommend for a whole house, and
this guy sucks down some serious BTUs when it's going full bore (when I replaced
my tanked heater with this, I actually had to increase the size of the gas pipe
from the meter to accomodate the additional flow).

Err... We've got one that we go "camping"[1] with that
runs off a propane pilot light, with a mechanical flow-sensor,
when water goes through it, at some minimum rate,
the main gas comes on. That's all there is to it.

What model/make/etc do you use for camping?
(Coleman, etc????)

mike



Oh, there *IS* a cold/hot dial, but as near as I can tell,
all it does is restrict the flow so that the water that DOES
go through is hotter. Not really useful when you're mixing
at the point-of use, anyway.

--Goedjn

[1] Well, ok, it's more like setting up an over-funded
refuge town than normal camping, but still...

How does that thing determine that water is running through it?
Blue


"Michael Sutton" wrote in message
om...
Err... We've got one that we go "camping"[1] with that
runs off a propane pilot light, with a mechanical flow-sensor,
when water goes through it, at some minimum rate,
the main gas comes on. That's all there is to it.

What model/make/etc do you use for camping?
(Coleman, etc????)

mike



Oh, there *IS* a cold/hot dial, but as near as I can tell,
all it does is restrict the flow so that the water that DOES
go through is hotter. Not really useful when you're mixing
at the point-of use, anyway.

--Goedjn

[1] Well, ok, it's more like setting up an over-funded
refuge town than normal camping, but still...

Why do you want to heat hot water?



"Michael Sutton" wrote in message
om...
Err... We've got one that we go "camping"[1] with that
runs off a propane pilot light, with a mechanical flow-sensor,
when water goes through it, at some minimum rate,
the main gas comes on. That's all there is to it.

What model/make/etc do you use for camping?
(Coleman, etc????)

mike



Oh, there *IS* a cold/hot dial, but as near as I can tell,
all it does is restrict the flow so that the water that DOES
go through is hotter. Not really useful when you're mixing
at the point-of use, anyway.

--Goedjn

[1] Well, ok, it's more like setting up an over-funded
refuge town than normal camping, but still...

"Oscar_Lives" wrote in message
news:aeIPb.118330$I06.883364@attbi_s01...
Why do you want to heat hot water?

Maybe the cold water cooler isnt what they are looking for?





"Michael Sutton" wrote in message
om...
Err... We've got one that we go "camping"[1] with that
runs off a propane pilot light, with a mechanical flow-sensor,
when water goes through it, at some minimum rate,
the main gas comes on. That's all there is to it.

What model/make/etc do you use for camping?
(Coleman, etc????)

mike



Oh, there *IS* a cold/hot dial, but as near as I can tell,
all it does is restrict the flow so that the water that DOES
go through is hotter. Not really useful when you're mixing
at the point-of use, anyway.

--Goedjn

[1] Well, ok, it's more like setting up an over-funded
refuge town than normal camping, but still...

"Oscar_Lives" wrote in message
news:aeIPb.118330$I06.883364@attbi_s01...
Why do you want to heat hot water?
==
I'm thinking the "hot" in "hot water heater" refers only to the temperature
of the
outside of the tankless tank--However, the OP mis-spoke. The correct form
for this
sentence structure is: "hot tankless tank water heater heater." I know, I
know--It sounds
like a no-brainer, but some folks just struggle with stating the obvious.
==
==

I believe this is only justified with natural gas and a single whole house
heater.




"Michael Sutton" wrote in message
om...
Err... We've got one that we go "camping"[1] with that
runs off a propane pilot light, with a mechanical flow-sensor,
when water goes through it, at some minimum rate,
the main gas comes on. That's all there is to it.

What model/make/etc do you use for camping?
(Coleman, etc????)

mike



Oh, there *IS* a cold/hot dial, but as near as I can tell,
all it does is restrict the flow so that the water that DOES
go through is hotter. Not really useful when you're mixing
at the point-of use, anyway.

--Goedjn

[1] Well, ok, it's more like setting up an over-funded
refuge town than normal camping, but still...