I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O. Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem that
these are my choice:

ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent

But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.

So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Mar 16, 7:27*pm, Don Wiss wrote:
I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O. Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem that
these are my choice:

ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent

But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.

So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Most efficent is tankless since efficency is misleading, the Energy
Factor is what has the most meaning in water heaters , gas tanks of
regular vent and 80+% efficency are around 50-60 energy factor, i dont
know about direct vent though, tankless start around 80 energy factor.

On Mar 16, 8:36�pm, ransley wrote:
On Mar 16, 7:27�pm, Don Wiss wrote:





I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O. Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Bubba wrote:

Don Wiss asked:
So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.

You forgot the Vertex Power Vent water heater at 90% efficiency

Hi Bubba,

Okay. I see that I missed it. And it clearly stands at the top (for
residential heaters). I find for venting:

• 2" pipe, vents up to 25 equivalent feet
• 3" pipe, vents up to 65 equivalent feet
• 4" pipe, vents up to 128 equivalent feet

What are "equivalent feet?" Or how many feet does a right angle count as?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

P.S. For those curious as to what Bubba and I are discussing:

http://www.ho****er.com/products/res...rg-vertex.html

Instructions: http://www.ho****er.com/lit/im/media...197423-002.pdf

Spec sheet: http://www.ho****er.com/lit/spec/res...RG-SS01306.pdf

Whatever you have now, keep it.


Just had to replace a direct vent and estimates were all around $1400 with
just a 6 year tank warranty. Electric would be less than 1/3. I decided to
go with an on demand system to replace the direct vent. It cost around $3k
but at least had a 12 year warranty and normally lasts 20 years.

If you go with a on demand system, consider having the gas company doing it.
Tons of things had to be done including replacing the gas meter. Get a unit
that has a low flow start rate. Stay away from Bosch.

The downside is that the hot water tank was apparently keeping my basement
warm and warming the cold water. So now that cold water in my house is much
colder and so is my basement. An advantage during the summer, disadvantage
during the winter. That is why people think it takes longer for hot water
to show up.... cold water is much colder with an on demand system.

Also if system isn't installed right or you buy wrong one you will get
inadequate flow rate. It gives you unlimited hot water but not immediate or
unlimited flowrate. There are compromises. I like the idea of no tank
though.


"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O.
Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem that
these are my choice:

ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent

But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.

So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the
longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On 2008-03-17, wrote:

standard tanks actually have very low standby losses, just got touch
your tank hot hot is it?

That's not really true, a standard 80% combustion efficient tank
heater has an energy factor of around 0.60, so of the theoretical
heating value of the fuel burned, 20% goes up the flue, and the other
20% is roughly standby losses from the tank. Even an electric tank
water heater, which has a 100% "combustion" efficiency has an energy
factor of 0.91-0.93, so 7%-9% of the energy is lost as standby.

Also, a conventional tank water heater has most of its standby losses
up the flue, which travels through the middle of the tank. This is
why the standby losses are much higher than an electric tank. You
wouldn't notice this by touching the outside of the tank.

current high efficency condensing tanks are over 90% efficent. that
should be enough for anyone

Combustion efficiency is not the same as energy factor. AO Smith
doesn't have an energy factor rating for the Vertex, they say that
anything about 65,000 BTUs/hr input doesn't need to get rated. One
can guess that the standby losses are less than a conventional water
heater (due to the helical flue in the Vertex), but still more than an
electric. So the energy factor is maybe 0.75-0.80.

For a tankess gas water heater, the standby losses are zero, so the
energy factor is equal to the combustion efficiency. So an 80%
combustion efficient tankless has an energy factor of 0.80.

Yours, Wayne

On Mar 16, 9:35Â*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:36�pm, ransley wrote:





On Mar 16, 7:27�pm, Don Wiss wrote:

I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O. Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem that
these are my choice:

ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent

But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.

So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Most efficent is tankless since efficency is misleading, the Energy
Factor is what has the most meaning in water heaters , gas tanks of
regular vent and 80+% efficency are around 50-60 energy factor, i dont
know about direct vent though, tankless start around 80 energy factor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

tankless have lots of downsides, from delay when you fiorst draw water
till heated water arrives, to poor operation at low flow levels.

standard tanks actually have very low standby losses, just got touch
your tank hot hot is it?

current hoigh efficency condensing tanks are over 90% efficent. that
should be enough for anyone- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!

I'll put them down. AND I CAN afford them. All i have to do is ask you
what is the maximum temperature of your hot water in the winter, when the
incoming water is about 39 degrees? There, the argument is over. There's
NO WAY you can get 140 degree water from 39 degree input with a tankless.
And you can't wash dishes properly with 98 degree water. Hell, I'll bet
with 39 degree input, you can't even take a decent hot shower with all hot
and no cold on.


steve

"ransley" wrote in message
...

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!

On 2008-03-17, S. Barker wrote:

There's NO WAY you can get 140 degree water from 39 degree input
with a tankless.

That's simply false. The burner's firing rate is modulated based on
the flow rate and the needed temperature rise to provide the set
temperature.

Admittedly, a tankless water heater will be somewhat taxed by cold
incoming water. For example, the Noritz N-0631 has a maximum input
rate of 180,000 BTUs/hr and can achieve a 3.0 gpm flow rate at 100
degree F temperature rise. So that's just enough for two 2.0 gpm
showers simultaneously (since in a shower you will mix it down to 110
degree water).

Cheers, Wayne

I can afford one but wouldnt buy one. its not just a matter of the up
front cost. our incoming water is near 40 degrees after zero weather.
for tankless we would need 2 high btu tankless in series. and a new
gas line to the other side of the street, the entire incoming line and
meter are too small for the flow.

but even if it were all upgraded at a cost of 5 grand i wouldnt want
waiting for hot water, or wasting water every time we turn it on, or
in a power failure having no hot water, let alone in this day and age
the tank water might no be tasty, but drinkable if terrorists somehow
took out the water system.....

geez my 50 gallon 75K BTU tank serves us very well, and frankly the
projected savings isnt worth the draw backs

In article
,
" wrote:

geez my 50 gallon 75K BTU tank serves us very well, and frankly the
projected savings isnt worth the draw backs

I'm all with you on loyalty to a TANK water heater but would you please
check the tag on your heater. I would LOVE to have that sort of input
(ultra-high recovery!) on a "mere" 50-gallon tank. Looking around,
anything with that high of BTU requires a larger tank.

I replaced my heater a couple years ago with a new State Select 50-gal
with 40k BTU input. It works FINE. The only time I consider the waste
heat as truly wasted is when the air conditioning is running. I have a
bi-metal flue damper that addresses much, if not all, of the issue of
heat wasted up the flue.

As for the issue of waiting for hot water to arrive at the tap: There
is a wait interval for BOTH technologies, isn't there?
--

JR

On Mar 17, 7:25�pm, Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
geez my 50 gallon 75K BTU tank serves us very well, and frankly the
projected savings isnt worth the draw backs

I'm all with you on loyalty to a TANK water heater but would you please
check the tag on your heater. �I would LOVE to have that sort of input
(ultra-high recovery!) on a "mere" 50-gallon tank. �Looking around,
anything with that high of BTU requires a larger tank.

I replaced my heater a couple years ago with a new State Select 50-gal
with 40k BTU input. �It works FINE. �The only time I consider the waste
heat as truly wasted is when the air conditioning is running. �I have a
bi-metal flue damper that addresses much, if not all, of the issue of
heat wasted up the flue.

As for the issue of waiting for hot water to arrive at the tap: �There
is a wait interval for BOTH technologies, isn't there?
--
� � � � � �
JR

my tank is a 50 gallon 75,000 BTU model they are made but arent as
common as lower BTU models its first hour is 108 gallons and energy
guide 171 bucks a year.

my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU wasnt enough for us, and we didnt have the
physical space for any larger than 50 gallons, originally i wanted 75
gallons.

our current tank was installed in november 2000.

the wait time for tankless is longer, in both cases you have to use up
the cooled water in the lines but the tankless needs time to realize
water is on and trn on burner.

I have thought about getting a tankless to feed a regular tank.
operating costs would be the same, andthe tankless act as a pre heater.

home depot carries 75K 50 gallon tanks but they arent always stocked
in the store.

life is full of standby losses, cars idiling at stop lights, car
warming up, etc etc.

most arent worth the cost to fix

ransley wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:35 pm, " wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:36�pm, ransley wrote:





On Mar 16, 7:27�pm, Don Wiss wrote:
I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O. Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem that
these are my choice:
ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent
But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.
So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.
Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Most efficent is tankless since efficency is misleading, the Energy
Factor is what has the most meaning in water heaters , gas tanks of
regular vent and 80+% efficency are around 50-60 energy factor, i dont
know about direct vent though, tankless start around 80 energy factor.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
tankless have lots of downsides, from delay when you fiorst draw water
till heated water arrives, to poor operation at low flow levels.

standard tanks actually have very low standby losses, just got touch
your tank hot hot is it?

current hoigh efficency condensing tanks are over 90% efficent. that
should be enough for anyone- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!

A tankless heater is expensive..Its expensive and fairly complicated to
hook one up.. It has somewhere in the region of a 300,000 BTUH burner/or
elements. It is expensive to repair.. And its lifespan is about the same
as a good standard tank heater. Also a Gas Tankless will not operate
without Electricity. When we lose electric..That means the furnace will
not run.. So we depend on a free standing water heater to save the
house. Fill the sinks and tubs with hot water and redo when it cools
off. Also run Gas range and oven. If we lose NGas, it isn't much of a
problem to do a fast changeover to propane or butane. Generators are a
pain in the ass and most families don't have one or at least a properly
maintained generator . A standard tank water heater is somewhere in the
vicinity of being a 40,000 furnace. I have tracked Tankless changeover
operating costs and despite the wild claims of much cheaper.. not so...
In the average family home of 3-1/2 people using hot water normally it
comes pretty close to being the same and without all the complications
fronted by the Tankless folks. The ones I have tracked are Rinnai and
GE. Anyone else had experience with these units. Do keep in mind that
the ones that save a great deal of money are the old European ones..
Very simple and needs no logic or electric ignition system.. Shower time
must be very short. They also use them for hydroponic heat of smaller
homes. I had a German made one(Made in 1949) in a 890 sq ft well
insulated house. It had a ceramic heated exchanger and was replaced in
1994 as no repair parts were available. It furnished heat and hot
water..It hung on the basement wall and looked much like a white
outboard motor with no drive shaft. That little heater never exceeded
$50 a month. Keep in mind you cannot sell that in America.. ****ing
people take their surf board to shower in this country and make a day of it.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

S. Barker wrote:
I'll put them down. AND I CAN afford them. All i have to do is ask you
what is the maximum temperature of your hot water in the winter, when the
incoming water is about 39 degrees? There, the argument is over. There's
NO WAY you can get 140 degree water from 39 degree input with a tankless.
And you can't wash dishes properly with 98 degree water. Hell, I'll bet
with 39 degree input, you can't even take a decent hot shower with all hot
and no cold on.

Yes you can get 140ºF water... But is has to be on full burn between
300,000Btuh and 450,000 BTUH and your not saving a damned thing on
energy. One of the best savers for scheduled families is a super
insulated electric water heater with a brooder house timer allowing it
to run 1/2 hour in the morning and 1/2 hour in the evening. I am talking
about 1 full foot of foam encapsulation even on the bottom. These were
experimented with back in the 1980's and worked just fine. Of course you
could paint some 55 gallon drums of water black and set them out in the
sun. ;-p



steve

"ransley" wrote in message
...

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:27:22 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models.

Yes there is.

The whole reason I wrote up my water heater saga was so that others benefit
from all the help people here gave me. One of the references in the thread
was the recent DECEMBER 12, 2007. CONSUMERS' DIRECTORY OF CERTIFIED
EFFICIENCY RATINGS for Residential gas, oil, and electric water heating
equipment.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...na+ohl&lnk=ol&
Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:54:32 EST

In that reference PDF are the efficiency ratings for the hundreds of
residential hot water heaters sold in the USA (under a handful of
manufacturers but scores of brands).

I challenge you to find a water heater efficiency rating NOT in this
36-page listing for a water heater currently sold in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
(long url)
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforeso...vAttachmentLau
nch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Donna Ohl wrote:

I challenge you to find a water heater efficiency rating NOT in this
36-page listing for a water heater currently sold in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
(long url)
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

Where's the A.O. Smith Vertex model GPHE-50 that Bubba recommended?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Mar 17, 4:13*pm, "S. Barker" wrote:
I'll put them down. *AND I CAN afford them. *All i have to do is ask you
what is the maximum temperature of your hot water in the winter, when the
incoming water is about 39 degrees? *There, the argument is over. *There's
NO WAY you can get 140 degree water from 39 degree input with a tankless.
And you can't wash dishes properly with 98 degree water. *Hell, I'll bet
with 39 degree input, you can't even take a decent hot shower with all hot
and no cold on.

steve

"ransley" wrote in message

...

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. *The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!

Here we go again, sombody who does not have a clue to the facts, has
not used one, but can give false information putting them down. I have
a water main incomming on a hill which is too close to the surface
since dirt is going away, when its -10f out my incomming has gotten to
34f. I dont even have my small 117000 btu Bosch on high and the shower
is great. Look at specs, 90f rise is what you can get, 130f water is
to hot and a waste of money. 98f with 39f incomming is only 59f rise,
far short of 90f rise which my unit does, and I have measured it.
Consider something else, Tanks loose 1-3% efficency every year due to
scale buildup at the bottom of the tank, I recently removed a maybe 25
yr old tank with 13" of rock scale in it, I bet it was only 50%
efficent, Tankless dont hold scale, Tankless you just pur in Lime Away
through a valve you add, a simple 30 minute procedure to keep it 100%
efficent 25 years down the road, you cant clean out most tank units.
Tanks loose efficency every year and you cant stop it by flushing it.

On Mar 17, 5:38*pm, " wrote:
I can afford one but wouldnt buy one. its not just a matter of the up
front cost. our incoming water is near 40 degrees after zero weather.
for tankless we would need 2 high btu tankless in series. and a new
gas line to the other side of the street, the entire incoming line and
meter are too small for the flow.

but even if it were all upgraded at a cost of 5 grand i wouldnt want
waiting for hot water, or wasting water every time we turn it on, or
in a power failure having no hot water, let alone in this day and age
the tank water might no be tasty, but drinkable if terrorists somehow
took out the water system.....

geez my 50 gallon 75K BTU tank serves us very well, and frankly the
projected savings isnt worth the draw backs

I should not have said you cant afford one, that was wrong. But you
can get a 460$ Bosch as I did and leave in your old tank to temper
water. Even so 90f rise gets me a fine hot water shower with 34f
incomming. Did you ever actualy measure the shower water as it exits
the shower head, I need only maybe 106f, thats a 66f rise for you,
even if you need more its the units capicity if you use a standard not
full flow head. I use mine without the unit on high but maybe 80-90%
on. My gas supply was fine as is, I switched from electric to gas
tankless and just ran 3/4". Only with a manometer test will you know
supply is inadequate. A power failure, mine uses battery ignition, 2 C
cells which last so far 1 year. Wait for hot water, I wait maybe 5
seconds more, you still with your tank have to push out cold water in
the line. 5000$, mine installed cost me maybe $900 and my payback is
4-5 years.

On Mar 17, 7:40Â*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 17, 7:25�pm, Jim Redelfs wrote:





In article
,

" wrote:
geez my 50 gallon 75K BTU tank serves us very well, and frankly the
projected savings isnt worth the draw backs

I'm all with you on loyalty to a TANK water heater but would you please
check the tag on your heater. �I would LOVE to have that sort of input
(ultra-high recovery!) on a "mere" 50-gallon tank. �Looking around,
anything with that high of BTU requires a larger tank.

I replaced my heater a couple years ago with a new State Select 50-gal
with 40k BTU input. �It works FINE. �The only time I consider the waste
heat as truly wasted is when the air conditioning is running. �I have a
bi-metal flue damper that addresses much, if not all, of the issue of
heat wasted up the flue.

As for the issue of waiting for hot water to arrive at the tap: �There
is a wait interval for BOTH technologies, isn't there?
--
� � � � � �
JR

my tank is a 50 gallon 75,000 BTU model they are made but arent as
common as lower BTU models its first hour is 108 gallons and energy
guide 171 bucks a year.

my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU wasnt enough for us, and we didnt have the
physical space for any larger than 50 gallons, originally i wanted 75
gallons.

our current tank was installed in november 2000.

the wait time for tankless is longer, in both cases you have to use up
the cooled water in the lines but the tankless needs time to realize
water is on and trn on burner.

I have thought about getting a tankless to feed a regular tank.
operating costs would be the same, andthe tankless act as a pre heater.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you used the old tank as a pre tempering tank, stripped the casing
and insulation and let the house air to preheat it you would save alot
more, if you used the tankless before the tank you would have to run 2
units, you would loose this way. I use my old electric to temper the
water but I left the insulation on so savings are not much if anything
in everyday use.

On Mar 17, 10:33Â*pm, Don Ocean wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:35 pm, " wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:36�pm, ransley wrote:

On Mar 16, 7:27�pm, Don Wiss wrote:
I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O. Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem that
these are my choice:
ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent
But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.
So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.
Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Most efficent is tankless since efficency is misleading, the Energy
Factor is what has the most meaning in water heaters , gas tanks of
regular vent and 80+% efficency are around 50-60 energy factor, i dont
know about direct vent though, tankless start around 80 energy factor.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
tankless have lots of downsides, from delay when you fiorst draw water
till heated water arrives, to poor operation at low flow levels.

standard tanks actually have very low standby losses, just got touch
your tank hot hot is it?

current hoigh efficency condensing tanks are over 90% efficent. that
should be enough for anyone- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. Â*The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!

A tankless heater is expensive..Its expensive and fairly complicated to
hook one up.. It has somewhere in the region of a 300,000 BTUH burner/or
elements. It is expensive to repair.. And its lifespan is about the same
as a good standard tank heater. Also a Gas Tankless will not operate
without Electricity. When we lose electric..That means the furnace will
not run.. So we depend on a free standing water heater to save the
house. Fill the sinks and tubs with hot water and redo when it cools
off. Also run Gas range and oven. If we lose NGas, it isn't much of a
problem to do a fast changeover to propane or butane. Generators are a
pain in the ass and most families don't have one or at least a properly
maintained generator . A standard tank water heater is somewhere in the
vicinity of being a 40,000 furnace. I have tracked Tankless changeover
operating costs and despite the wild claims of much cheaper.. not so...
In the average family home of 3-1/2 people using hot water normally it
comes pretty close to being the same and without all the complications
fronted by the Tankless folks. The ones I have tracked are Rinnai and
GE. Anyone else had experience with these units. Do keep in mind that
the ones that save a great deal of money are the old European ones..
Very simple and needs no logic or electric ignition system.. Shower time
must be very short. They also use them for hydroponic heat of smaller
homes. I had a German made one(Made in 1949) in a 890 sq ft well
insulated house. It had a ceramic heated exchanger and was replaced in
1994 as no repair parts were available. It furnished heat and hot
water..It hung on the basement wall and looked much like a white
outboard motor with no drive shaft. That little heater never exceeded
$50 a month. Keep in mind you cannot sell that in America.. ****ing
people take their surf board to shower in this country and make a day of it.

On Mar 18, 4:46*am, Don Wiss wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Donna Ohl wrote:
I challenge you to find a water heater efficiency rating NOT in this
36-page listing for a water heater currently sold in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
(long url)
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforeso...ntLaunch/C2AAF...

Where's the A.O. Smith Vertex model GPHE-50 that Bubba recommended?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I saw one unit near the bottom with an Energy Factor of 70, only a few
in the 60s and most in the 50-60 range. Vertex, I have a several year
old similar AO condensing ccommercial unit but I only know its 92%
efficent or so

ransley wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:33 pm, Don Ocean wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:35 pm, " wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:36�pm, ransley wrote:
On Mar 16, 7:27�pm, Don Wiss wrote:
I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O. Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem that
these are my choice:
ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent
But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.
So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch of 90
degree bends.
Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Most efficent is tankless since efficency is misleading, the Energy
Factor is what has the most meaning in water heaters , gas tanks of
regular vent and 80+% efficency are around 50-60 energy factor, i dont
know about direct vent though, tankless start around 80 energy factor.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
tankless have lots of downsides, from delay when you fiorst draw water
till heated water arrives, to poor operation at low flow levels.
standard tanks actually have very low standby losses, just got touch
your tank hot hot is it?
current hoigh efficency condensing tanks are over 90% efficent. that
should be enough for anyone- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!
A tankless heater is expensive..Its expensive and fairly complicated to
hook one up.. It has somewhere in the region of a 300,000 BTUH burner/or
elements. It is expensive to repair.. And its lifespan is about the same
as a good standard tank heater. Also a Gas Tankless will not operate
without Electricity. When we lose electric..That means the furnace will
not run.. So we depend on a free standing water heater to save the
house. Fill the sinks and tubs with hot water and redo when it cools
off. Also run Gas range and oven. If we lose NGas, it isn't much of a
problem to do a fast changeover to propane or butane. Generators are a
pain in the ass and most families don't have one or at least a properly
maintained generator . A standard tank water heater is somewhere in the
vicinity of being a 40,000 furnace. I have tracked Tankless changeover
operating costs and despite the wild claims of much cheaper.. not so...
In the average family home of 3-1/2 people using hot water normally it
comes pretty close to being the same and without all the complications
fronted by the Tankless folks. The ones I have tracked are Rinnai and
GE. Anyone else had experience with these units. Do keep in mind that
the ones that save a great deal of money are the old European ones..
Very simple and needs no logic or electric ignition system.. Shower time
must be very short. They also use them for hydroponic heat of smaller
homes. I had a German made one(Made in 1949) in a 890 sq ft well
insulated house. It had a ceramic heated exchanger and was replaced in
1994 as no repair parts were available. It furnished heat and hot
water..It hung on the basement wall and looked much like a white
outboard motor with no drive shaft. That little heater never exceeded
$50 a month. Keep in mind you cannot sell that in America.. ****ing
people take their surf board to shower in this country and make a day of it.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A 117000 btu Bosch battery ignition needs no AC electric and vents up
a chimney. It wont do 2 showers with 40 f incoming but is maybe 500
with tax. I have the 117000 Bosch C cell Battery ignition unit im
happy. Yes savings are less with a large family but I am getting a
maybe 4-5 yr payback from electric tank

So if on an early Sunday morning the battery goes dead, No
shower..Great(Sarcasm galore) All gas appliances are required to have a
vent.. Its code and the fire law. (International)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

ransley wrote:
On Mar 18, 4:46 am, Don Wiss wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Donna Ohl wrote:
I challenge you to find a water heater efficiency rating NOT in this
36-page listing for a water heater currently sold in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
(long url)
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforeso...ntLaunch/C2AAF...
Where's the A.O. Smith Vertex model GPHE-50 that Bubba recommended?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I saw one unit near the bottom with an Energy Factor of 70, only a few
in the 60s and most in the 50-60 range. Vertex, I have a several year
old similar AO condensing ccommercial unit but I only know its 92%
efficent or so

I am aware of no water heater approaching 92% efficiency. Way too many
losses to achieve that.. Even Boiler technology can't do that yet

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 4:13 pm, "S. Barker" wrote:
I'll put them down. AND I CAN afford them. All i have to do is ask you
what is the maximum temperature of your hot water in the winter, when the
incoming water is about 39 degrees? There, the argument is over. There's
NO WAY you can get 140 degree water from 39 degree input with a tankless.
And you can't wash dishes properly with 98 degree water. Hell, I'll bet
with 39 degree input, you can't even take a decent hot shower with all hot
and no cold on.

steve

"ransley" wrote in message

...

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!

Here we go again, sombody who does not have a clue to the facts, has
not used one, but can give false information putting them down. I have
a water main incomming on a hill which is too close to the surface
since dirt is going away, when its -10f out my incomming has gotten to
34f. I dont even have my small 117000 btu Bosch on high and the shower
is great. Look at specs, 90f rise is what you can get, 130f water is
to hot and a waste of money. 98f with 39f incomming is only 59f rise,
far short of 90f rise which my unit does, and I have measured it.
Consider something else, Tanks loose 1-3% efficency every year due to
scale buildup at the bottom of the tank, I recently removed a maybe 25
yr old tank with 13" of rock scale in it, I bet it was only 50%
efficent, Tankless dont hold scale, Tankless you just pur in Lime Away
through a valve you add, a simple 30 minute procedure to keep it 100%
efficent 25 years down the road, you cant clean out most tank units.
Tanks loose efficency every year and you cant stop it by flushing it.

YOu stupid **** in the perfect whirl heat is either gained or lost at the
toilet depends on how warm your turd was and incoming water temp.

--

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 10:33 pm, Don Ocean wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:35 pm, " wrote:
On Mar 16, 8:36?pm, ransley wrote:

On Mar 16, 7:27?pm, Don Wiss wrote:
I'd like to switch to a direct vent water heater. Looking at the A.O.
Smith
site I get confused with all the models. Efficiency information is
hidden.
There is no convenient chart to distinguish the models. It would seem
that
these are my choice:
ProMax Closed Combustion Power Direct-Vent
ProMax Power Vent (C3 FVIR)
Power House Sealed Shot Power Direct-Vent
Power House Power Shot Power-Vent
But I can't figure out what is different. Plus each of the above has
variants.
So, what is the most efficient 50 gallon tank water heater with the
longest
tank warranty? The run would be about 40 feet and will have a bunch
of 90
degree bends.
Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Most efficent is tankless since efficency is misleading, the Energy
Factor is what has the most meaning in water heaters , gas tanks of
regular vent and 80+% efficency are around 50-60 energy factor, i dont
know about direct vent though, tankless start around 80 energy
factor.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
tankless have lots of downsides, from delay when you fiorst draw water
till heated water arrives, to poor operation at low flow levels.

standard tanks actually have very low standby losses, just got touch
your tank hot hot is it?

current hoigh efficency condensing tanks are over 90% efficent. that
should be enough for anyone- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hallerb , have you used a tankless, no I will bet not, you put them
down because you cant afford one and have never used one. The delay
in hot water arriving might be 5 seconds longer than a tank since it
fires in seconds. 90 % efficent , yea the burner is, so how can you
explain 50-60% Energy Factor on tanks and 83-90 on Tankless. As I said
thats more of a true efficency rating, so what if the tank isnt hot,
what do you think goes up the middle of the tank and out the chimney,
heat!

A tankless heater is expensive..Its expensive and fairly complicated to
hook one up.. It has somewhere in the region of a 300,000 BTUH burner/or
elements. It is expensive to repair.. And its lifespan is about the same
as a good standard tank heater. Also a Gas Tankless will not operate
without Electricity. When we lose electric..That means the furnace will
not run.. So we depend on a free standing water heater to save the
house. Fill the sinks and tubs with hot water and redo when it cools
off. Also run Gas range and oven. If we lose NGas, it isn't much of a
problem to do a fast changeover to propane or butane. Generators are a
pain in the ass and most families don't have one or at least a properly
maintained generator . A standard tank water heater is somewhere in the
vicinity of being a 40,000 furnace. I have tracked Tankless changeover
operating costs and despite the wild claims of much cheaper.. not so...
In the average family home of 3-1/2 people using hot water normally it
comes pretty close to being the same and without all the complications
fronted by the Tankless folks. The ones I have tracked are Rinnai and
GE. Anyone else had experience with these units. Do keep in mind that
the ones that save a great deal of money are the old European ones..
Very simple and needs no logic or electric ignition system.. Shower time
must be very short. They also use them for hydroponic heat of smaller
homes. I had a German made one(Made in 1949) in a 890 sq ft well
insulated house. It had a ceramic heated exchanger and was replaced in
1994 as no repair parts were available. It furnished heat and hot
water..It hung on the basement wall and looked much like a white
outboard motor with no drive shaft. That little heater never exceeded
$50 a month. Keep in mind you cannot sell that in America.. ****ing
people take their surf board to shower in this country and make a day of
it.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

A 117000 btu Bosch battery ignition needs no AC electric and vents up
a chimney. It wont do 2 showers with 40 f incoming but is maybe 500
with tax. I have the 117000 Bosch C cell Battery ignition unit im
happy. Yes savings are less with a large family but I am getting a
maybe 4-5 yr payback from electric tank

Yeah your doing so well thinking everyone is so proud of how ****ing
effeciently you contribute to the carbon foot print, appreciate do us one
last favor and quit breathing--one less dickwad converting oxygen into CO2.

--

On Mar 19, 11:04*am, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:45:30 -0500, Don Ocean
wrote:





ransley wrote:
On Mar 18, 4:46 am, Don Wiss wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Donna Ohl wrote:
I challenge you to find a water heater efficiency rating NOT in this
36-page listing for a water heater currently sold in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
(long url)
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforeso...ntLaunch/C2AAF....
Where's the A.O. Smith Vertex model GPHE-50 that Bubba recommended?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I saw one unit near the bottom with an Energy Factor of 70, only a few
in the 60s and most in the 50-60 range. Vertex, I have a several year
old similar AO condensing ccommercial unit but I only know its 92%
efficent or so

I am aware of no water heater approaching 92% efficiency. Way too many
losses to achieve that.. Even Boiler technology can't do that yet

* * * * I have one.

* * * * It's electric :-)

Electric are normally about 34% efficient overall, most of the
inefficiency is at the power station.

On Mar 18, 11:45*pm, Don Ocean wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Mar 18, 4:46 am, Don Wiss wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Donna Ohl wrote:
I challenge you to find a water heater efficiency rating NOT in this
36-page listing for a water heater currently sold in the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
(long url)
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforeso...ntLaunch/C2AAF....
Where's the A.O. Smith Vertex model GPHE-50 that Bubba recommended?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I saw one unit near the bottom with an Energy Factor of 70, only a few
in the 60s and most in the 50-60 range. Vertex, I have a several year
old similar AO condensing ccommercial unit but I only know its 92%
efficent or so

I am aware of no water heater approaching 92% efficiency. Way too many
losses to achieve that.. Even Boiler technology can't do that yet

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

92-93-94 even 98% water heaters are common even 96% boilers, even a
94% tankless. AO Smith Cyclone tank, Takagi tankless and a Canadian
firm makes a 98% commercial hw boiler, 5 years ago I installed at my
apt a 92% 1900000 btu AO Smith Cyclone. these are all condensing
units,

on a tankless feeding a regular tank, it should cost no more to
operate than a regular hot water tank.

the tankless initially heats the water to whatever it can, then sends
the water to a regular tank that does its normal job.

endless hot water regular tank conveniences and the only extra cost is
the line between the tankless and regular tank, ideally it should be
short and well insulated.

true the tank will have normal tank losses.

today i have to stop at home depot and while i am there price some hot
water tanks. just to verify some of these issues

On Mar 19, 8:12*am, " wrote:
on a tankless feeding a regular tank, it should cost no more to
operate than a regular hot water tank.

Maybe not, but is sure costs a lot more in terms of buying and
installing 2 water heaters, one of which is tankless and more
expensive. With this approach, you incur the higher cost of tankless
and by having the second regular tank, you still have the standby
losses, which defeat most of the advantage of the tankless that
justify it's expense. I fail to see the point. Plenty of folks
have a gas tankless for their whole house needs and are happy with it.





the tankless initially heats the water to whatever it can, then sends
the water to a regular tank that does its normal job.

endless hot water regular tank conveniences and the only extra cost is
the line between the tankless and regular tank, ideally it should be
short and well insulated.

true the tank will have normal tank losses.

today i have to stop at home depot and while i am there price some hot
water tanks. just to verify some of these issues

On Mar 19, 7:12*am, " wrote:
on a tankless feeding a regular tank, it should cost no more to
operate than a regular hot water tank.

the tankless initially heats the water to whatever it can, then sends
the water to a regular tank that does its normal job.

endless hot water regular tank conveniences and the only extra cost is
the line between the tankless and regular tank, ideally it should be
short and well insulated.

true the tank will have normal tank losses.

today i have to stop at home depot and while i am there price some hot
water tanks. just to verify some of these issues

There is no point to this approach, its backwards and will loose you
all the savings you just paid for. If the tankless and tank are 82%
efficent you are heating with one 82% burner and keeping it warm with
another 82% burner. You are heating with the tankless and allowing it
to cool in the tank, at about a 20% reduction in efficency rating.
Most of what you just paid for in increased efficency goes up the
center of the tank and out the chimney. The tank if hooked up should
before the tankless and only hold water unheated to allow it to warm
up by the surounding air to temper it, it works for me. Even better is
to strip of the insulation on the tank, your basement will always be
warmer then the incomming water main.

On Mar 19, 7:12*am, " wrote:
on a tankless feeding a regular tank, it should cost no more to
operate than a regular hot water tank.

the tankless initially heats the water to whatever it can, then sends
the water to a regular tank that does its normal job.

endless hot water regular tank conveniences and the only extra cost is
the line between the tankless and regular tank, ideally it should be
short and well insulated.

true the tank will have normal tank losses.

today i have to stop at home depot and while i am there price some hot
water tanks. just to verify some of these issues

For pricing a tank look at a cheap uninsulated well tank.

On 2008-03-19, wrote:

on a tankless feeding a regular tank, it should cost no more to
operate than a regular hot water tank. the tankless initially heats
the water to whatever it can, then sends the water to a regular tank
that does its normal job.

A much better way to do this is to get an electric tank water heater,
remove the heating elements, and wire the thermostat to run a pump on
a loop to the tankless heater. Incoming cold and outgoing hot are
from the tank iteslf.

This way, the standby losses are that of an electric tank, which is
less than a gas tank due to the lack of a flue down the middle. An
advantage over tankless only is that the delivered hot water pressure
is higher, because the pressure drop from a tank is noticeably less
than from a tankless.

When I get around to installing solar hot water, this is probably the
way I'm going to go; the solar can be on another loop from the tank.

Cheers, Wayne

Blattus Slafaly 0/00 ? ? ? wrote:

If you're gonna spend lots of money on a water tank you might as well
get an oil fired demand water heater. Gives you unlimited hot water and
no cost to maintain a tank of hot water. If you want to put a tempering
tank in your hot attic save even more.

Uh, where am I going to get oil?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Mar 19, 10:11*am, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-03-19, wrote:

on a tankless feeding a regular tank, it should cost no more to
operate than a regular hot water tank. *the tankless initially heats
the water to whatever it can, then sends the water to a regular tank
that does its normal job.

A much better way to do this is to get an electric tank water heater,
remove the heating elements, and wire the thermostat to run a pump on
a loop to the tankless heater. *Incoming cold and outgoing hot are
from the tank iteslf.

This way, the standby losses are that of an electric tank, which is
less than a gas tank due to the lack of a flue down the middle. *An
advantage over tankless only is that the delivered hot water pressure
is higher, because the pressure drop from a tank is noticeably less
than from a tankless.

When I get around to installing solar hot water, this is probably the
way I'm going to go; the solar can be on another loop from the tank.

Cheers, Wayne

No point to having a tank circulate or change anything as that since
you are still talking same burner efficencies, this is dumb.

my tankless add on was only for use when familiy is visiting, the
remainder of the time my 50 gallon high btu tank is fine.

now 7 people pile in here, and it can become a problem espically when
incoming water temperature is 40 degrees

On Mar 19, 1:19*pm, " wrote:
my tankless add on was only for use when familiy is visiting, the
remainder of the time my 50 gallon high btu tank is fine.

now 7 people pile in here, and it can become a problem espically when
incoming water temperature is 40 degrees

Its alot of money to put in a tankless and not get the savings year
around, first you need to get the supply tested with all other gas
apliances running to be sure no upgrade is neded. Do 2 people shower
now at the same time, I dont think you will benefit having a tankless
before a tank and it will actualy cost more to run since both units
burners are probably near in efficency, I put my tankless after my
tank with bypass valves incase my old tank leaks, but i havnt used it
since installing the tankless, the cheap Bosch.

On Mar 19, 4:15�pm, ransley wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:19�pm, " wrote:

my tankless add on was only for use when familiy is visiting, the
remainder of the time my 50 gallon high btu tank is fine.

now 7 people pile in here, and it can become a problem espically when
incoming water temperature is 40 degrees

Its alot of money to put in a tankless and not get the savings year
around, first you need to get the supply tested with all other gas
apliances running to be sure no upgrade is neded. Do 2 people shower
now at the same time, I dont think you will benefit having a tankless
before a tank and it will actualy cost more to run since both units
burners are probably near in efficency, I put my tankless after my
tank with bypass valves incase my old tank leaks, but i havnt used it
since installing the tankless, the cheap Bosch.

its more of a idle thought, the minor standby losses of a regular tank
dont bother me, and our tank is plenty big enough, except when family
visits. with washing clothes, doing laundry and showering its a busy
hot water using place. and our showers have the flow restrictors
removed.....

but a new kitchen dining room gut job is a lot more likely and
probably better of use of money kinda nervous the economy may hurt
our income and gasoline is killing my service business

On Mar 19, 10:50Â*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 19, 4:15�pm, ransley wrote:





On Mar 19, 1:19�pm, " wrote:

my tankless add on was only for use when familiy is visiting, the
remainder of the time my 50 gallon high btu tank is fine.

now 7 people pile in here, and it can become a problem espically when
incoming water temperature is 40 degrees

Its alot of money to put in a tankless and not get the savings year
around, first you need to get the supply tested with all other gas
apliances running to be sure no upgrade is neded. Do 2 people shower
now at the same time, I dont think you will benefit having a tankless
before a tank and it will actualy cost more to run since both units
burners are probably near in efficency, I put my tankless after my
tank with bypass valves incase my old tank leaks, but i havnt used it
since installing the tankless, the cheap Bosch.

its more of a idle thought, the minor standby losses of a regular tank
dont bother me, and our tank is plenty big enough, except when family
visits. Â*with washing clothes, doing laundry and showering its a busy
hot water using place. and our showers have the flow restrictors
removed.....

but a new kitchen dining room gut job is a lot more likely and
probably better of use of money kinda nervous the economy may hurt
our income and gasoline is killing my service business- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With shower restrictors removed you have to be real carefull, and
measure shower output since tankless are real specific on Gpm and the
amount of temp rise, [ on the coldest day, when gas pressure is low
and everything gas is on, water is 38f incomming] you still need a hot
shower. For many a cheap unit would not work, but I guess that really
depends on your incomming mains gpm.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:32:02 -0700 (PDT), ransley wrote:

98% water heaters are common even 96% boilers

I think the reason for this is somewhat misleading.

If I understand this correctly, almost all the heat energy put into an
electric heater gets put into the water. Basically, the water cools the
heater coils down by taking the heat off the heater coil.

In the case of a gas water heater, the water cools down the flame by taking
heat off the flame (figuratively speaking) but a LOT of heat goes up the
flue.

They baffle the flue to slow down the rising air but they have to let the
hot air out. If they cooled the hot air to room temperature, it wouldn't
rise and get out of the house and that would be a bad thing from the
standpoint of carbon monoxide poisoning.

So, I think the fact that all none of the heat energy that went into the
electric coils goes up any flue - it's all absorbed by the water - is what
makes the electric water heater 98% efficiency.

But, as someone stated, I suspect the power generation is about 70%
efficiency, so, the true efficiency of electric water heating must be
vastly lower than 98% taking distribution into account.

But, how can we account for that true efficiency?

Donna