Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

"Sam Takoy" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

Cheap, durable.

'nuff said?

On 3/7/2010 8:30 PM Sam Takoy spake thus:

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Aluminum might be better, but wasn't around when cast-iron radiators
were first made. Iron is an excellent metal for casting and conducts
heat well (and is less expensive than other metals, like copper, that
are better conductors).


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On Mar 7, 8:30*pm, Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

In no particular order........
cheap, decent heat transfer characteristics, relatively good corrosion
resistance, low tech manufacturing methods

cheers
Bob

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:30:27 -0500, Sam Takoy wrote:

Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

They are. Newer homes, with hydronic heat, have copper or copper/aluminum
baseboards. Cast iron baseboards have become *expensive* (and a waste of
money).

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

TDD

In article , wrote:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.


I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

Finally, a correct answer.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

Finally, a correct answer.

I guess majoring in physics wasn't useless after all. *snicker*

TDD

"Sam Takoy" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

I don't know that ALL radiators are made of cast iron, mostly old radiators
made around the time of WWII and earlier were cast iron. These days many are
fined tubes, or other materials. The ones used in Europe seem to be made
from pressed sheet steel.

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

Finally, a correct answer.

I guess majoring in physics wasn't useless after all. *snicker*

Guess not. But, yes, you hit the nail on the head. The principal advantage of
cast iron radiators is that they retain heat very well, which provides a much
more even heat than the aluminum fin-tube radiators do.

The Daring Dufas wrote the following:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another
metal? Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal
with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

TDD
The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them). They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.
Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,


Because straw isn't very durable?

willshak wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote the following:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another
metal? Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal
with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

TDD
The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them). They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.
Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


When I was a kid and an inmate at the Catholic Parochial Gulag back
in the middle of the last century, the building had radiators with
hissing contraptions on the top side that reminded me of the valve
on a pressure cooker. If I remember right, there was steam coming
out of the thing that could very well have contributed to keeping
the humidity up in the building.

TDD

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.
Finally, a correct answer.
I guess majoring in physics wasn't useless after all. *snicker*

Guess not. But, yes, you hit the nail on the head. The principal advantage of
cast iron radiators is that they retain heat very well, which provides a much
more even heat than the aluminum fin-tube radiators do.

I've read about the Scandinavian or Finnish style fireplaces that have a
huge mass of masonry which does the same darn thing. I've always thought
that if I were to ever build a home, I would want such a fireplace. Add
a bit of hysteresis to the heating cycle and keep things comfortable.

TDD

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.
Finally, a correct answer.
I guess majoring in physics wasn't useless after all. *snicker*

Guess not. But, yes, you hit the nail on the head. The principal advantage of
cast iron radiators is that they retain heat very well, which provides a much
more even heat than the aluminum fin-tube radiators do.

The aluminum fin baseboard "radiators" are actually "convectors", not
radiators. Most of the heat from them is cold air going in the bottom
and warm air coming out the top, known as a "convection current". If
you sit in front, 2 feet away, you won't feel the heat on your body like
you do if you sit in front of a radiator. Radiators also have
convection currents but not nearly the same as a convector.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
willshak wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote the following:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another
metal? Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal
with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

TDD
The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot
(don't allow toddlers around them). They have enclosures especially
built for them which also helps with the ugly part.
Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


When I was a kid and an inmate at the Catholic Parochial Gulag back
in the middle of the last century, the building had radiators with
hissing contraptions on the top side that reminded me of the valve
on a pressure cooker. If I remember right, there was steam coming
out of the thing that could very well have contributed to keeping
the humidity up in the building.

TDD

It's called "steam heat".

The Daring Dufas wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

I've read about the Scandinavian or Finnish style fireplaces that have a
huge mass of masonry which does the same darn thing. I've always thought
that if I were to ever build a home, I would want such a fireplace. Add
a bit of hysteresis to the heating cycle and keep things comfortable.


The only problem is they take a long time before putting out any real
heat. Maybe a fire all day until the mass of masonry gets hot. The
more mass, the longer it will take. Also the more mass, the more even
the heating will be.

Tony wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
willshak wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote the following:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another
metal? Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to
deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

TDD
The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot
(don't allow toddlers around them). They have enclosures especially
built for them which also helps with the ugly part.
Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


When I was a kid and an inmate at the Catholic Parochial Gulag back
in the middle of the last century, the building had radiators with
hissing contraptions on the top side that reminded me of the valve
on a pressure cooker. If I remember right, there was steam coming
out of the thing that could very well have contributed to keeping
the humidity up in the building.

TDD

It's called "steam heat".

I think the nuns were trying to cook us.

TDD

On Mar 8, 9:49*am, Tony wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

I've read about the Scandinavian or Finnish style fireplaces that have a
huge mass of masonry which does the same darn thing. I've always thought
that if I were to ever build a home, I would want such a fireplace. Add
a bit of hysteresis to the heating cycle and keep things comfortable.

The only problem is they take a long time before putting out any real
heat. *Maybe a fire all day until the mass of masonry gets hot. *The
more mass, the longer it will take. *Also the more mass, the more even
the heating will be.

Agreed. I don't like heating systems with a large lag factor. I want
instant heat when I want heat, and when things are warm enough, I
don't want the system to keep pumping out heat.

In article , willshak wrote:

The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them).

Horse-puckey. They don't get any hotter than the water that's circulated
through them.

They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.

Some do. Many don't.

Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.

Ahh, that explains your misconceptions. You're apparently unaware that many
homes are heated by hot water, not steam.

mike wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:49 am, Tony wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
I've read about the Scandinavian or Finnish style fireplaces that have a
huge mass of masonry which does the same darn thing. I've always thought
that if I were to ever build a home, I would want such a fireplace. Add
a bit of hysteresis to the heating cycle and keep things comfortable.
The only problem is they take a long time before putting out any real
heat. Maybe a fire all day until the mass of masonry gets hot. The
more mass, the longer it will take. Also the more mass, the more even
the heating will be.

Agreed. I don't like heating systems with a large lag factor. I want
instant heat when I want heat, and when things are warm enough, I
don't want the system to keep pumping out heat.


It's not like I wouldn't have central heat. This winter when Global
Warming was falling all over Alabama and we had the coldest winter
in many years, that's the sort of time I would use it silly.

TDD

Doug Miller wrote the following:
In article , willshak wrote:


The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them).


Horse-puckey. They don't get any hotter than the water that's circulated
through them.


They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.


Some do. Many don't.


Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


Ahh, that explains your misconceptions. You're apparently unaware that many
homes are heated by hot water, not steam.

I was raised in NYC in the 1940s. Steam was the main heating source for
many homes and buildings.
You haven't been around long enough to contradict me on what I remember.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

willshak wrote:
Doug Miller wrote the following:
In article , willshak
wrote:


The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot
(don't allow toddlers around them).

Horse-puckey. They don't get any hotter than the water that's
circulated through them.


They have enclosures especially built for them which also helps with
the ugly part.


Some do. Many don't.


Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


Ahh, that explains your misconceptions. You're apparently unaware that
many homes are heated by hot water, not steam.

I was raised in NYC in the 1940s. Steam was the main heating source for
many homes and buildings.
You haven't been around long enough to contradict me on what I remember.


YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!

TDD

"willshak" wrote
The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them). They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.
Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of water
on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some radiators are very good looking
and have rather refined patterns in the casting. Steam and cast iron, IMO,
is the best way to heat. Hot water is better for the lower temperature,
but steam allows heat to be transported longer distances from the boiler
without the use of pumps.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:30:27 -0500, Sam Takoy
wrote:

Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

Longevity and durability. Penitentiaries built in the 30s had cast
iron radiators. This was before Jimmy Hoffa ever walked the line.

Originally a coal fired plant that was later up dated, but the
radiators never changed.

In '92 radiators were still used after 60 years?
(service/maintenance).

Al Capone walked the same corridors, before his transfer to Alcatraz.

In article , willshak wrote:
Doug Miller wrote the following:
In article , willshak
wrote:


The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them).


Horse-puckey. They don't get any hotter than the water that's circulated
through them.


They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.


Some do. Many don't.


Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


Ahh, that explains your misconceptions. You're apparently unaware that many
homes are heated by hot water, not steam.

I was raised in NYC in the 1940s. Steam was the main heating source for
many homes and buildings.
You haven't been around long enough to contradict me on what I remember.

I didn't say you remembered incorrectly -- I said you have misconceptions
about radiators. You do. They don't get any hotter than the water that's
circulated through them.

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam
Because at the time they were invented, cast iron was cheap, and there
were already foundries in place that new how to make stuff out of it.
And properly brewed and cast, they also last close enough to forever,
that looking for other materials didn't seem cost effective. If it ain't
broke, etc.

When the era of enclosed radiators started, and people wanted smaller
radiators that didn't suck up so much wall space, they did bring out
copper with fins inside a sheet metal box.

Weight and convenience didn't matter that much, other than to the poor
SOB pipe-fitter installing them. Not like most of them ever moved once
installed. And cast iron, unlike finned copper, has a lot of mass, and
stays warm longer after the steam or water cycles off. That buffers the
temp swings in the room, a little. Anybody know what year they started
attaching fans to room radiators?

--
aem sends...

willshak wrote:
Doug Miller wrote the following:
In article , willshak
wrote:


The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot
(don't allow toddlers around them).

Horse-puckey. They don't get any hotter than the water that's
circulated through them.


They have enclosures especially built for them which also helps with
the ugly part.


Some do. Many don't.


Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


Ahh, that explains your misconceptions. You're apparently unaware that
many homes are heated by hot water, not steam.

I was raised in NYC in the 1940s. Steam was the main heating source for
many homes and buildings.
You haven't been around long enough to contradict me on what I remember.

Back then, ConEd actually sold piped steam to many of the buildings, so
they didn't have to mess with having a boiler. Probably still do in the
older parts of town. I'm sure individual stand-alone houses had their
own little boilers.

--
aem sends...

Doug Miller wrote the following:
In article , willshak wrote:

Doug Miller wrote the following:

In article , willshak

wrote:



The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them).


Horse-puckey. They don't get any hotter than the water that's circulated
through them.



They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.


Some do. Many don't.



Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


Ahh, that explains your misconceptions. You're apparently unaware that many
homes are heated by hot water, not steam.


I was raised in NYC in the 1940s. Steam was the main heating source for
many homes and buildings.
You haven't been around long enough to contradict me on what I remember.


I didn't say you remembered incorrectly -- I said you have misconceptions
about radiators. You do. They don't get any hotter than the water that's
circulated through them.



Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_steam_system

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article , willshak wrote:
Doug Miller wrote the following:
In article , willshak
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote the following:

In article , willshak

wrote:



The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot (don't
allow toddlers around them).


Horse-puckey. They don't get any hotter than the water that's circulated
through them.



They have enclosures especially built for
them which also helps with the ugly part.


Some do. Many don't.



Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


Ahh, that explains your misconceptions. You're apparently unaware that many

homes are heated by hot water, not steam.


I was raised in NYC in the 1940s. Steam was the main heating source for
many homes and buildings.
You haven't been around long enough to contradict me on what I remember.


I didn't say you remembered incorrectly -- I said you have misconceptions
about radiators. You do. They don't get any hotter than the water that's
circulated through them.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_steam_system

Nothing there says that radiators get hotter than what's circulated through
them. Do you contend that they can?

Doug Miller wrote:
....

Nothing there says that radiators get hotter than what's circulated through
them. Do you contend that they can?

Where on earth did you get such a notion that any other poster had any
idea they get hotter than supply?

All he said was that they are hot surfaces and small persons should be
kept away -- which is all true (particularly if steam heat as opposed to
hot water, the surface temperature may be pretty hot on full flow).

Hot water in a tub isn't any hotter than the water out of the water
heater, either, but it can surely scald (particularly young, tender skin).

Typical hot water heat may be in the 180F max range while steam can be
around 215F--that's plenty warm enough to say "ouch" even giving a few
degrees for radiator surface temperature and distribution drop as
opposed to steam outlet temperature .

--

In article , dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....

Nothing there says that radiators get hotter than what's circulated through
them. Do you contend that they can?

Where on earth did you get such a notion that any other poster had any
idea they get hotter than supply?

All he said was that they are hot surfaces and small persons should be
kept away -- which is all true (particularly if steam heat as opposed to
hot water, the surface temperature may be pretty hot on full flow).

He said they were extremely hot, or some such -- which is *not* true of most
hot-water systems.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....

Nothing there says that radiators get hotter than what's circulated through
them. Do you contend that they can?
Where on earth did you get such a notion that any other poster had any
idea they get hotter than supply?

All he said was that they are hot surfaces and small persons should be
kept away -- which is all true (particularly if steam heat as opposed to
hot water, the surface temperature may be pretty hot on full flow).

He said they were extremely hot, or some such -- which is *not* true of most
hot-water systems.

Well, that isn't saying they're hotter than the water is it?

And, it then depends on the definition of what one means by "extremely"
and I'd give the other guy the benefit of the doubt...all one has to do
is have a recollection as a little kid at grandma's house and you'll be
convinced for life (and you _can_ amhikt).

--

dpb wrote:
....

And, it then depends on the definition of what one means by "extremely"

....

And, the word was "very" which is even less incriminating of any real
problem...

--

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:15:29 -0800 (PST), mike
wrote:

On Mar 8, 9:49*am, Tony wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

I've read about the Scandinavian or Finnish style fireplaces that have a
huge mass of masonry which does the same darn thing. I've always thought
that if I were to ever build a home, I would want such a fireplace. Add
a bit of hysteresis to the heating cycle and keep things comfortable.

The only problem is they take a long time before putting out any real
heat. *Maybe a fire all day until the mass of masonry gets hot. *The
more mass, the longer it will take. *Also the more mass, the more even
the heating will be.

Agreed. I don't like heating systems with a large lag factor. I want
instant heat when I want heat, and when things are warm enough, I
don't want the system to keep pumping out heat.

Right. Cast iron isn't worth its hype. Copper/aluminum is the way to go for
homes (cast iron is more rugged for commercial use).

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:31:51 -0500, Tony wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.
Finally, a correct answer.
I guess majoring in physics wasn't useless after all. *snicker*

Guess not. But, yes, you hit the nail on the head. The principal advantage of
cast iron radiators is that they retain heat very well, which provides a much
more even heat than the aluminum fin-tube radiators do.

The aluminum fin baseboard "radiators" are actually "convectors", not
radiators. Most of the heat from them is cold air going in the bottom
and warm air coming out the top, known as a "convection current". If
you sit in front, 2 feet away, you won't feel the heat on your body like
you do if you sit in front of a radiator. Radiators also have
convection currents but not nearly the same as a convector.

Nope. I this sense they're both "convectors". A "radiator" (without
convection) wouldn't be at all efficient. The source temperature would have
to be much too high.

In article , dpb wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , dpb
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....

Nothing there says that radiators get hotter than what's circulated through

them. Do you contend that they can?
Where on earth did you get such a notion that any other poster had any
idea they get hotter than supply?

All he said was that they are hot surfaces and small persons should be
kept away -- which is all true (particularly if steam heat as opposed to
hot water, the surface temperature may be pretty hot on full flow).

He said they were extremely hot, or some such -- which is *not* true of most
hot-water systems.

Well, that isn't saying they're hotter than the water is it?

And, it then depends on the definition of what one means by "extremely"
and I'd give the other guy the benefit of the doubt...all one has to do
is have a recollection as a little kid at grandma's house and you'll be
convinced for life (and you _can_ amhikt).

The point is that cast iron radiators are not inherently dangerous, as
willshak erroneously stated. It's _steam heat_ that's (potentially) dangerous.

In article , " wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:15:29 -0800 (PST), mike
wrote:

On Mar 8, 9:49*am, Tony wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

I've read about the Scandinavian or Finnish style fireplaces that have a
huge mass of masonry which does the same darn thing. I've always thought
that if I were to ever build a home, I would want such a fireplace. Add
a bit of hysteresis to the heating cycle and keep things comfortable.

The only problem is they take a long time before putting out any real
heat. *Maybe a fire all day until the mass of masonry gets hot. *The
more mass, the longer it will take. *Also the more mass, the more even
the heating will be.

Agreed. I don't like heating systems with a large lag factor. I want
instant heat when I want heat, and when things are warm enough, I
don't want the system to keep pumping out heat.

Right. Cast iron isn't worth its hype. Copper/aluminum is the way to go for
homes (cast iron is more rugged for commercial use).

Missing the point, both of you. The "lag factor" isn't an issue when the room
stays at a comfortable temperature all the time. It's apparent that you've
never lived in a home with a hot-water heating system using cast iron
radiators.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
Tony wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
willshak wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote the following:
Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another
metal? Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to
deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

I would imagine one benefit of a heavy cast iron radiator would
be the mass of metal will hold heat and release it over a long
period of time. I also think that a copper or aluminum radiator
of similar thickness would be prohibitively expensive.

TDD
The disadvantages are that they are big and ugly and get very hot
(don't allow toddlers around them). They have enclosures especially
built for them which also helps with the ugly part.
Another advantage is you don't need a humidifier, just put a pan of
water on top of them.
I was brought up in homes with steam radiators in NYC.


When I was a kid and an inmate at the Catholic Parochial Gulag back
in the middle of the last century, the building had radiators with
hissing contraptions on the top side that reminded me of the valve
on a pressure cooker. If I remember right, there was steam coming
out of the thing that could very well have contributed to keeping
the humidity up in the building.

TDD

It's called "steam heat".

I think the nuns were trying to cook us.

TDD

That I don't doubt. On second thought, I don't think they would cook
you all the way, because then they couldn't torture you anymore.

On Mar 7, 11:30*pm, Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

Why is cast iron a good material for radiators? Why not another metal?
Would certainly make them a little lighter and easier to deal with.

Thanks in advance,

Sam

Wood would really suck.


Jimmie