On Apr 11, 4:52�am, glen stark wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Glenn" wrote in message
.. .
Curious. �It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. �Why all the passion?

Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.

My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
(I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on
America). �We don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply analytical
thinking to practical everyday problems. �We aren't taught to be critical
consumers.

I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a place
where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. �They all knew
the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking them
through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it
into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.

American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
their decisions afterward. �Then they go to a lot of effort to justify
their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds
about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler'). �

Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
them. �The more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, the more
****ed off they will get, and impossible to convince. �

Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. �We like to paint things
in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. �The water heater thing isn't
so simple. �Whether a tankless system is good for you depends on your use,
and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision. �
On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
the majority of people, not to mention the environment.

Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. �Humility is not taught as a
virtue in our culture. �So we take it as a personal shortcoming, or a loss
of face, when we are proven wrong. �The more passionately we argue for
something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. �It's important to
struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
solutions.

For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a
passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
do for tankless water heaters

glenwww.glenstark.net

i liove endless hot water and my 50 gallon high BTU tank provides over
twice what my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU one did. its a small luxury and
my gas bill appeared unchanged after its install

another tankless issue is the ones with heat modulation, where the
burners go up and down automatically. these changes can be so fast a
temperature compensating shower valve may have trouble keeping up, and
be terrible for someone without temperature control.

"glen stark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

"Glenn" wrote in message
...
Curious. It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. Why all the passion?

Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.

My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
(I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on
America). We don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply analytical
thinking to practical everyday problems. We aren't taught to be critical
consumers.

That's a partial factor, but fear of change is as old as humanity itself.


.. [irrelevant stuff snipepd]


American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
their decisions afterward. Then they go to a lot of effort to justify
their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds
about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler').

Again, it's as old as humanity. I could dig out some quotes from ancient
Greece or Rome, but why should I?


Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
them. The more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, the more
****ed off they will get, and impossible to convince.


Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. We like to paint things
in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. The water heater thing isn't
so simple. Whether a tankless system is good for you depends on your use,
and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision.
On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
the majority of people, not to mention the environment.

So did primitive tribes thousands of years ago.

Now, I will say that, as an "advanced civilization", we should have outgrown
those issues, but another look at our modern culture shows westill have the
trappings of primitivism, superstition, etc.

These "trappings" are our "security blankets".

Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. Humility is not taught as a
virtue in our culture.

I hope to hell not, because thatpride is what helps us to adpt, to do great
works, and to outgrow that "trappings" mentioned earlier.

So we take it as a personal shortcoming, or a loss
of face, when we are proven wrong.

Adults take a much different tact, but maturity is in short supply, just as
"common sense" was not so common to Ben Franklin 250 years ago.

The more passionately we argue for
something, the more face we lose if we change our mind.

There is nothing more noble or honorable than someone admitting they were
wrong. Philosophers have written about it for centuries.

It's important to
struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
solutions.

Problem is, free will (thinking) is not automatic. And you are right to an
extent, in that our (US) education system has been geared in the opposite
direction for about 100 years now.

For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a
passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
do for tankless water heaters

I think a major failing shown here is your own naïveté about history and
human nature, but your making the effort for yourself which is a good thing.

Matt

On Apr 11, 8:11�am, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
"glen stark" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

"Glenn" wrote in message
. ..
Curious. �It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. �Why all the passion?

Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.

My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
(I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on
America). �We don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply analytical
thinking to practical everyday problems. �We aren't taught to be critical
consumers.

That's a partial factor, but fear of change is as old as humanity itself.



. [irrelevant stuff snipepd]



American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
their decisions afterward. �Then they go to a lot of effort to justify
their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds
about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler').

Again, it's as old as humanity. I could dig out some quotes from ancient
Greece or Rome, but why should I?



Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
them. �The more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, the more
****ed off they will get, and impossible to convince.
Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. �We like to paint things
in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. �The water heater thing isn't
so simple. �Whether a tankless system is good for you depends on your use,
and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision.
On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
the majority of people, not to mention the environment.

So did primitive tribes thousands of years ago.

Now, I will say that, as an "advanced civilization", we should have outgrown
those issues, but another look at our modern culture shows westill have the
trappings of primitivism, superstition, etc.

These �"trappings" are our "security blankets".

Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. �Humility is not taught as a
virtue in our culture.

I hope to hell not, because thatpride is what helps us to adpt, to do great
works, and to outgrow that "trappings" mentioned earlier.

So we take it as a personal shortcoming, or a loss
of face, when we are proven wrong.

Adults take a much different tact, but maturity is in short supply, just as
"common sense" was not so common to Ben Franklin 250 years ago.

�The more passionately we argue for
something, the more face we lose if we change our mind.

There is nothing more noble or honorable than someone admitting they were
wrong. Philosophers have written about it for centuries.

�It's important to
struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
solutions.

Problem is, free will (thinking) is not automatic. And you are right to an
extent, in that our (US) education system has been geared in the opposite
direction for about 100 years now.

For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a
passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
do for tankless water heaters

I think a major failing shown here is your own na�vet� about history and
human nature, but your making the effort for yourself which is a good thing.

Matt

people buy overpriced desgner clothes, drive big hugger SUVs and do a
myriad ofr other wasteful things to make them happy, or try to.......

just look at the lifetime cost of cigarretes, while they literally
burn the money with a match, then want health care to pay the bucks to
save their life when they get ill from the same tobacco products they
wasted money on.

so enough hot water is a very minor issue........

"glen stark" wrote

Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.

Interesting rant Glen, and some truth to it for some, but what about those
of us who did check them out and found we get a slight edge with a tank
system? I used the links. It doesnt matter if the cost of gas goes up or
down a little as it's a ratio that will still be there. I matched only
newer gas 40g's to tankless of the same output level.

The only 'edge' spot in our use pattern the tankless had, was possible
longevity but this _may_ be offset with the difficulty of repair on a
relatively new item and finding a repair person trained to work on them.
Also, it wasnt clear how stable the parts will be since the technology seems
to be changing fairly fast? (IE: you can still get a VCR repaired if you
want, but I wouldnt waste time looking for betamax parts).

Lets see how stable the parts market and inventory of technicians is when I
need to replace first. If mine lasts another 3 years, the efficiency ratios
and other aspects will probably have changed. It could well be that then,
tankless will be a much better bet.

Could you fill me in though on 'temperature balancers'? I simply didnt
track that one fully and suspect we might need something for the shower if
we go tankless? Thats probably not very expensive to add but this is an
older house and wouldnt have that in there now.

I also need to backtrack my earlier post. I had forgotten my old 40g gas
one went bad when we were overseas and our house was rented. The 'new' one
is about 5 years old but *not* a very efficient model. I am certain from
other aspects of the house, the renters never did any maintenance on it. We
are looking up the book on the model to see how this one is cleaned.

It also clarified for us why we are running out of hot water. I found the
old book on the old unit and it was a 60G gas. However looking at
efficiency ratings, I think we will stay with a 40G or if we go up, go up to
50G.

We already talked with a retired handyman who's done small stuff for us and
he knows this type of unit well. He even mentioned that on some of them, it
can be just a touch tricky to do the maintenance. I think he was referring
to the pilot light but not sure? He'll be over later this weekend to take a
peek at it. Don't worry, he's a very careful type. If he's not absolutely
sure how this unit is cleaned, he won't touch it. (He doesnt do electrical
work etc, just odd side handyman stuff like fixing lawnmowers, helping with
regular maintenance chores, cleaning gutters and so forth. Helping clean
hot water heaters is a common one for him).

If it can be cleaned and isnt damaged too much by no maintenance, it may
last another 6 years but we may replace earlier due to energy ratings.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 8:11?am, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

: people buy overpriced desgner clothes, drive big hugger SUVs and do a
: myriad ofr other wasteful things to make them happy, or try to.......

Or maybe they buy these things because they're happy and prosperous.

: just look at the lifetime cost of cigarretes, while they literally
: burn the money with a match, then want health care to pay the bucks to
: save their life when they get ill from the same tobacco products they
: wasted money on.

WTF, due? Are you on medication that we should be aware of, are you
congenitially unable to make mental connections?

: so enough hot water is a very minor issue........

Right: you got caught with your head up your ass, so change the subject.

[plonk]

"cshenk" wrote in message
...
"glen stark" wrote

Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.

Interesting rant Glen, and some truth to it for some, but what about those
of us who did check them out and found we get a slight edge with a tank
system? I used the links. It doesnt matter if the cost of gas goes up or
down a little as it's a ratio that will still be there. I matched only
newer gas 40g's to tankless of the same output level.

Making an assessment of "requirements" and conditions is the basis of
engineering.

Making decisions on the basis of something like, "That's the way we always
did it" is what Glen was driving at.

They point Rico was making is that there are alternatives available that
offer advantages FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES.

Analogy: if you have six kids, a compact car is probably not appropriate, a
mini-van is more feasible. If you live in snow country or haul a lot of
stuff, and SUV might be the trick (think of the picture we've all seen of
the compact car with a load of plywood on the roof).

Or, put another way, a .22LR is not suitable for moose, and a .300 Win Mag
won't leave much meat on a rabbit. :~)

On 2008-04-11, cshenk wrote:

what about those of us who did check them out and found we get a
slight edge with a tank system? I used the links. It doesnt matter
if the cost of gas goes up or down a little as it's a ratio that
will still be there. I matched only newer gas 40g's to tankless of
the same output level.

I believe the cost of gas does matter. A basic tankless and a good,
normal efficiency tank will both have a marginal efficiency of about
80%. The difference is in the initial efficiency, since the tank has
the standby losses and the tankless doesn't. That is, for any usage,
the tank gas water heater will roughly use the same amount of gas as
the tankless would, plus a fixed amount for the standby losses.

So the natural gas savings of the tankless are basically independent
of usage, and the dollar savings depend exactly upon the price of
natural gas. For a given cost difference of the initial
installations, the payback time for the tankless will vary inversely
with the price of natural gas.

Yours, Wayne

This subject has really gotten a lot of attention. So, I'd like to
toss in my 2 cents....

I have a tankless unit and I think it is great in that there is
endless hot water and it is only creating hot water when needed.

The point I'd like to make is that there are MANY household items
that folks purchase that cost as much or more than tankless water
heaters and those items are not scrutinized in the way of efficiency
or payback. So, how does one justify paying $2,000 for a huge diagonal
LCD TV? Has anyone ever seen a big yellow EnergyGuide sticker on an
item like that?

Oh well, for what it's worth....

....Bob

"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-11, cshenk wrote:

what about those of us who did check them out and found we get a
slight edge with a tank system? I used the links. It doesnt matter
if the cost of gas goes up or down a little as it's a ratio that
will still be there. I matched only newer gas 40g's to tankless of
the same output level.

I believe the cost of gas does matter. A basic tankless and a good,
normal efficiency tank will both have a marginal efficiency of about
80%. The difference is in the initial efficiency, since the tank has
the standby losses and the tankless doesn't. That is, for any usage,
the tank gas water heater will roughly use the same amount of gas as
the tankless would, plus a fixed amount for the standby losses.

So the natural gas savings of the tankless are basically independent
of usage, and the dollar savings depend exactly upon the price of
natural gas. For a given cost difference of the initial
installations, the payback time for the tankless will vary inversely
with the price of natural gas.

Yours, Wayne

On Apr 11, 6:49Â*am, " wrote:
On Apr 11, 4:52�am, glen stark wrote:





On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:31 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Glenn" wrote in message
.. .
Curious. �It's just a damn 'hot' water heater. �Why all the passion?

Because it's a paradigm shift and those always bring discomfort.

My opinion is it's caused by a failing in the American educational system
(I'm sure other countries have similar failings, but I'm only an expert on
America). �We don't learn analytical thinking, nor how to apply analytical
thinking to practical everyday problems. �We aren't taught to be critical
consumers.

I studied physics, and TA'd freshman physics labs at Georgia Tech, a place
where reasonably bright, reasonably well educated types go. �They all knew
the algebra necessary to solve the labs (it was 9'th grade level math),
but it was extremely rare to find someone who would, without walking them
through it, be able to take the simple physical problem and translate it
into the simple mathematical equation, and then solve that equation.

American consumers, just like American voters (same people after all) are
far more likely to make an emotional decision than a rational one,
although a goodly number of them go to a lot of effort to rationalize
their decisions afterward. �Then they go to a lot of effort to justify
their rationalizations, instead of being flexible and changing their minds
about things as new information and technology arises (look at how much
mileage Bush got out calling Kerry a 'waffler'). �

Because their decision making is emotional, they get emotional about
justifying the decision, and it becomes next-to-impossible to argue with
them. �The more thoroughly you can prove that they are mistaken, the more
****ed off they will get, and impossible to convince. �

Additionally, as a culture want simple answers. �We like to paint things
in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. �The water heater thing isn't
so simple. �Whether a tankless system is good for you depends on your use,
and it's worth going over the facts and making an intelligent decision. �
On the other hand, the facts seem to indicate it is the right choice for
the majority of people, not to mention the environment.

Finally, we're a pretty prideful people. �Humility is not taught as a
virtue in our culture. �So we take it as a personal shortcoming, or a loss
of face, when we are proven wrong. �The more passionately we argue for
something, the more face we lose if we change our mind. �It's important to
struggle against that mode of being since it leads to really sub-optimal
solutions.

For my side,I would hope both this post and the previous one showed more a
passion for analytical thinking and reasonable decision making than they
do for tankless water heaters

glenwww.glenstark.net

i liove endless hot water and my 50 gallon high BTU tank provides over
twice what my old 40 gallon 34,000 BTU one did. its a small luxury and
my gas bill appeared unchanged after its install

another tankless issue is the ones with heat modulation, where the
burners go up and down automatically. these changes can be so fast a
temperature compensating shower valve may have trouble keeping up, and
be terrible for someone without temperature control.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only a junk unit would not modulate, I will bet all do now, no
modulation means its on 100% all the time and that is a waste of
money, my shower is fine, ive never had an issue. With no modulation
and a 100f rise 70f incomming would be heated to 170f.

On Apr 12, 9:23*am, "Bob Dozier" wrote:
This subject has really gotten a lot of attention. So, I'd like to
toss in my 2 cents....

I have a tankless unit and I think it is great in that there is
endless hot water and it is only creating hot water when needed.

The point I'd like to make is that there are MANY household items
that folks purchase that cost as much or more than tankless water
heaters and those items are not scrutinized in the way of efficiency
or payback. So, how does one justify paying $2,000 for a huge diagonal
LCD TV? Has anyone ever seen a big yellow EnergyGuide sticker on an
item like that?

Oh well, for what it's worth....

...Bob

"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message

...



On 2008-04-11, cshenk wrote:

what about those of us who did check them out and found we get a
slight edge with a tank system? *I used the links. *It doesnt matter
if the cost of gas goes up or down a little as it's a ratio that
will still be there. *I matched only newer gas 40g's to tankless of
the same output level.

I believe the cost of gas does matter. *A basic tankless and a good,
normal efficiency tank will both have a marginal efficiency of about
80%. *The difference is in the initial efficiency, since the tank has
the standby losses and the tankless doesn't. *That is, for any usage,
the tank gas water heater will roughly use the same amount of gas as
the tankless would, plus a fixed amount for the standby losses.

So the natural gas savings of the tankless are basically independent
of usage, and the dollar savings depend exactly upon the price of
natural gas. *For a given cost difference of the initial
installations, the payback time for the tankless will vary inversely
with the price of natural gas.

Yours, Wayne- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My tankless was 500 with tax, 117000 btu battery ignition Bosch. Many
households need no more.

My tankless was 500 with tax, 117000 btu battery ignition Bosch. Many
households need no more.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

earlier you said them,any did you install?

On Apr 12, 11:04*am, " wrote:
My tankless was 500 with tax, 117000 btu battery ignition Bosch. Many
households need no more.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

earlier you said them,any did you install?

I installed mine, I dont follow you on " earlier I said them"

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:11:28 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

On Apr 12, 11:04*am, " wrote:
My tankless was 500 with tax, 117000 btu battery ignition Bosch. Many
households need no more.- Hide quoted text -

earlier you said them,any did you install?

I installed mine, I dont follow you on " earlier I said them"

In Canada, you can't touch anything related to natural gas or propane
unless you are licensed gas technician. In addition, all work
requires a gas permit be pulled and two signatures on the green tag
for sign-off. Definitely not something you can tackle on your own, at
least not legally and without voiding your homeowner's insurance
policy.

Cheers,
Paul

"Bob Dozier" wrote in message
The point I'd like to make is that there are MANY household items
that folks purchase that cost as much or more than tankless water
heaters and those items are not scrutinized in the way of efficiency
or payback. So, how does one justify paying $2,000 for a huge diagonal
LCD TV? Has anyone ever seen a big yellow EnergyGuide sticker on an
item like that?


Easy. Joe Sixpack is in the shower for ten minutes on Saturday night, but
he is in front of the tube 6 to 8 hours a night.

On Apr 12, 12:15*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:11:28 -0700 (PDT), ransley

wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:04*am, " wrote:
My tankless was 500 with tax, 117000 btu battery ignition Bosch. Many
households need no more.- Hide quoted text -

earlier you said them,any did you install?

I installed mine, I dont follow you on " earlier I said them"

In Canada, you can't touch anything related to natural gas or propane
unless you are licensed gas technician. *In addition, all work
requires a gas permit be pulled and two signatures on the green tag
for sign-off. *Definitely not something you can tackle on your own, at
least not legally and without voiding your homeowner's insurance
policy.

Cheers,
Paul

Dont tell anybody.

On Apr 12, 9:23*am, "Bob Dozier" wrote:
This subject has really gotten a lot of attention. So, I'd like to
toss in my 2 cents....

I have a tankless unit and I think it is great in that there is
endless hot water and it is only creating hot water when needed.

The point I'd like to make is that there are MANY household items
that folks purchase that cost as much or more than tankless water
heaters and those items are not scrutinized in the way of efficiency
or payback. So, how does one justify paying $2,000 for a huge diagonal
LCD TV? Has anyone ever seen a big yellow EnergyGuide sticker on an
item like that?

Oh well, for what it's worth....

...Bob

"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message

...



On 2008-04-11, cshenk wrote:

what about those of us who did check them out and found we get a
slight edge with a tank system? *I used the links. *It doesnt matter
if the cost of gas goes up or down a little as it's a ratio that
will still be there. *I matched only newer gas 40g's to tankless of
the same output level.

I believe the cost of gas does matter. *A basic tankless and a good,
normal efficiency tank will both have a marginal efficiency of about
80%. *The difference is in the initial efficiency, since the tank has
the standby losses and the tankless doesn't. *That is, for any usage,
the tank gas water heater will roughly use the same amount of gas as
the tankless would, plus a fixed amount for the standby losses.

So the natural gas savings of the tankless are basically independent
of usage, and the dollar savings depend exactly upon the price of
natural gas. *For a given cost difference of the initial
installations, the payback time for the tankless will vary inversely
with the price of natural gas.

Yours, Wayne- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You justify it by watching and enjoying it, many are energy star
rated, Lcds use alot less power than tube tv

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

On Apr 12, 12:15*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:11:28 -0700 (PDT), ransley

wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:04*am, " wrote:
My tankless was 500 with tax, 117000 btu battery ignition Bosch. Many
households need no more.- Hide quoted text -

earlier you said them,any did you install?

I installed mine, I dont follow you on " earlier I said them"

In Canada, you can't touch anything related to natural gas or propane
unless you are licensed gas technician. *In addition, all work
requires a gas permit be pulled and two signatures on the green tag
for sign-off. *Definitely not something you can tackle on your own, at
least not legally and without voiding your homeowner's insurance
policy.

Cheers,
Paul

Dont tell anybody.

You're OK recommending folks knowingly and willingly break the law,
void their homeowner's insurance policy and expose themselves to third
party liability damage just to save a few bucks?

Cheers,
Paul

back to tank tv tankless, if you use more hot water from longer
showers etc you wouldnt save any money and may actually see costs
increase

On 2008-04-12, wrote:

back to tank tv tankless, if you use more hot water from longer
showers etc you wouldnt save any money and may actually see costs
increase

Why? The marginal efficiency should be the same in both cases.

Wayne

On Apr 12, 6:57�pm, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-12, wrote:

back to tank tv tankless, if you use more hot water from longer
showers etc you wouldnt save any money and may actually see costs
increase

Why? �The marginal efficiency should be the same in both cases.

Wayne

assuming the tank runs out of water the shower ends

the tankless runs longer, possibly indefinetely........

more water more sewer, more gas........

can be a big loser...........

On Apr 12, 10:10 pm, " wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:57�pm, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-12, wrote:

back to tank tv tankless, if you use more hot water from longer
showers etc you wouldnt save any money and may actually see costs
increase

Why? �The marginal efficiency should be the same in both cases.


assuming the tank runs out of water the shower ends
the tankless runs longer, possibly indefinetely........
more water more sewer, more gas........
can be a big loser...........

I'd imagine that the big loser would be the poor schmuck who died
while taking that imaginary endless shower, or possibly someone who
bought your argument.

With a tankless someone could take a longer shower at the same
temperature for the same amount of money, if that was their
preference.

R

On Apr 13, 10:15Â*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Apr 12, 10:10 pm, " wrote:

On Apr 12, 6:57�pm, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-12, wrote:

back to tank tv tankless, if you use more hot water from longer
showers etc you wouldnt save any money and may actually see costs
increase

Why? �The marginal efficiency should be the same in both cases..

assuming the tank runs out of water the shower ends
the tankless runs longer, possibly indefinetely........
more water more sewer, more gas........
can be a big loser...........

I'd imagine that the big loser would be the poor schmuck who died
while taking that imaginary endless shower, or possibly someone who
bought your argument.

With a tankless someone could take a longer shower at the same
temperature for the same amount of money, if that was their
preference.

R

if all users added just minutes to each shower the tankless savings
could be wiped out fast..........

espically if theres multiple users....... which is likely

On Apr 13, 9:37Â*am, " wrote:
On Apr 13, 10:15Â*am, RicodJour wrote:





On Apr 12, 10:10 pm, " wrote:

On Apr 12, 6:57�pm, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-12, wrote:

back to tank tv tankless, if you use more hot water from longer
showers etc you wouldnt save any money and may actually see costs
increase

Why? �The marginal efficiency should be the same in both cases.

assuming the tank runs out of water the shower ends
the tankless runs longer, possibly indefinetely........
more water more sewer, more gas........
can be a big loser...........

I'd imagine that the big loser would be the poor schmuck who died
while taking that imaginary endless shower, or possibly someone who
bought your argument.

With a tankless someone could take a longer shower at the same
temperature for the same amount of money, if that was their
preference.

R

if all users added just minutes to each shower the tankless savings
could be wiped out fast..........

espically if theres multiple users....... which is likely- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hallerb, thats truely enlightening, you are a true genious, a Peer
among men, you deserve the Pulitzer or Nobel prize. Nobody ever
thought running the hot water longer could cost more, We all thought
HW was free, I mean we all pre-paid for a water heater, right. air is
free too. Maybe I should water my garden with HW, its cold out
today!

I can see tomorrows headlines, ...Hallerb Cuts World Energy
Consumption by 2% - He Proves It Wastes Energy To Take Longer Showers..

On Apr 13, 10:37 am, " wrote:

if all users added just minutes to each shower the tankless savings
could be wiped out fast..........

espically if theres multiple users....... which is likely

Extending your reasoning leads to the energy benefits of taking cold
showers. Next up - sack cloth and self-flagellation!

What a particular person chooses to do with their money is no concern
of mine. That is a personal choice and they're paying for it. What I
object to is built in inefficiency which robs people of that choice
and steals their money with nothing added.

R

On 2008-04-13, RicodJour wrote:

With a tankless someone could take a longer shower at the same
temperature for the same amount of money, if that was their
preference.

I don't think that is actually true--the marginal efficiency is about
the same for a tank and tankless, assuming comparable combustion
technology (i.e. both 80% non-condensing). The tankless wins by
eliminating the fixed standby costs which are basically independent of
usage. So you could rephrase your statement as "with a tankless
someone could choose to spend some of their savings on a longer
shower, and still come out ahead, if it isn't too much longer."

Cheers, Wayne

On Apr 13, 11:17 am, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-13, RicodJour wrote:

With a tankless someone could take a longer shower at the same
temperature for the same amount of money, if that was their
preference.

I don't think that is actually true--the marginal efficiency is about
the same for a tank and tankless, assuming comparable combustion
technology (i.e. both 80% non-condensing). The tankless wins by
eliminating the fixed standby costs which are basically independent of
usage. So you could rephrase your statement as "with a tankless
someone could choose to spend some of their savings on a longer
shower, and still come out ahead, if it isn't too much longer."

So, you don't compute standby loss dollars in your scenario... Any
other actual dollars spent that don't count in your theoretical
calculations? Maybe you should rewrite what you wrote. I stand by
what I wrote and, judging from your editing, I'm also a better
writer. ~

R

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:17:13 GMT, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-13, RicodJour wrote:

With a tankless someone could take a longer shower at the same
temperature for the same amount of money, if that was their
preference.

I don't think that is actually true--the marginal efficiency is about
the same for a tank and tankless, assuming comparable combustion
technology (i.e. both 80% non-condensing). The tankless wins by
eliminating the fixed standby costs which are basically independent of
usage. So you could rephrase your statement as "with a tankless
someone could choose to spend some of their savings on a longer
shower, and still come out ahead, if it isn't too much longer."

And it loses due to startup time and people turning on the tap and doing
something else waiting for the hot water to be generated.

On 2008-04-13, AZ Nomad wrote:

And it loses due to startup time and people turning on the tap and
doing something else waiting for the hot water to be generated.

Startup time for hot water is dominated by the piping length between
the heater and the point of use. The tankless adds at most 2 seconds
to the startup time. For a 2.5 gpm shower, that's less that 0.1
gallons. A small effect.

Cheers, Wayne

On 2008-04-13, RicodJour wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:17 am, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-13, RicodJour wrote:

With a tankless someone could take a longer shower at the same
temperature for the same amount of money, if that was their
preference.

I don't think that is actually true--the marginal efficiency is about
the same for a tank and tankless, assuming comparable combustion
technology (i.e. both 80% non-condensing). The tankless wins by
eliminating the fixed standby costs which are basically independent of
usage. So you could rephrase your statement as "with a tankless
someone could choose to spend some of their savings on a longer
shower, and still come out ahead, if it isn't too much longer."

So, you don't compute standby loss dollars in your scenario... Any
other actual dollars spent that don't count in your theoretical
calculations?

No, it's not that the standby losses don't count, it's that they don't
depend on usage. I guess I read your original statement as being one
about incremental usage costs, in which case they don't appear. But
apparently you were referring to average usage costs, where they do.

Cheers, Wayne

P.S. Analytically, what I'm saying is that a tankless will cost R * U
dollars/month, where U is the usage in gallons/month and R is a rate
in $/gallon. While the tank will cost you S + R * U, for the same
rate R, where S is the dollar cost per month of the standby losses.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:05:08 GMT, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-13, AZ Nomad wrote:

And it loses due to startup time and people turning on the tap and
doing something else waiting for the hot water to be generated.

Startup time for hot water is dominated by the piping length between
the heater and the point of use. The tankless adds at most 2 seconds
to the startup time. For a 2.5 gpm shower, that's less that 0.1
bull****. It adds about a full minute.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 10:37 am, " wrote:

if all users added just minutes to each shower the tankless savings
could be wiped out fast..........

espically if theres multiple users....... which is likely

Extending your reasoning leads to the energy benefits of taking cold
showers. Next up - sack cloth and self-flagellation!

Don't forget the ashes! Ashes lend a certain 'ambiance' to ascetics.

What a particular person chooses to do with their money is no concern
of mine. That is a personal choice and they're paying for it. What I
object to is built in inefficiency which robs people of that choice
and steals their money with nothing added.

BING! BING! BING!

On 2008-04-13, AZ Nomad wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:05:08 GMT, Wayne Whitney wrote:

Startup time for hot water is dominated by the piping length between
the heater and the point of use. The tankless adds at most 2 seconds
to the startup time. For a 2.5 gpm shower, that's less that 0.1

bull****. It adds about a full minute.

We must be talking about different technologies. On my modern (2006)
gas tankless unit, it is about 2 seconds. Maybe 3 seconds.

Cheers, Wayne

Looking at the long-term situation....

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/413800

Cheers,
Paul

my my tank vs tankless is now hotter than K&T and insurance
difficulties........

lets have a group hug, no groping!!!!

so all those concerned with standby losses do you turn your vehicle
off at long lights?

one day every new home will be required by law to be superinsulated,
which could drop heating costs to near nothing

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:33:37 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

one day every new home will be required by law to be superinsulated,
which could drop heating costs to near nothing

That day better come soon. I'm told Alberta's natural gas production
is 12 billion cubic feet per day and 1 billion of that is currently
used by the province's tar sands operation. The NEB is forecasting
production to fall to 9 BCFD by 2012, at a time when 6 BCFD -- a full
two-thirds -- will be used by the tar sands, in large part to power
the new SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) plants now under
construction. That suggests our natural gas supplies for domestic use
(and export to the United States) will fall from 11 BCFD today to as
little as 3 BCFD in less than five years.

Cold showers for everyone!

Cheers,
Paul

On Apr 13, 11:52*am, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:05:08 GMT, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-13, AZ Nomad wrote:
And it loses due to startup time and people turning on the tap and
doing something else waiting for the hot water to be generated.
Startup time for hot water is dominated by the piping length between
the heater and the point of use. *The tankless adds at most 2 seconds
to the startup time. *For a 2.5 gpm shower, that's less that 0.1

bull****. *It adds about a full minute.

Really a full minute, not on mine, mine fires in 2 seconds after water
is turned on, probably another 3-5 seconds to fully heat output. I say
you are unqualified to respond to tankless. I dont realy notice a
difference from the changeover, Pipe length from heater to faucet is
the issue. Your Full Minute statement is untrue, the issue is cold
water in the pipes already. Im now at a tank location, about 40
seconds I need to get HW out of 50 ft of pipe. The tankless location
with about 15 ft is maybe 10 seconds 10 or so to push out cold water.

On Apr 13, 3:24*pm, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2008-04-13, AZ Nomad wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:05:08 GMT, Wayne Whitney wrote:

Startup time for hot water is dominated by the piping length between
the heater and the point of use. *The tankless adds at most 2 seconds
to the startup time. *For a 2.5 gpm shower, that's less that 0.1

bull****. *It adds about a full minute.

We must be talking about different technologies. *On my modern (2006)
gas tankless unit, it is about 2 seconds. *Maybe 3 seconds.

Cheers, Wayne

Give em a bone, add 3-5 seconds to heat from 40 -110, maybe its
longer , but not by much or EF rating would be alot worse than burner
efficency.

On Apr 13, 4:33*pm, " wrote:
my my tank vs tankless is now hotter than K&T and insurance
difficulties........

lets have a group hug, no groping!!!!

so all those concerned with standby losses do you turn your vehicle
off at long lights?

one day every new home will be required by law to be superinsulated,
which could drop heating costs to near nothing

Our government wont do squat, never did , never will. I super
insulated mine, turning off a car at a light is a pain in the ass and
probably wouldnt save me much since I have no brakes.

On Apr 7, 10:24 am, "Thomas G. Marshall"
. com wrote:
Ok, our 40 gal gas water heater is failing. About 10 years old, which I
hear is ok.

But every time I talk to someone about their 40 gal water heater, they all
complain that they run out of hot water (comparable size homes and kids).

Bur our builder (and all builder's we spoke to when looking to build)
*insist* that 40 gallons is enough.

But we were always worried about running the wash or dishwasher before
showering, or two long showers would result in the 2nd losing water.
Complete with those water saving disks etc.

1. Is 80 gallons overkill? Perhaps I'm reacting viscerally.

2. Am I going to notice a large gas usage increase?

3. Are there rules in place limiting the water tank sizes?

4. Are there any particular brands to look for or stay away from?

I'm sorry for the barrage of questions.

My comments to others coments.

40 gallons enough? Items that affect hot water usage and volume
1. Is there a dip tube.
2. Is the hot and cold pipes connected properly
3. Baths instead of showers
4. This depends on the life style of the occupants
a. Length of showers
b. Is hot water running while brushing teeth
5. Number of occupants
6. Hot or warm laundry
7. Recovery rate of the water heater
8. Are the shower heads 1.6 gpm or 2.5 gpm or much higher
9. The distance of piping between the water heater and the usage
points
10. Are the pipes fully insulated
11. The temperature of the water heater
12. Amount of sediment in the tank


Any time the occupants presently run out of hot water and a new system
in installed and there is plenty of hot water the amount of gallons
will then go up. As for the increase of cost, this depends on the
amount of increase of hot water in gallons and the efficiency increase
of the new unit.

Tankless water heaters:
Generally the only information on efficiency is verbal from the
salesperson. The efficiency of water heaters is in AFUE and most
tankless units are not rated in this manner. I agree there is no
standing loss due to the lack of a tank. The efficiency on large
usages can be ok the efficiency on the small usages can be very poor.
This would only make it a fair choice.

There are only a few that are above 90% or what we call condensing
units. The units that are designed to keep a constant output
temperature are expensive and complicated. And hope no repairs are
needed. If the water in your area is full of sediments they need
regular cleaning. They should have a sediment filter to keep
particles from clogging their filter. If one wants a on-demand
circulating pump they will not work with tankless units. They have a
minimal flow rate to turn on.

Contrary to belief they do not get water to the faucet faster,
actually a small amount longer. On has the added wait of the burner
to ignite and warm up the heat exchanger.

They are expensive for the good ones. They normally need a larger gas
line and in some homes this is real expensive to install. The
stainless vent pipe is expensive.

And to think I used to recommend these units.

I would recommend looking at a unit such as a Phoenix ( there are
other companies). This type of unit is 90%+ AFUE. They have a high
recovery rate. They do require a large gas line and are expensive.
The up side is they can reduce the cost of heating water about
30-40%. In most parts of the world where the heating load is not to
big they can also heat the home.

The older style of tankless I used to have would shut off on the low
pressure of our water pump, ever take a shower from Michigan well
water in the winter? I would hope the newer units are better.

Q: What happens when half a tank is used up? Does ice cold water rush
in and
cool everything down? Is it thus better to gang two together somehow
to
have the 2nd take over when the first is refilling?
A: Ice water will not rush in. The way the two tanks in series works
is. The cold water is plumbed into the cold inlet of the first water
heater. The hot outlet from the first water heater is plumbed into
the cold of the second water heater. The hot outlet of the second goes
to the hot water to the house. When the faucet is turned on the cold
water immediately starts flowing into the first tank and hot water
from the first tank goes to the second tank. As the first tank cools
down the burner (assuming gas) turns on and heats the water in the
first tank. If the rate of water used is higher than the first tank
can heat then cooler water enters the second tank. The burner of the
second tank will turn on once nit is cooled past its set point. If
enough water is run at a rate high enough then the outlet temperature
will decrease from the second tank

Q: Cold water sinks so it pushes the hot water up, although you will
get some
"warm" water before cold as the hot water runs out.

A: Cold water will sink but... In a water heater there is a dip tube
and water is directed to the bottom of the tank when entering.

Q: They say tankless is 80% more efficient than an electric tank.
That one is more expensive, but it recoupes in cost in two to three
years.

A; are we comparing electric to gas? If not and your are going to put
a tankless electric water heater in that will supply enough flow
rate... wait till you get a price on a electric service and wiring to
handle this type of unit (OUCH).

Q: Spare us the tankless marketing bullship. Standard water heaters
DO
NOT run constantly. They are well insulated and have a large thermal
mass of water inside.

A: I would question well insulated. The temperature difference is
greater from the inside of a water heater to the space it is installed
in. We put R-30, 38, 50 in our attics and maybe R-15-20 in water
heaters. Has anyone ever looked at the vent pipe temperature when the
unit is not running (nice and warm). Or the temperature of the hot
and cold pipe when no water is being used. And guess what there is
almost nothing that meets code we can insulate the most important two
pieces of pipes in the DHW system. Code requires 3 inches minimal for
combustible for standard vent and fiberglass and foam will not meet
this requirement.

The amount of thermal mass has nothing to do with the loss from the
tank. Heat loss by conduction is Q=U * A * Delta T * H (Q is the
amount of BTU's, U = 1/R-value, A = Area, Delta T= temperature
difference, H = hours). Heat loss by radiation is determined by the
surface temperature, texture and emissivity. Convection, is based on
the surcace temperature, the temperature of the air around the tank
and the amount of the insulating value of the air film against the
tank.

Q: Oil fired tankless is the way to go. All the hot water you want,
never
run out and it stops running just as soon as you cut off the faucet.
I know because I had one.

A: I do not know the cost of gas vs. oil in your area. Assuming oil
at $3.00 per gallon and gas at $2.00 per therm (100,000btu) and both
units at 90% AFUE. The cost per million BTU's for oil is $31.97 and
for gas $22.22. I would think gas is less than $2.00 per therm, I've
never seen it that high, Oil (anyone know how much per gallon). And
Oil is unlikely 90% efficient.

What kind of oil unit do you have that shuts off when the faucet is
shut off, sounds like a tankless unit, I was not aware of such type of
unit.

Q: and the tankless boys can stick them. I like HOT water. Not
lukewarm
water.
A: A properly sized tankless water heater can give you scalding
water.

I try to deal in facts
AndyEnergy
Residential energy consultant

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!


jeeeze......



"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
...
That day better come soon. I'm told Alberta's natural gas production
is 12 billion cubic feet per day and 1 billion of that is currently
used by the province's tar sands operation. The NEB is forecasting
production to fall to 9 BCFD by 2012, at a time when 6 BCFD -- a full
two-thirds -- will be used by the tar sands, in large part to power
the new SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) plants now under
construction. That suggests our natural gas supplies for domestic use
(and export to the United States) will fall from 11 BCFD today to as
little as 3 BCFD in less than five years.

Cold showers for everyone!

Cheers,
Paul