I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc.

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. And it's old and has a leak. I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. What would be my best bet in this situation?

On Jul 24, 1:43*pm, Anagram wrote:
I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. *I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc.

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. *I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. *That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. *It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. *I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. *Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. *And it's old and has a leak. *I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. *What would be my best bet in this situation?

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.

On Jul 24, 2:58*pm, ransley wrote:
On Jul 24, 1:43*pm, Anagram wrote:





I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. *I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc.

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. *I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. *That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. *It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. *I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. *Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. *And it's old and has a leak. *I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. *What would be my best bet in this situation?

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Given the requirements of:

fast recovery
high efficiency
small size
not cost sensitive

I'm left wondering, why not get a whole house tankless? But there is
a lot we don't know, like what fuel options you have.

On Jul 24, 12:57*pm, wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:58*pm, ransley wrote:



On Jul 24, 1:43*pm, Anagram wrote:

I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. *I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc.

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. *I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. *That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. *It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. *I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. *Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. *And it's old and has a leak. *I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. *What would be my best bet in this situation?

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Given the requirements of:

fast recovery
high efficiency
small size
not cost sensitive

I'm left wondering, why not get a whole house tankless? * But there is
a lot we don't know, like what fuel options you have.

I think the OP is willing to pay double the cost of a cheap tank type
w/h......

can he get full whole house tankless for that price?

Honestly, a tankless install makes me a little nervous......all that
up front cost & hassle plus heat exchanger life ???? and the distinct
possibility of an under performing system. Maybe only in fringe use
cases, but big initial bucks (& questionable payback) for the
occasional lukewarm shower is something I'd like to avoid.

Maybe if I owned Ted Kaczynski's cabin & lived his previous life style
but I don't see tankless working for me & my life.

cheers
Bob

On Jul 24, 4:28*pm, BobK207 wrote:
On Jul 24, 12:57*pm, wrote:





On Jul 24, 2:58*pm, ransley wrote:

On Jul 24, 1:43*pm, Anagram wrote:

I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. *I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc.

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. *I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. *That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. *It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. *I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. *Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. *And it's old and has a leak. *I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. *What would be my best bet in this situation?

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Given the requirements of:

fast recovery
high efficiency
small size
not cost sensitive

I'm left wondering, why not get a whole house tankless? * But there is
a lot we don't know, like what fuel options you have.

I think the OP is willing to pay double the cost of a cheap tank type
w/h......

can he get full whole house tankless for that price?

He can get a whole house tankless for $750 - $1000. I'd say that
qualifies as a YES. And if you factor in the elimination of standby
losses over time, it sounds like a potentially viable solution,
depending on what fuel he has available.





Honestly, a *tankless install makes me a little nervous......all that
up front cost & hassle plus heat exchanger life ???? and the distinct
possibility of an under performing system. *Maybe only in fringe use
cases, but big initial bucks *(& questionable payback) for the
occasional lukewarm shower is *something I'd like to avoid.


And I'd say you're at least as biased against them as you claim
Ransley is biased in favor of them. At least as Ransley says, he has
one installed.




Maybe if I owned Ted Kaczynski's cabin & lived his previous life style
but I don't see tankless working for me & my life.


But we're not talking about your life style. We're talking about
someone who:

Wants rapid recovery
High efficiency
Is willing to pay 2X the cost of a regular WH
Has a small space reqtt, etc.


You see many conventional water heaters that fit that bill?





cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 24, 6:52�pm, wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:28�pm, BobK207 wrote:





On Jul 24, 12:57�pm, wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:58�pm, ransley wrote:

On Jul 24, 1:43�pm, Anagram wrote:

I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. �I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc..

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. �I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. �That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. �It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. �I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. �Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. �And it's old and has a leak. �I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. �What would be my best bet in this situation?

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Given the requirements of:

fast recovery
high efficiency
small size
not cost sensitive

I'm left wondering, why not get a whole house tankless? � But there is
a lot we don't know, like what fuel options you have.

I think the OP is willing to pay double the cost of a cheap tank type
w/h......

can he get full whole house tankless for that price?

He can get a whole house tankless for $750 - $1000. �I'd say that
qualifies as a YES. �And if you factor in the elimination of standby
losses over time, it sounds like a potentially viable solution,
depending on what fuel he has available.



Honestly, a �tankless install makes me a little nervous......all that
up front cost & hassle plus heat exchanger life ???? and the distinct
possibility of an under performing system. �Maybe only in fringe use
cases, but big initial bucks �(& questionable payback) for the
occasional lukewarm shower is �something I'd like to avoid.

And I'd say you're at least as biased against them as you claim
Ransley is biased in favor of them. � At least as Ransley says, he has
one installed.



Maybe if I owned Ted Kaczynski's cabin & lived his previous life style
but I don't see tankless working for me & my life.

But we're not talking about your life style. � We're talking about
someone who:

Wants rapid recovery
High efficiency
Is willing to pay 2X the cost of a regular WH
Has a small space reqtt, etc.

You see many conventional water heaters that fit that bill?





cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the OPs current heater is electric he will be disappointed with any
electric tankless........ nearly no one likes electric tankless.

and sure wouldnt like upgrading to 200 amp service just to heat water,
plus normal 200 amp or whatever service for everything else.

that can easily cost thousands, and even then resul;ts may be marginal
where incoming water is cold in winter, limited flow, etc.

tankless warranties are no longer than 10 years, heck you can get
regular tanks with 12 year warranties.

regular tank heaters are simple, reliable, and pretty cheap to buy.

basic install and forget till it leaks.

while tankless require knowledgable techs, cleaning heater core
removing sediment, and occasionl parts replacement.

heck even ransley talks of his personally repairing his tanless.

question, when the last time any of you serviced your regular tank
type heater, most dont even drain water occasionally out the bottom to
remove sediment.......

The condensing tank type water heaters cost about the same as a
tankless, are as or more efficent, and dont have nagging troubles like
no hot water with a faucet barely on....

ransley must have a fiancial stake in tankless heaters..........

On Jul 24, 3:52*pm, wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:28*pm, BobK207 wrote:



On Jul 24, 12:57*pm, wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:58*pm, ransley wrote:

On Jul 24, 1:43*pm, Anagram wrote:

I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. *I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc..

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. *I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. *That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. *It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. *I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. *Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. *And it's old and has a leak. *I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. *What would be my best bet in this situation?

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Given the requirements of:

fast recovery
high efficiency
small size
not cost sensitive

I'm left wondering, why not get a whole house tankless? * But there is
a lot we don't know, like what fuel options you have.

I think the OP is willing to pay double the cost of a cheap tank type
w/h......

can he get full whole house tankless for that price?

He can get a whole house tankless for $750 - $1000. *I'd say that
qualifies as a YES. *And if you factor in the elimination of standby
losses over time, it sounds like a potentially viable solution,
depending on what fuel he has available.



Honestly, a *tankless install makes me a little nervous......all that
up front cost & hassle plus heat exchanger life ???? and the distinct
possibility of an under performing system. *Maybe only in fringe use
cases, but big initial bucks *(& questionable payback) for the
occasional lukewarm shower is *something I'd like to avoid.

And I'd say you're at least as biased against them as you claim
Ransley is biased in favor of them. * At least as Ransley says, he has
one installed.



Maybe if I owned Ted Kaczynski's cabin & lived his previous life style
but I don't see tankless working for me & my life.

But we're not talking about your life style. * We're talking about
someone who:

Wants rapid recovery
High efficiency
Is willing to pay 2X the cost of a regular WH
Has a small space reqtt, etc.

You see many conventional water heaters that fit that bill?



cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And I'd say you're at least as biased against them as you claim
Ransley is biased in favor of them.

You're mis-reading my post, I'm not biased against them, imo
they're not the "end all & be all" some claim them to be.

If you re-read my posts you'll see that I say they are appropriate &
will work fine but NOT in ALL installations, specifically the two I
investigated.


Ransley has personal experience with one installation & it works fine
for his house, his life style

I calc'd two proposed installs & the numbers didn't look too favorable
for performance or for payback so I passed.
One install was additionally nixed by the Bosch rep, I guess he's
biased as well?

I don't see how any of this makes me biased......imo, just careful,
cautious & conservative.

cheers
Bob

On Jul 24, 11:58*am, ransley wrote:
On Jul 24, 1:43*pm, Anagram wrote:



I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. *I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc.

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. *I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. *That's a lot to ask, because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. *It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. *I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. *Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. *And it's old and has a leak. *I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. *What would be my best bet in this situation?

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.

Tankless water heaters have there place but like anything else they
have limitations.

Ransley is a hardcore tankless cheerleader per his comment.....

I have yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use

and anyone who doesn't agree with him is just plain wrong, misinformed
or stupid (did leave anything out?)

I guess that means only people who actually have a tankless w/h are
qualified to comment on a proposed install?

And that stuff about incoming water temp, btu's, temperature rise
capability, instantaneous hot water demand, hot water usage profile,
location of water heater, local year 'round ambient temperature &
installation elevation is meaningless?

I guess we should all drive a Prius independent of our real
transportation needs?

Yeah, I don't have a tankless but the Bosch rep talked me out of one
installation & my research convinced me that my other proposed
installation wouldn't pay for itself. I like the idea of tankless
but imo the numbers don't work in lots of situations.

cheers
Bob

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), BobK207
wrote:

Yeah, I don't have a tankless but the Bosch rep talked me out of one
installation & my research convinced me that my other proposed
installation wouldn't pay for itself. I like the idea of tankless
but imo the numbers don't work in lots of situations.

Thank your rep.

New construction is the best time for tankless. Trying to retro-fit
with an unknowing plumber can be costly.

I'm a fan. One can even work on them and replace components as needed.

ransley wrote in
:
True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.

18" is what will fit where my present water heater is. We could make a
little more room by moving some pipes, but not much.

I still might get a tankless. But we're leaning the other way right now.

Here are some of the concerns we have about tankless:

1. We're concerned that it might not always give us as much hot water as
we want. If washing machine and dishwasher are running, and someone is
taking a shower, it could be stretched to its limit, and, if someone else
turns on a hot water faucet, the shower might suddenly get cold bullets or
whatever. If we connected two tankless together, it could be a problem for
our NG supply, and two cost more than one.

2. The supply of cold water to our house might not always be high enough
pressure. We get the vague impression that our water pressure varies,
possibly depending on usage by neighbors. It's probably not a problem, but
it's one more minor worry.

3. We're thinking of putting in new insulated hot water pipes, running
through our access-only attic, to all of our hot water faucets etc. A tank
water heater would keep those pipes partly warm, so we wouldn't have to
wait as long for hot water after turning a faucet on.

4. The tankless we want requires an electric outlet, for its ignition. It
looks like we would have to do some wiring, because we don't see any
electric outlet in the utility closet, but just conduit going to our
furnace from the wall.

5. If it turns out to have problems, the problems are most likely to be in
our pipes or whatever, and not the fault of the manufacturer. Therefore,
such problems would not be covered by the warranty. A lot of people regret
getting a tankless for that very reason, and feel stuck with it, because it
would cost them too much to replace it with a tank, having already spent
their budget on the tankless.

6. When such problems happen, the plumber often can't figure them out, and
spends too much time on them, then starting thinking of that customer as a
problem customer.

7. If energy prices keep going up, I want to consier other options, such
as solar etc., and/or maybe get a geothermal heat pump for heating and air
conditioning, and get hot water from that same system. If I spend a lot on
a tankless now, that reduces my budget for that.

On Jul 24, 6:43*pm, Anagram wrote:
ransley wrote :

True high effeciency will cost you, its called a condensing unit. Why
18", I think you will be out of luck. AO Smith is a good brand with
many different units up to maybe 85 EF. I have NG tankless and I have
yet to hear anybody here complain that actualy has one or knew a dam
about what they were talking about, complaining without knowing facts
from actual use seems to be a way people justify their present 50%
efficent tanks.

18" is what will fit where my present water heater is. *We could make a
little more room by moving some pipes, but not much.

I still might get a tankless. *But we're leaning the other way right now.

Here are some of the concerns we have about tankless:

1. *We're concerned that it might not always give us as much hot water as
we want. *If washing machine and dishwasher are running, and someone is
taking a shower, it could be stretched to its limit, and, if someone else
turns on a hot water faucet, the shower might suddenly get cold bullets or
whatever. *If we connected two tankless together, it could be a problem for
our NG supply, and two cost more than one.

2. *The supply of cold water to our house might not always be high enough
pressure. *We get the vague impression that our water pressure varies,
possibly depending on usage by neighbors. *It's probably not a problem, but
it's one more minor worry.

3. *We're thinking of putting in new insulated hot water pipes, running
through our access-only attic, to all of our hot water faucets etc. *A tank
water heater would keep those pipes partly warm, so we wouldn't have to
wait as long for hot water after turning a faucet on.

4. *The tankless we want requires an electric outlet, for its ignition. *It
looks like we would have to do some wiring, because we don't see any
electric outlet in the utility closet, but just conduit going to our
furnace from the wall.

5. *If it turns out to have problems, the problems are most likely to be in
our pipes or whatever, and not the fault of the manufacturer. *Therefore,
such problems would not be covered by the warranty. *A lot of people regret
getting a tankless for that very reason, and feel stuck with it, because it
would cost them too much to replace it with a tank, having already spent
their budget on the tankless.

6. *When such problems happen, the plumber often can't figure them out, and
spends too much time on them, then starting thinking of that customer as a
problem customer.

7. *If energy prices keep going up, I want to consier other options, such
as solar etc., and/or maybe get a geothermal heat pump for heating and air
conditioning, and get hot water from that same system. *If I spend a lot on
a tankless now, that reduces my budget for that.

And you will possibly need 1" gas line if the run is long. Shop Energy
Factor or EF in your tank decision. EF is what it costs to heat the
water, many cheap tanks are still 55-60 EF so only 55-60 cents of
every dollar heats water, there are tanks, Condensing near 85 EF. I
own one its a commercial $2200 AO Smith Cyclone, But there is a
tankless of
93 EF !! A regular BW might be 60 EF or less

My present top two choices are a 25-gallon 155-FHR from Bradford White vs a
40-gallon 50,000 BTU/H from Lochinvar.

The Bradford White is my favorite so far, but the Lochinvar is what seems
to be available locally.

"Anagram" wrote in message
...
I was going to get a whole-house tankless water heater, but changed my mind
after reading various forums with lots of complaints about them. I like
the idea of tankless, but want to wait till we move to a better house,
where it will be easier to install one at every hot water faucet, and when
the technology might improve such that you could use any amount of hot
water from 1/10 GPM to 5 GPM, without any hot-cold sandwiches etc.

But I'm still shopping for a water heater. I want a high efficiency, high
recovery one, but only 18 inches in diameter. That's a lot to ask,
because
it doesn't leave much room for insulation. It would probably have to have
a special kind of insulation that provided more insulation per amount of
thickness. I would be willing to pay about twice the price of a normal
cheap water heater. Is there anything available that would provide what I
want?

My present water heater is 18 inches in diameter, 40 gallons, but not very
efficient. And it's old and has a leak. I want to hurry before the leak
becomes serious. What would be my best bet in this situation?

I wouldn't recommend what I'm doing right now to my house as it is way
expensive. I'm installing a 90% efficient Triangle Tube Prestige Solo 110 NG
boiler. Along with an indirect water heater and over a half mile (no
kidding) of ½" pex tubing for radiant heat. The pex was a pain to install.
But the plumbing of the boiler, loops and pumps and other stuff is fun.



Waldo

The biggest problem with tankless water heaters is that DIY'ers and
many plumbers don't bother with the size calculations. Sizing a
tankless requires estimating usage and combining that with water
pressure. The higher the water pressure, the larger the BTU's required
to handle the same usage.

Also, remember that tankless water heaters are not energy efficient
across the entire range of use. Sure you save the energy of storing a
huge tank of water. But if you run a dishwasher, for example, that
uses only a few gallons per cycle and you have high water pressure and
high BTU's, you'll get very INEFFICIENT energy use for those few
gallons. The burner will have to light up like crazy and then shut
down fast after only a few gallons.

Tankless heaters are most efficient for bathing and that's where their
energy calculations are made.

If they're sized right, they're a great improvement over atmospheric
vented tank heaters.

On Jul 24, 6:30*pm, Rick-Meister wrote:
The biggest problem with tankless water heaters is that DIY'ers and
many plumbers don't bother with the size calculations. Sizing a
tankless requires estimating usage and combining that with water
pressure. The higher the water pressure, the larger the BTU's required
to handle the same usage.

Also, remember that tankless water heaters are not energy efficient
across the entire range of use. Sure you save the energy of storing a
huge tank of water. But if you run a dishwasher, for example, that
uses only a few gallons per cycle and you have high water pressure and
high BTU's, you'll get very INEFFICIENT energy use for those few
gallons. The burner will have to light up like crazy and then shut
down fast after only a few gallons.

Tankless heaters are most efficient for bathing and that's where their
energy calculations are made.

If they're sized right, they're a great improvement over atmospheric
vented tank heaters.

Doesnt a dishwasher use alot of water, well if it was not efficent why
am I getting a 4 yr payback, and why am I now paying 45$ for Ng where
I now have a tank, where was just paying 7-9 in summer with the
tankless, you have theories, and no numbers, I have numbers I dont
need unproven theorys

On Jul 25, 6:09*am, ransley wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:30*pm, Rick-Meister wrote:





The biggest problem with tankless water heaters is that DIY'ers and
many plumbers don't bother with the size calculations. Sizing a
tankless requires estimating usage and combining that with water
pressure. The higher the water pressure, the larger the BTU's required
to handle the same usage.

Also, remember that tankless water heaters are not energy efficient
across the entire range of use. Sure you save the energy of storing a
huge tank of water. But if you run a dishwasher, for example, that
uses only a few gallons per cycle and you have high water pressure and
high BTU's, you'll get very INEFFICIENT energy use for those few
gallons. The burner will have to light up like crazy and then shut
down fast after only a few gallons.

Tankless heaters are most efficient for bathing and that's where their
energy calculations are made.

If they're sized right, they're a great improvement over atmospheric
vented tank heaters.

Doesnt a dishwasher use alot of water, well if it was not efficent why
am I getting a 4 yr payback, and why am I now paying 45$ for Ng where
I now have a tank, where was just paying 7-9 in summer with the
tankless, you have theories, and no numbers, I have numbers I dont
need unproven theorys- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yes, I'd like to see a reference for how and why a tankless is
supposed to be very inefficient in supplying water on demand to a
dishwasher. That makes no sense to me. It fires up and instantly
starts heating the water. All the heat goes into the water and into
the dishwasher, except for the heat in the water left in the pipes at
the end when the use stops. The latter happens exactly the same with
a tank type unit. Nor do some of the other comments here make sense:


"1. We're concerned that it might not always give us as much hot
water as
we want. If washing machine and dishwasher are running, and someone
is
taking a shower, it could be stretched to its limit, and, if someone
else
turns on a hot water faucet, the shower might suddenly get cold
bullets or
whatever. "

You presently have a 25 gallon conventional unit and need a
replacement that will fit in an 18" space, which would be more of a
problem in that regard than a tankless. I don't see how anyone
suddenly gets cold bullets with tankless. As more water is drawn,
the outgoing temp of the water just drops following a smooth line.


"2. The supply of cold water to our house might not always be high
enough
pressure. We get the vague impression that our water pressure
varies,
possibly depending on usage by neighbors. It's probably not a
problem, but
it's one more minor worry. "

If you don't have sufficient pressure, then how are you going to
deliver so much hot water to the washing machine, dishwasher, shower,
etc that the tankless can't keep up in problem #1?


"3. We're thinking of putting in new insulated hot water pipes,
running
through our access-only attic, to all of our hot water faucets etc. A
tank
water heater would keep those pipes partly warm, so we wouldn't have
to
wait as long for hot water after turning a faucet on. "

Any type of hot water heater isn't going to do anything different with
regard to keeping those pipes warm. Conventional hot water heaters
have devices in them specifically to prevent hot water from rising out
of them because it wastes energy. So they aren't going to keep those
pipes warm either, unless you put in a circulating pump. I thought
you wanted high efficiency? The only thing insulation will do is:

a - prevent some heat loss for the water on it's trip across the
house

b - allow the water in the pipes to cool more slowly, so that if it's
used again within an hour or so, it will still be warm.

Both those work exactly the same without regard to how the water gets
heated


"5. If it turns out to have problems, the problems are most likely to
be in
our pipes or whatever, and not the fault of the manufacturer.
Therefore,
such problems would not be covered by the warranty. A lot of people
regret
getting a tankless for that very reason, and feel stuck with it,
because it
would cost them too much to replace it with a tank, having already
spent
their budget on the tankless. "

This I don't understand at all and sounds like FUD.


"6. When such problems happen, the plumber often can't figure them
out, and
spends too much time on them, then starting thinking of that customer
as a
problem customer. "

Certainly FUD. If a plumber can't figure out a tankless, you don't
want that plumber around anyway.


"7. If energy prices keep going up, I want to consier other options,
such
as solar etc., and/or maybe get a geothermal heat pump for heating and
air
conditioning, and get hot water from that same system. If I spend a
lot on
a tankless now, that reduces my budget for that. "

If you go to geo, the difference in cost you would pay now of a tank
vs tankless is going to be a tiny percentage in cost of that overall
system.

On Jul 24, 4:30*pm, Rick-Meister wrote:
The biggest problem with tankless water heaters is that DIY'ers and
many plumbers don't bother with the size calculations. Sizing a
tankless requires estimating usage and combining that with water
pressure. The higher the water pressure, the larger the BTU's required
to handle the same usage.

Also, remember that tankless water heaters are not energy efficient
across the entire range of use. Sure you save the energy of storing a
huge tank of water. But if you run a dishwasher, for example, that
uses only a few gallons per cycle and you have high water pressure and
high BTU's, you'll get very INEFFICIENT energy use for those few
gallons. The burner will have to light up like crazy and then shut
down fast after only a few gallons.

Tankless heaters are most efficient for bathing and that's where their
energy calculations are made.

If they're sized right, they're a great improvement over atmospheric
vented tank heaters.

RIck-

Great post...no hype, no bashing.

The biggest problem with tankless water heaters is that DIY'ers and
many plumbers don't bother with the size calculations.

I did my calcs, took a look at my usage, talked with the Bosch
rep.......and passed on tankless.

IMO a tankless w/h install is very much like a screw type compressor
compared with a standard piston type......usage pattern needs to be
matched to capacity. If usage isn't or can't be matched to capacity
then a lot of advantage is lost.

cheers
Bob

On Jul 25, 6:07*pm, BobK207 wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:30*pm, Rick-Meister wrote:





The biggest problem with tankless water heaters is that DIY'ers and
many plumbers don't bother with the size calculations. Sizing a
tankless requires estimating usage and combining that with water
pressure. The higher the water pressure, the larger the BTU's required
to handle the same usage.

Also, remember that tankless water heaters are not energy efficient
across the entire range of use. Sure you save the energy of storing a
huge tank of water. But if you run a dishwasher, for example, that
uses only a few gallons per cycle and you have high water pressure and
high BTU's, you'll get very INEFFICIENT energy use for those few
gallons. The burner will have to light up like crazy and then shut
down fast after only a few gallons.

Tankless heaters are most efficient for bathing and that's where their
energy calculations are made.

If they're sized right, they're a great improvement over atmospheric
vented tank heaters.

RIck-

Great post...no hype, no bashing.

The biggest problem with tankless water heaters is that DIY'ers and
many plumbers don't bother with the size calculations.

I did my calcs, took a look at my usage, talked with the Bosch
rep.......and passed on tankless.

IMO a tankless w/h install is *very much like a screw type compressor
compared with a standard piston type......usage pattern needs to be
matched to capacity. * If usage isn't or can't be matched to capacity
then a lot of *advantage is lost.

cheers
Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is bs, if it was true then how do I get a 9$ gas bill, with gas
dryer and stove, all my usage is quick a few gallons,, but of course
you cant get proof of your bs statement, Now im at a location with NG
tank and now I pay 45$ a month, My Ng tankless has gotten me a 4 year
payback, Again out of the woods come people that dont use them and
post unsubstantiated bs crappola, I hate these tankless threads, to
many morons posting. Tank Salesman.

{{{{That makes no sense to me. It fires up and instantly
starts heating the water. All the heat goes into the water and into
the dishwasher, except for the heat in the water left in the pipes at
the end when the use stops. The latter happens exactly the same with
a tank type unit. Nor do some of the other comments here make
sense:}}}}

They make a lot of sense if you look at how a demand WH works.

Take a pot, fill it with cold water and put it on the stove. Turn the
burners on high. Then dump out the warm water and refill with cold
water. Repeat that scenario over and over again. That's exactly what's
happening when you use a demand WH for to fill a dishwasher. It takes
a fair amount of heat to bring the heater exchanger tubes up to proper
temp. You basically keep reheating the pan. You never get to take full
advantage of the "warm up" energy. In addition, the burners in many
demand WHs are rated for a 2.5gallon/minute flow rate. But most
dishwashers don't fill at the rate of 2.5 gallons/minute. If the
dishwasher fills at the rate of 1 gallon per minute, all those extra
btu's go right up the flu. You can do the math on this yourself. The
worst part is that the dishwasher refills several times in a cleaning
cycle. A shower, on the other hand, provides maximum efficiency
because it's using the proper flow rate for the BTU input. The
downside, of course, is that if your demand heater is rated at 2.5
gallon/minute and a second person tries to take a shower, the demand
heater can't provide enough hot water. If you size the demand heater
to 5 gallons/minute, then you're wasting even more fuel in low volume
operations.

I wasn't saying that demand heaters aren't efficient. I was just
pointing out that they're not efficient across the board. If you use
them at the rated flow rate, they're far more efficient than most tank
models.

On Jul 26, 5:47*pm, Rick-Meister wrote:
{{{{That makes no sense to me. *It fires up and instantly
starts heating the water. *All the heat goes into the water and into
the dishwasher, except for the heat in the water left in the pipes at
the end when the use stops. * The latter happens exactly the same with
a tank type unit. * Nor do some of the other comments here make
sense:}}}}

They make a lot of sense if you look at how a demand WH works.

Take a pot, fill it with cold water and put it on the stove. Turn the
burners on high. Then dump out the warm water and refill with cold
water. Repeat that scenario over and over again. That's exactly what's
happening when you use a demand WH for to fill a dishwasher. It takes
a fair amount of heat to bring the heater exchanger tubes up to proper
temp. You basically keep reheating the pan. You never get to take full
advantage of the "warm up" energy. In addition, the burners in many
demand WHs are rated for a 2.5gallon/minute flow rate. But most
dishwashers don't fill at the rate of 2.5 gallons/minute. If the
dishwasher fills at the rate of 1 gallon per minute, all those extra
btu's go right up the flu. You can do the math on this yourself. The
worst part is that the dishwasher refills several times in a cleaning
cycle. A shower, on the other hand, provides maximum efficiency
because it's using the proper flow rate for the BTU input. The
downside, of course, is that if your demand heater is rated at 2.5
gallon/minute and a second person tries to take a shower, the demand
heater can't provide enough hot water. If you size the demand heater
to 5 gallons/minute, then you're wasting even more fuel in low volume
operations.

I wasn't saying that demand heaters aren't efficient. I was just
pointing out that they're not efficient across the board. If you use
them at the rated flow rate, they're far more efficient than most tank
models.

Then how do explain a TH1 which is Condensing, that has a 95%
efficency and 95% EF factor on propane, because the heat exchanger is
extremely efficent

On 2008-07-26, Rick-Meister wrote:

In addition, the burners in many demand WHs are rated for a
2.5gallon/minute flow rate. But most dishwashers don't fill at the
rate of 2.5 gallons/minute. If the dishwasher fills at the rate of 1
gallon per minute, all those extra btu's go right up the flu.

That's not true--the demand gas water heater has a modulating burner
and adjusts to the flow rate.

Wayne

Some demand heaters have a modulating gas valve......some. Not all.
And certainly not the low end units.

I'll say it again. I'm not saying that demand heaters aren't
efficient....they are. But there are a few issues with them regarding
efficiency across the board and low flow.

Geez guys, settle down a bit and read the whole post before you flame.
All I told the guy was to evaluate his usage and be aware that there
are some circumstances where the demand heaters, well, I'm repeating
myself.

End of discussion--at least for me.

On Jul 27, 1:16*am, Rick-Meister wrote:
Some demand heaters have a modulating gas valve......some. Not all.
And certainly not the low end units.

I'll say it again. I'm not saying that demand heaters aren't
efficient....they are. But there are a few issues with them regarding
efficiency across the board and low flow.

Geez guys, settle down a bit and read the whole post before you flame.
All I told the guy was to evaluate his usage and be aware that there
are some circumstances where the demand heaters, well, I'm repeating
myself.

End of discussion--at least for me.


Before it ends, I'd like an explanation and reference for a couple of
your statements:

"The higher the water pressure, the larger the BTU's required to
handle the same usage. "

This makes absolutely no sense. If the tankless is heating 5 gallons
of water, what possible difference in efficiency could it make if the
water pressure is 30 PSI or 60PSI? I have never seen anyone claim
that pressure factors in at all to sizing a tankless.

I also don't buy the analogy of comparing a tankless to constantly
refilling a pan heating water on the stove. You state that you are
constantly reheating the pan, as if the pan itself somehow takes and
holds heat. In reality, the heat is going into the water. Some is
escaping as loss around the pan, to the surroundings, but that happens
regardless of whether the pan is being refilled every minute or left
alone for 10 mins. In fact, MORE heat will be transferred to the pan
in the case of it being refilled with cold water, as the cold water
will absorb more of the heat without it being lost to the
surroundings.

If you refill the pan 10 times in 10 minutes, you wind up with 10 pans
of barely warm water. If you leave one pan sit for 10 minutes, you
wind up with one pot of hot water. If you think some energy
inefficiency is at play here, explain exactly where this lost energy
is going?

On Jul 27, 7:05�am, wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:16�am, Rick-Meister wrote:

Some demand heaters have a modulating gas valve......some. Not all.
And certainly not the low end units.

I'll say it again. I'm not saying that demand heaters aren't
efficient....they are. But there are a few issues with them regarding
efficiency across the board and low flow.

Geez guys, settle down a bit and read the whole post before you flame.
All I told the guy was to evaluate his usage and be aware that there
are some circumstances where the demand heaters, well, I'm repeating
myself.

End of discussion--at least for me.

Before it ends, I'd like an explanation and reference for a couple of
your statements:

"The higher the water pressure, the larger the BTU's required to
handle the same usage. "

This makes absolutely no sense. �If the tankless is heating 5 gallons
of water, what possible difference in efficiency could it make if the
water pressure is 30 PSI or 60PSI? �I have never seen anyone claim
that pressure factors in at all to sizing a tankless.

I also don't buy the analogy of comparing a tankless to constantly
refilling a pan heating water on the stove. � You state that you are
constantly reheating the pan, as if the pan itself somehow takes and
holds heat. � � In reality, the heat is going into the water. �Some is
escaping as loss around the pan, to the surroundings, but that happens
regardless of whether the pan is being refilled every minute or left
alone for 10 mins. � In fact, MORE heat will be transferred to the pan
in the case of it being refilled with cold water, as the cold water
will absorb more of the heat without it being lost to the
surroundings.

If you refill the pan 10 times in 10 minutes, you wind up with 10 pans
of barely warm water. � If you leave one pan sit for 10 minutes, you
wind up with one pot of hot water. �If you think some energy
inefficiency is at play here, explain exactly where this lost energy
is going?

one issue with tankless is the delay between draw water to hot water
arrives.

the tankless must detect water flow, and turn on water, .........

as a tankless owner told me, we save energy on heating water, but
waste water and sewer....

now admittedly its not a killer cost but it is there.

another tankless troubling issue..........

if you have temperature control shower valves the fast changing
temperature from tankless can cause valve hunting, where the shower
temperature doesnt remain stable......

here we have AOSMITH vertex tank type water heaters. 96% efficent
without the downsides of the tankless.

one last tankless issue.

most require power line voltage to operate. no power no hot water at
all.

unlike tank type heaters that have at least a couple quick showers
onboard at all times...........

so one morning the power is out Your choice before work

No shower at all or a cold one...... which do you preferr

tankless are fine, just like the original vW BUG was....

it will take you to the same place as a more comfy larger vehicle, but
has limitations. saves energy though.

if your willing to live with the many limitations more power to you.
myself I prefer the comfort of a regular tank, espically when Vertex
can supply both the comfort of a tank with the efficency of a
tankless.....

hey ransley, you can get one when your tankless craps out in a few
more years

On Jul 27, 12:16*am, Rick-Meister wrote:
Some demand heaters have a modulating gas valve......some. Not all.
And certainly not the low end units.

I'll say it again. I'm not saying that demand heaters aren't
efficient....they are. But there are a few issues with them regarding
efficiency across the board and low flow.

Geez guys, settle down a bit and read the whole post before you flame.
All I told the guy was to evaluate his usage and be aware that there
are some circumstances where the demand heaters, well, I'm repeating
myself.

End of discussion--at least for me.

The low end 460$ Bosch does, any quality tankless has modulating
valve. Maybe 10 years ago it was different.