Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

On 11/9/2010 5:01 PM, Prof Wonmug wrote:
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

I've never had a water heater tank me, they are all selfish and
very rude. 8-)

TDD

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:01:40 -0800, Prof Wonmug
wrote:

Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

The ones I've seen installed were in new construction. The owner
loves them; three units in a 5000 sq ft house that are on separate
zones. His were mounted outside the home (in stucco) located in the
desert.

Have a look at this buying guide.

http://www.tanklesswaterheaterguide.com/

"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?
My daughter has a very large two story home. She installed two tankless
water heaters, one for each floor. She loves them. Very little wait for
hot water to reach a particular location and water is only heated when
needed.

On 11/9/2010 3:01 PM Prof Wonmug spake thus:

Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Yes.

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Yes. And no. (See below.)

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

No.

What is the cost (roughly)?

If you're talking about the cost of the heater itself, a lot more than a
tank-type heater.

Any detractors?

Yes. And no.

(This subject has been discussed extensively here in the past; you might
do well to browse some old threads here.)

The problem with tankless (aka "demand" or "on demand") water heaters is
that they were overhyped, back in the 19-ought-70s, to be the do-all and
end-all in efficiency and conserving energy.

Turns out that they *can* conserve energy, in some situations, depending
on several factors. However, they can also *increase* your energy
consumption in some cases.

Best to go back to basics: how do they work? (It's surprising how many
folks talk about them without really knowing this, so it seems useful to
go over this here.)

A regular tank-type heater heats a large volume (10-40 gallons) of water
with a relatively small burner that uses a relatively small amount of
gas. It keeps that tank at the temperature set on the thermostat, so it
uses this small amount of gas periodically as the water is used, and as
the water cools in the tank.

A tankless heater has no tank, as you'd expect. Instead, it uses a heat
exchanger--basically a radiator in reverse--over a burner which uses a
*lot* of gas. A *lot*. But it only heats the water as it's being used;
the flame goes on when water is drawn (i.e., when someone opens a hot
water faucet), hence the "demand" part. When no hot water is being used,
no gas is used at all. (Newer tankless heaters use electronic ignition,
so no pilot light.)

The thing is, the tankless heater can save you money on gas, but it
depends on a couple factors:

o The distance from the heater to the farthest hot water outlet
o The usage patterns of the household

The latter one is the most important. I'm not an expert in this field,
but it seems obvioous to me, at least, that if a household uses a lot of
hot water throughout the day--say, doing a lot of laundry plus hot
showers--then a tankless heater could actually end up costing more. Why?
Because in order to heat the same amount of water as in a water heater
tank, the tankless heater is going to use a lot more gas.

It'd be nice if there was some clear explanation of this out there in
Web-land, maybe even some kind of online calculator or something. But
the moral of the story is, you need to do some investigation, look at
your water usage patterns closely, and don't get sucked in by hype about
tankless heaters (either pro or con).

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"ELGY" lgpetersatcomcastdotnet wrote in message
...


"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?
My daughter has a very large two story home. She installed two tankless
water heaters, one for each floor. She loves them. Very little wait for
hot water to reach a particular location and water is only heated when
needed.

Each cup of tea represents an imaginary voyage. ~Catherine Douzel

"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

From what I understand, adding a tankless system in a new construction will
provide payback in savings. Adding to an existing home will pay back in 15
to 20 years (or more), depending on usage. It is not recommended to add to
an existing home. Chances are you'll sell the home before you gain what you
paid.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 21:27:13 -0500, "SBH" wrote:

From what I understand, adding a tankless system in a new construction will
provide payback in savings. Adding to an existing home will pay back in 15
to 20 years (or more), depending on usage. It is not recommended to add to
an existing home. Chances are you'll sell the home before you gain what you
paid.


Actually, a retrofit is viable if the OP has proper sizing for
water/gas/electrical (which need).

We just don't know if he is comparing pomegranates to persimmons.

"SBH" wrote:

From what I understand, adding a tankless system in a new construction will
provide payback in savings.

Even that is doubtful. You have to add the increased cost of the unit itself,
the increased cost of installation (including larger electric or gas service),
and required annual maintenance. The operating costs for energy can be higher as
your rate is often dependent on the size of the service.

Storage tank heaters are far more efficient than people realize. There are
specific circumstances where demand heaters make sense, but economics aren't
usually the reason.

"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

Yes. I investigated them. The upside is that they will cut your costs.
The downside is that the large ones require a high amperage feed, hence big
lines and breakers, and the water that comes out is only so hot. The cost
of running electricity to every supply can be done if you are in the
construction phase without as much cost as a retrofit.

I have no idea about the propane ones, but imagine with the cost of propane
and natural gas going up, that their operational costs may be high.

Let's hear more from people who actually have them. I just checked into the
ups and downs of getting one, and my electrical feed was insufficient, the
cost to upgrade was high, so that was that.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

Yes. I investigated them. The upside is that they will cut your costs.
The downside is that the large ones require a high amperage feed, hence big
lines and breakers, and the water that comes out is only so hot. The cost
of running electricity to every supply can be done if you are in the
construction phase without as much cost as a retrofit.

I have no idea about the propane ones, but imagine with the cost of propane
and natural gas going up, that their operational costs may be high.

Let's hear more from people who actually have them. I just checked into the
ups and downs of getting one, and my electrical feed was insufficient, the
cost to upgrade was high, so that was that.

Steve


I have had instant hot water with natural gas for
35 years(a rental unit),capacity enough to fill the
bath in reasonable time. No problems, and regular
yearly maintenance from the rental company.
At work we had the a small electrical unit in the
garage for washing your hands, very handy, luke-warm
water within seconds.

Sjouke Burry wrote:
Steve B wrote:
"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?
Yes. I investigated them. The upside is that they will cut your costs.
The downside is that the large ones require a high amperage feed, hence big
lines and breakers, and the water that comes out is only so hot. The cost
of running electricity to every supply can be done if you are in the
construction phase without as much cost as a retrofit.

I have no idea about the propane ones, but imagine with the cost of propane
and natural gas going up, that their operational costs may be high.

Let's hear more from people who actually have them. I just checked into the
ups and downs of getting one, and my electrical feed was insufficient, the
cost to upgrade was high, so that was that.

Steve


I have had instant hot water with natural gas for
35 years(a rental unit),capacity enough to fill the
bath in reasonable time. No problems, and regular
yearly maintenance from the rental company.
At work we had the a small electrical unit in the
garage for washing your hands, very handy, luke-warm
water within seconds.

Oh, the rental of the gas unit is 136 Euro per year,
maintenance or replacement included.
And the price of energy for gas is much lower here
then the cost of electricity, so it is also used for
heating.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:05:14 -0800, "ELGY" lgpetersatcomcastdotnet
wrote:



"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
.. .
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?
My daughter has a very large two story home. She installed two tankless
water heaters, one for each floor. She loves them. Very little wait for
hot water to reach a particular location and water is only heated when
needed.

Do you know what brand?

On Nov 9, 5:01*pm, Prof Wonmug wrote:
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

Answering all your questions is a big job but here are some quick
points, I have a 119000 Ng Bosch got it for 500 and its good for 1
shower and I never need it on high even with 40f incoming water.
Instalations fail when you dont do your homework on your gas supply
and incomming winter water temps and use. They use alot of gas and
need all of it in winter to give you rated output, in winter on the
coldest days gas can have reduced flow from the supply and has to be
figured in. For 2 showers you need to go up to a 190000 btu unit, kids
will ruin any saving knowing HW is endless. Savings go down percentage
wise the more people you have and it may not payback with a family of
4-5. A single person will save the most, I got a 4-5 year payback but
did my own install. You need to do alot of research and testing before
buying one, it may or may not be a good idea for your situation. Is
getting the needed gas supply means new piping, and instal is
difficult, the cost of a 190000 btu unit can be thousands.

Prof Wonmug wrote:
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

I just got a tour of my friend's new system.
It's about the size of a bathroom medicine cabinet.
Has three 240V 40Amp heaters. 120A is no big deal
for him cause he just put in 400A service.
For most people, that would be a problem.
Also, there's the major expense of the electrical
work if you have to pay to have it done.

Gas would have it's own set of issues.

Once you've picked an energy type, you pay
the same to heat water no matter what technology
you use. A BTU is a BTU.
The only difference is the losses in the system.
If you use a lot of hot water, I can't imagine it
saving much of anything. If you use no water,
the energy saved by not radiating
from your hot water tank and the pipes
between the source and the point of use might be
a significant percentage...but still maybe
not a big absolute number of $$.

Might be a different situation if your house
was optimized at design time to with all the
points of use a short distance from the tankless.

On 11/10/2010 12:06 AM, Sjouke Burry wrote:
Sjouke Burry wrote:
Steve B wrote:
"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?
Yes. I investigated them. The upside is that they will cut your
costs. The downside is that the large ones require a high amperage
feed, hence big lines and breakers, and the water that comes out is
only so hot. The cost of running electricity to every supply can be
done if you are in the construction phase without as much cost as a
retrofit.

I have no idea about the propane ones, but imagine with the cost of
propane and natural gas going up, that their operational costs may be
high.

Let's hear more from people who actually have them. I just checked
into the ups and downs of getting one, and my electrical feed was
insufficient, the cost to upgrade was high, so that was that.

Steve

I have had instant hot water with natural gas for
35 years(a rental unit),capacity enough to fill the
bath in reasonable time. No problems, and regular
yearly maintenance from the rental company.
At work we had the a small electrical unit in the
garage for washing your hands, very handy, luke-warm
water within seconds.

Oh, the rental of the gas unit is 136 Euro per year,
maintenance or replacement included.
And the price of energy for gas is much lower here
then the cost of electricity, so it is also used for
heating.

Bosch manufactures an interesting NG tankless heater that has a small
generator powered by the flow of water through the unit that supplies
electricity to the control system and electronic ignighter. With no
standing pilot light, it's one of the more economical NG instant water
heaters I've seen.

TDD

On 11/10/2010 4:39 AM, mike wrote:
Prof Wonmug wrote:
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

I just got a tour of my friend's new system.
It's about the size of a bathroom medicine cabinet.
Has three 240V 40Amp heaters. 120A is no big deal
for him cause he just put in 400A service.
For most people, that would be a problem.
Also, there's the major expense of the electrical
work if you have to pay to have it done.

Gas would have it's own set of issues.

Once you've picked an energy type, you pay
the same to heat water no matter what technology
you use. A BTU is a BTU.
The only difference is the losses in the system.
If you use a lot of hot water, I can't imagine it
saving much of anything. If you use no water,
the energy saved by not radiating
from your hot water tank and the pipes
between the source and the point of use might be
a significant percentage...but still maybe
not a big absolute number of $$.

Might be a different situation if your house
was optimized at design time to with all the
points of use a short distance from the tankless.

Me and my friend installed an electric two module instant water heater
for his sister. It's installed in the utility closet with the washing
machine and electrical panel so we didn't have to run a lot of wire.
The only problem with it is adjusting the rate of flow. For that, we
installed ball valves to adjust how fast water goes through the heater.
A gallon bucket and a stopwatch is what we used to determine rate of
flow so the heater will work. What most folks don't understand about
tankless water heaters is the fact that you're not going to get the
full flow of the rest of your water supply unless you install a very
high capacity heater. The water has to spend enough time in the heat
exchanger to absorb the heat. If I installed a tankless heater for
myself, I would add a tempering tank to help bring up the temp of the
incoming water.

TDD

It's truely a tankless job.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 11/9/2010 5:01 PM, Prof Wonmug wrote:
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

I've never had a water heater tank me, they are all selfish and
very rude. 8-)

TDD

My only experience(s) are a friend who had one installed, but the
installer used too small gas line, and he wasn't impressed with the
performance. My church uses instant heaters. Which are really great
for things like filling a baptismal font. In that case, they are
excellent.

In terms of energy use, probably slightly less, but not by much. Might
go up, as everyone in the house figures out they have unlimited supply
of hot water.

I'll volunteer to be a detractor. With the old style. When the water
to your neighborhood is turned off, you can get some water out of the
HWH tank. Of course, I keep some bottle water on hand for such moment,
and havn't needed the HWH tank water.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:01:40 -0800, Prof Wonmug wrote
Re Tankless water heaters:

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

No. Compared to a well insulated conventional water heater, the
pay-back for the tankless is longer than it's service life.

There may be other reasons that make it worth while, but cost saving
isn't one of them.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Any detractors?

For many tankless no electric means no hot water at all.... Cold
shower for you

At low flow the heater may not trip on and theres a delay between
trip on and hot water thus wasting some water....

the install cost can be very high.

forget electric tankless few homes have the 400 amp main needed
because over 200 amps is needed just to heat weater

if you live where its cold in winter the colder incoming water may not
be hot enough seasonally...

theres more now ransley can jump all over this.....

the thing is all you save are the standby losses.

so run a experiment when you wouldnt be home for the day.

set heater to vacation, and check water temp when you get back home
that night, note it wouldnt have fallen much...

thats all you will save after spending a boatload of money. and take
note if you live where its cold in winter the water heaters standby
losses help heat your home.......

tankless savings are way overstated.

spend the money on additional insulation that really helps

On Nov 9, 7:06*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/9/2010 3:01 PM Prof Wonmug spake thus:

Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Yes.

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Yes. And no. (See below.)

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

No.

What is the cost (roughly)?

If you're talking about the cost of the heater itself, a lot more than a
tank-type heater.

Any detractors?

Yes. And no.

(This subject has been discussed extensively here in the past; you might
do well to browse some old threads here.)

The problem with tankless (aka "demand" or "on demand") water heaters is
that they were overhyped, back in the 19-ought-70s, to be the do-all and
end-all in efficiency and conserving energy.

Turns out that they *can* conserve energy, in some situations, depending
on several factors. However, they can also *increase* your energy
consumption in some cases.

Best to go back to basics: how do they work? (It's surprising how many
folks talk about them without really knowing this, so it seems useful to
go over this here.)

A regular tank-type heater heats a large volume (10-40 gallons) of water
with a relatively small burner that uses a relatively small amount of
gas. It keeps that tank at the temperature set on the thermostat, so it
uses this small amount of gas periodically as the water is used, and as
the water cools in the tank.

A tankless heater has no tank, as you'd expect. Instead, it uses a heat
exchanger--basically a radiator in reverse--over a burner which uses a
*lot* of gas. A *lot*. But it only heats the water as it's being used;
the flame goes on when water is drawn (i.e., when someone opens a hot
water faucet), hence the "demand" part. When no hot water is being used,
no gas is used at all. (Newer tankless heaters use electronic ignition,
so no pilot light.)

The thing is, the tankless heater can save you money on gas, but it
depends on a couple factors:

o The distance from the heater to the farthest hot water outlet
o The usage patterns of the household

The latter one is the most important. I'm not an expert in this field,
but it seems obvioous to me, at least, that if a household uses a lot of
hot water throughout the day--say, doing a lot of laundry plus hot
showers--then a tankless heater could actually end up costing more. Why?
Because in order to heat the same amount of water as in a water heater
tank, the tankless heater is going to use a lot more gas.

What is your basis for the above? It would seem to me that both a
tank heater as well as tankless are going to get about the same amount
of heat out of a given amount of gas that goes in. The tankless just
uses a lot of gas or electric over a short period of time, while the
tank type uses less over a longer time. If anything, I would suspect
that a tankless is more efficient compared to a std efficiency tank
water heater. The main energy savings AFAIK, comes from the
elimination of the standby losses from a tank type heater. Whether
that savings is enough to pay for the cost difference, including
install, is questionable.

And I fail to see what relevancy the usage patterns have, at least
with a typical whole house unit. If I use X gallons of hot water,
what difference does it make when I use it, unless the point here is
that with electric units there could be a time of day difference in
rates for some? With a typical whole house unit installed
somewhere, you're going to have piping losses with either type. And
if you put in mutiple tankless to cut down the delay time for hot
water, I would think the increased cost would take so long to recover
you may never come out ahead.

"mike" wrote

Might be a different situation if your house
was optimized at design time to with all the
points of use a short distance from the tankless.

Yes, yes, yes. Distance from the tank is critical, and can be designed in
the construction phase. We are currently remodeling our kitchen. The
builder had the hot water heater across the house, and we literally didn't
have hot water in the kitchen for three years. Then we put in a 110v. 8
gallon hot water heater just the other day, and glorious hot water. I am
going to put a small one in my shed for beer brewing. Point of use and
distance from source is critical in any system.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:01:40 -0800, Prof Wonmug wrote
Re Tankless water heaters:

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

No. Compared to a well insulated conventional water heater, the
pay-back for the tankless is longer than it's service life.

There may be other reasons that make it worth while, but cost saving
isn't one of them.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

They are VERY worth while if you are selling them. ;-)

They ARE actually cost effective in some situations. We do HOA analysis. I
have seen several in clubhouse and pool house bathrooms under the sink, and
in those situations where no one uses the water for sometimes hours and days
at a time, and warm water is all that is needed, it is better than the
currently high priced water heater and keeping water hot and ready for five
minutes of use a day. And I mean SMALL ones.

Steve

Steve

Ala wrote:

"ELGY" lgpetersatcomcastdotnet wrote in message
...


"Prof Wonmug" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?
My daughter has a very large two story home. She installed two
tankless water heaters, one for each floor. She loves them. Very
little wait for hot water to reach a particular location and water is
only heated when needed.

Each cup of tea represents an imaginary voyage. ~Catherine Douzel



I use Stiebel-Eltron mini point of use tankless water heaters when my
wood boiler is not running. They work great and take 25 amps when
running or drawing hot water. One under the kitchen sink and one under
the bathroom sink/bath/shower. They work great since I don't use very
much hot water; just a shower once a day and some dishes. Take no more
than a toaster.
The only detractor is if the power goes out, no hot water. Had it happen
once while in the shower. Instant cold water.
They are still about $150 each. Had mine for 4 years. If you have a
really cold cellar you might need 2 in series for really hot water.



--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

On 11/10/2010 5:53 AM spake thus:

On Nov 9, 7:06 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

The thing is, the tankless heater can save you money on gas, but it
depends on a couple factors:

o The distance from the heater to the farthest hot water outlet
o The usage patterns of the household

The latter one is the most important. I'm not an expert in this
field, but it seems obvioous to me, at least, that if a household
uses a lot of hot water throughout the day--say, doing a lot of
laundry plus hot showers--then a tankless heater could actually end
up costing more. Why? Because in order to heat the same amount of
water as in a water heater tank, the tankless heater is going to
use a lot more gas.

What is your basis for the above? It would seem to me that both a
tank heater as well as tankless are going to get about the same
amount of heat out of a given amount of gas that goes in. The
tankless just uses a lot of gas or electric over a short period of
time, while the tank type uses less over a longer time. If anything,
I would suspect that a tankless is more efficient compared to a std
efficiency tank water heater. The main energy savings AFAIK, comes
from the elimination of the standby losses from a tank type heater.
Whether that savings is enough to pay for the cost difference,
including install, is questionable.

And I fail to see what relevancy the usage patterns have, at least
with a typical whole house unit. If I use X gallons of hot water,
what difference does it make when I use it, unless the point here is
that with electric units there could be a time of day difference in
rates for some? With a typical whole house unit installed
somewhere, you're going to have piping losses with either type. And
if you put in mutiple tankless to cut down the delay time for hot
water, I would think the increased cost would take so long to recover
you may never come out ahead.

Well, like I said, it was a guess on my part, hopefully an educated one.
Your take is just as plausible; my point is that we really don't know,
do we?

Here's one argument in favor of my thesis:

Consider the most ridiculous case possible, someone who only uses hot
water once a day, say to wash their hands. In such a case, a tankless
heater will fire up exactly once, while a tank heater will fire up
several times during the day to maintain the tank's temperature. So it
seems likely that a tankless heater could save fuel in such a case.

Now consider the opposite case: someone who runs hot water all day long
for some strange reason. In such a case, both a tankless heater and a
tank heater will be burning fuel all the time. The main difference here
between them is the size of the burner: the tankless burner is a lot
larger (think your oven's burner as compared to the tank heaters's
stovetop burner). So again it seems likely that in such a case a
tankless heater could use more gas for the equivalent usage. (Of course,
the other difference is that the tank heater will eventually stop
putting out hot water, unlike the tankless.)

So it seems likely that one could construct some kind of crude curve of
comparative fuel costs vs. water usage.

But I don't know for sure. It's sure be nice to have some better
information on the subject.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:13:59 -0800 (PST), "
wrote Re Tankless water heaters:

so run a experiment when you wouldnt be home for the day.

set heater to vacation, and check water temp when you get back home
that night, note it wouldnt have fallen much...

thats all you will save after spending a boatload of money. and take
note if you live where its cold in winter the water heaters standby
losses help heat your home.......

Good experiment.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Nov 10, 2:57*pm, Caesar Romano wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:13:59 -0800 (PST), "
wrote Re Tankless water heaters:

so run a experiment when you wouldnt be home for the day.

set heater to vacation, and check water temp when you get back home
that night, note it wouldnt have fallen much...

thats all you will save after spending a boatload of money. and take
note if you live where its cold in winter the water heaters standby
losses help heat your home.......

Good experiment.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.


Heres another good experiment, offer a endless hot water shower to a
teenager You will likely find them gabbing on their water resistant
cell phone talking for hours

There are also the super high efficency condensing hot water
tanks..... combustion occurs inside the water tank exhaust is super
cool using PVC pipe.

they avoid the downsides of tankless and cost about the same

On 11/10/2010 2:31 PM spake thus:

There are also the super high efficency condensing hot water
tanks..... combustion occurs inside the water tank exhaust is super
cool using PVC pipe.

they avoid the downsides of tankless and cost about the same

Same as what? An ordinary tank-type water heater?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Nov 10, 5:36*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/10/2010 2:31 PM spake thus:

There are also the super high efficency condensing hot water
tanks..... combustion occurs inside the water tank exhaust is super
cool using PVC pipe.

they avoid the downsides of tankless and cost about the same

Same as what? An ordinary tank-type water heater?

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

cost about the same as a tankless without the downsides.

like no hot water stored for instant use, or in a power failure, no
delay waiting for burner to heat water, and still in 90% efficency
like condensing furnaces. forgot name of heater

"LSMFT" wrote in message
news
I use Stiebel-Eltron mini point of use tankless water heaters when my wood
boiler is not running. They work great and take 25 amps when running or
drawing hot water. One under the kitchen sink and one under the bathroom
sink/bath/shower. They work great since I don't use very much hot water;
just a shower once a day and some dishes. Take no more than a toaster.
The only detractor is if the power goes out, no hot water. Had it happen
once while in the shower. Instant cold water.
They are still about $150 each. Had mine for 4 years. If you have a really
cold cellar you might need 2 in series for really hot water.



i'm glad you are happy

i felt the way you do when i first started the project

i feel lost again that i moved but know that i am not where i need to be

start collecting gossip about what folks are saying about the device

On Nov 10, 4:39*am, mike wrote:
Prof Wonmug wrote:
Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

What is the cost (roughly)?

Any detractors?

I just got a tour of my friend's new system.
It's about the size of a bathroom medicine cabinet.
Has three 240V 40Amp heaters. *120A is no big deal
for him cause he just put in 400A service.
For most people, that would be a problem.
Also, there's the major expense of the electrical
work if you have to pay to have it done.

Gas would have it's own set of issues.

Once you've picked an energy type, you pay
the same to heat water no matter what technology
you use. *A BTU is a BTU.
The only difference is the losses in the system.
If you use a lot of hot water, I can't imagine it
saving much of anything. *If you use no water,
the energy saved by not radiating
from your hot water tank and the pipes
between the source and the point of use might be
a significant percentage...but still maybe
not a big absolute number of $$.

Might be a different situation if your house
was optimized at design time to with all the
points of use a short distance from the tankless.

Check out systems by a rating system that is standardised, E.F. Energy
Factor and you will find a Btus are not Btus that are all equal from
the standby loss. Tanks are mainly 55-65EF, tankless Ng start at 82
and go to 94

On Nov 10, 7:03*am, Caesar Romano wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:01:40 -0800, Prof Wonmug wrote
Re Tankless water heaters:

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

No. Compared to a well insulated conventional water heater, the
pay-back for the tankless is longer than it's service life.

There may be other reasons that make it worth while, but cost saving
isn't one of them.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

The I guess im dreaming when I run my numbers of my 4-5 yr paybck with
my Bosch tankless, I guess my bills are phony and a mistake.

On Nov 10, 7:53*am, wrote:
On Nov 9, 7:06*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:





On 11/9/2010 3:01 PM Prof Wonmug spake thus:

Does anyone have experience with tnakless water heaters?

Yes.

Are they really cheaper than a central water tank?

Yes. And no. (See below.)

Do I need one installed next to every hot water tap?

No.

What is the cost (roughly)?

If you're talking about the cost of the heater itself, a lot more than a
tank-type heater.

Any detractors?

Yes. And no.

(This subject has been discussed extensively here in the past; you might
do well to browse some old threads here.)

The problem with tankless (aka "demand" or "on demand") water heaters is
that they were overhyped, back in the 19-ought-70s, to be the do-all and
end-all in efficiency and conserving energy.

Turns out that they *can* conserve energy, in some situations, depending
on several factors. However, they can also *increase* your energy
consumption in some cases.

Best to go back to basics: how do they work? (It's surprising how many
folks talk about them without really knowing this, so it seems useful to
go over this here.)

A regular tank-type heater heats a large volume (10-40 gallons) of water
with a relatively small burner that uses a relatively small amount of
gas. It keeps that tank at the temperature set on the thermostat, so it
uses this small amount of gas periodically as the water is used, and as
the water cools in the tank.

A tankless heater has no tank, as you'd expect. Instead, it uses a heat
exchanger--basically a radiator in reverse--over a burner which uses a
*lot* of gas. A *lot*. But it only heats the water as it's being used;
the flame goes on when water is drawn (i.e., when someone opens a hot
water faucet), hence the "demand" part. When no hot water is being used,
no gas is used at all. (Newer tankless heaters use electronic ignition,
so no pilot light.)

The thing is, the tankless heater can save you money on gas, but it
depends on a couple factors:

o The distance from the heater to the farthest hot water outlet
o The usage patterns of the household

The latter one is the most important. I'm not an expert in this field,
but it seems obvioous to me, at least, that if a household uses a lot of
hot water throughout the day--say, doing a lot of laundry plus hot
showers--then a tankless heater could actually end up costing more. Why?
Because in order to heat the same amount of water as in a water heater
tank, the tankless heater is going to use a lot more gas.

What is your basis for the above? * It would seem to me that both a
tank heater as well as tankless are going to get about the same amount
of heat out of a given amount of gas that goes in. * The tankless just
uses a lot of gas or electric over a short period of time, while the
tank type uses less over a longer time. *If anything, I would suspect
that a tankless is more efficient compared to a std efficiency tank
water heater. *The main energy savings AFAIK, comes from the
elimination of the standby losses from a tank type heater. * Whether
that savings is enough to pay for the cost difference, including
install, is questionable.

And I fail to see what relevancy the usage patterns have, at least
with a typical whole house unit. * *If I use X gallons of hot water,
what difference does it make when I use it, unless the point here is
that with electric units there could be a time of day difference in
rates for some? * *With a typical whole house unit installed
somewhere, you're going to have piping losses with either type. * And
if you put in mutiple tankless to cut down the delay time for hot
water, I would think the increased cost would take so long to recover
you may never come out ahead.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This isnt easy to explain but its what ive read and how I see it. If
a tank is in heavy or constant use it makes a difference. A tankless
for one or 2 will be run a few times a day, it uses energy and thats
it, its off. A tank for one or 2 maintains that temp all day but so
here is where a tankless pays back quickest. If a tank is in heavy
near constant use since both systems burners are equaly efficient a
tankless saves less in relation to a heavily used tank, the tank has
less downtime where its not needed.

On Nov 10, 12:59*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/10/2010 5:53 AM spake thus:





On Nov 9, 7:06 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

The thing is, the tankless heater can save you money on gas, but it
depends on a couple factors:

o The distance from the heater to the farthest hot water outlet
o The usage patterns of the household

The latter one is the most important. I'm not an expert in this
field, but it seems obvioous to me, at least, that if a household
uses a lot of hot water throughout the day--say, doing a lot of
laundry plus hot showers--then a tankless heater could actually end
up costing more. Why? Because in order to heat the same amount of
water as in a water heater tank, the tankless heater is going to
use a lot more gas.

What is your basis for the above? * It would seem to me that both a
tank heater as well as tankless are going to get about the same
amount of heat out of a given amount of gas that goes in. * The
tankless just uses a lot of gas or electric over a short period of
time, while the tank type uses less over a longer time. *If anything,
I would suspect that a tankless is more efficient compared to a std
efficiency tank water heater. *The main energy savings AFAIK, comes
from the elimination of the standby losses from a tank type heater.
Whether that savings is enough to pay for the cost difference,
including install, is questionable.

And I fail to see what relevancy the usage patterns have, at least
with a typical whole house unit. * *If I use X gallons of hot water,
what difference does it make when I use it, unless the point here is
that with electric units there could be a time of day difference in
rates for some? * *With a typical whole house unit installed
somewhere, you're going to have piping losses with either type. * And
if you put in mutiple tankless to cut down the delay time for hot
water, I would think the increased cost would take so long to recover
you may never come out ahead.

Well, like I said, it was a guess on my part, hopefully an educated one.
Your take is just as plausible; my point is that we really don't know,
do we?

Here's one argument in favor of my thesis:

Consider the most ridiculous case possible, someone who only uses hot
water once a day, say to wash their hands. In such a case, a tankless
heater will fire up exactly once, while a tank heater will fire up
several times during the day to maintain the tank's temperature. So it
seems likely that a tankless heater could save fuel in such a case.

Now consider the opposite case: someone who runs hot water all day long
for some strange reason. In such a case, both a tankless heater and a
tank heater will be burning fuel all the time. The main difference here
between them is the size of the burner: the tankless burner is a lot
larger (think your oven's burner as compared to the tank heaters's
stovetop burner). So again it seems likely that in such a case a
tankless heater could use more gas for the equivalent usage. (Of course,
the other difference is that the tank heater will eventually stop
putting out hot water, unlike the tankless.)

So it seems likely that one could construct some kind of crude curve of
comparative fuel costs vs. water usage.

But I don't know for sure. It's sure be nice to have some better
information on the subject.

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tankless coils are big enough to extract as much energy as possible,
there are several Condensing tankless made that get 94-96 EF the
exhaust is about 70f. The best tank is mabe 86 EF. . Its true
tankless for a big family makes less sence. For many commercial uses
it makes no sence when you figure that tankless cost many x more.

On Nov 10, 4:31*pm, " wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:57*pm, Caesar Romano wrote:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:13:59 -0800 (PST), "
wrote Re Tankless water heaters:

so run a experiment when you wouldnt be home for the day.

set heater to vacation, and check water temp when you get back home
that night, note it wouldnt have fallen much...

thats all you will save after spending a boatload of money. and take
note if you live where its cold in winter the water heaters standby
losses help heat your home.......

Good experiment.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Heres another good experiment, offer a endless hot water shower to a
teenager You will likely find them gabbing on their water resistant
cell phone talking for hours

There are also the super high efficency condensing hot water
tanks..... combustion occurs inside the water tank exhaust is super
cool using PVC pipe.

they avoid the downsides of tankless and cost about the same

And comdensinng tank still dont go over 82 EF, and the Condensing
tankless ive seen are 94-96EF, a big savings in energy used, and I
have both of them

Near the end of a generally good discussion ...

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 16:06:31 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:
in order to heat the same amount of water as in a water heater
tank, the tankless heater is going to use a lot more gas.

No. Physics 101 is your friend. ;-) Burning a given amount of methane
releases the same amount of energy no matter how fast you burn it,
assuming complete burning. Raising the temperature of a given amount
of water the same number of degrees requires the same energy input no
matter how fast you do it.

Possibly what's confusing you is that the tank heater burned slowly
for a long time to heat the water, while the tankless heater burned
fast for a short time. But at the same efficiency, they used the same
amount of energy (gas or electric). And tank and tankless efficiencies
overlap, so one or the other could be more efficient.

Now consider the opposite case: someone who runs hot water all day long
for some strange reason. In such a case, both a tankless heater and a
tank heater will be burning fuel all the time. The main difference here
between them is the size of the burner: the tankless burner is a lot
larger (think your oven's burner as compared to the tank heaters's
stovetop burner). So again it seems likely that in such a case a
tankless heater could use more gas for the equivalent usage. (Of course,
the other difference is that the tank heater will eventually stop
putting out hot water, unlike the tankless.)

Your last (parenthesized) statement is not the "other difference".
It's the critical difference. You have hypothesized a comparison
between running hot water all day long and running barely lukewarm
water all day long. Not surprisingly, running how water requires more
energy than running lukewarm water.

If you change your comparison so that the experiment ends when the
tank heater runs out of hot water, then both use the same amount of
energy. Only the pattern of use is different: the tank heater used the
energy before you started running the hot water, and the tankless used
it while you were running the hot water.

Edward

the new condensing water heaters qualify for the fed tax rebate, they
are over 90% efficent......

I recently installed a whole-house tankless HWH. So far, I like it a
lot.

Some have mentioned the small per-faucet heaters. However, the ones
mostly promoted now are central tankless. (So your question "are
tankless cheaper than central" does not make sense. Most tankless HWHs
are central, although as with tank HWHs, you can install multiples for
convenience.)

I may save money, but I do not expect a useful ROI. I did it for
convenience and to regain floor space. In my 1953 house, the original
HWH was in the garage. When the garage was converted (a religion in
this neighborhood), the HWH was moved to a utility room even farther
away. It was then about 50' from the kitchen and bathroom, and it took
nearly a minute to get hot water to either place. It was replaced once
after that -- I think in 1991, but it's gone now and I didn't save the
info. I suspect that in the original house it was gas, but when I
bought the house it was electric. I had been keeping the temperature
in the HWH just high enough to shower with hot only, and turning off
the lower element entirely, so I had already minimized the energy cost
of hot water. Plus it's a one-or-two person situation (two when I
started thinking about it, one now), thus correspondingly less
savings.

But the part of the house near the kitchen and bathroom simply didn't
have any place for a WH. The crawl space and attic are too small -- a
HWH on its side might have worked, but I'm not aware of any made to
work that way. However, mounting a tankless unit on the wall just
outside those rooms was trivial. And the cold, hot, and gas pipes were
already in the crawl space (which is a generous, sit-up-in space).

So by switching to tankless, I would get much faster HW, and regain
about ten square feet of floor space.

In late August, I learned that my city was currently doubling its
usually $675 rebate for switching from electric to gas HW. The double
rebate fund was nearly empty, so I had to move fast. In any case, the
need for water (under pressure) and gas plumbing put it way outside
DIY for me, so I located a contractor experienced in the installation
who could do it quickly. He pulled the permit on the last day for the
double rebates -- the permit date, not the completion date, determined
eligibility. His bid was $2308, and I eventually got a $1350 rebate
for the electric-to-gas switch (not related to going tankless).

Since I was in a hurry, I went with what the contractor had (Rinnai),
rather than investigating extensively. Other brands I read about were
Paloma (aka WaiWela?), Rheem, Tagaki, and Bosch (Aquastar).

The whole thing went smoothly for something distinctly non-trivial.
Remember that I was moving the heater (so modifying cold and hot
plumbing), tapping into gas plumbing, adding an electrical circuit
(for the controller and igniter), removing the hold HWH, and capping
the pipes that connected to the old HWH. The main electric panel is
the original, and the electrician looked at it and said "I don't even
know what kind it is" ... luckily it's a subpanel to a newer panel
outside, where it was much easier to add the needed circuit. The HWH
did not require a vent -- I'm not sure whether the inside models have
to be vented (probably so). I gave the old HWH to a friend who was
refurbishing a house for a low-income person.

I got a Rinnai V53e, the smallest in the Rinnai line:
http://www.rinnai.us/tankless-water-heater/v53e/. It is rated for 0.6
to 5.3 GPM at 35F rise, giving a claimed capacity of two simultaneous
showers. With only one shower in my house, this was plenty. The low
end turns out to be more of a limitation; I'd often like to have hot
water at a lower flow.

Having the hot water flow so soon was great. However, I found it
difficult to regulate what I wanted. I initially did not have the
remote control, which had two disadvantages. First, I didn't know
whether I was drawing water fast enough to activate the HWH except by
waiting to see if I got hot water. Second, since the default
temperature setting is 120F (and the only alternative 140F), I had to
mix hot and cold for a shower. This meant I had to run the minimum
amount of hot water PLUS some cold, and I normally don't run that much
water for a shower. If I ran just enough hot to activate the HWH and
then added cold, the back pressure from the cold would sometimes be
enough to turn off the HWH. Changes in cold water temp still affected
my shower temp. Overall it was a bit frustrating.

I found a remote control for half price and installed it myself. It's
trivial -- the most complicated part was drilling a hole through my
brick wall. Attached two wires to the HWH and the remote just started
working, no setup needed. I love it. It's right next to the shower, so
I set it for the temperature I want, turn on the hot water until the
light shows me the HWH is active, and enjoy. Never turn on the cold
water faucet at all. Output temp is very consistent. (Input temp
surely varies depending on whether the water has been in pipes under
the house, underground in the service lines, or in the water mains --
though it doesn't vary nearly as much in north Florida as it would a
few hundred miles north of here.)

I can change the temp while I'm showering, in 2F increments from 90F
to 110F. I have already found temps from 102F to 110F useful. In the
summer I will probably go a little lower, but not much. Above 110F,
increments are 5F, and you cannot move it above 110F while the water
is running -- safety. I have showered at 115F -- that's very hot but
sometimes desirable -- but to get there I have to turn the water off
briefly to set that temp.

Now I want a remote control in the kitchen too. BTW, while the water
is running, one remote has priority and others cannot change the temp
setting. Changing priority requires stopping the water flow.

As I said, I did it for convenience and floor space rather than energy
cost. I probably will spend less, but in other locations, you have to
check the relative cost of electric vs gas energy. I'll also spend
less because the new location means I'll waste less hot water left in
the pipes. But I may use hot water more often in the kitchen and
bathroom, which would tend to cost less. I'm not losing sleep over it
either way. At times I may be able to set the temp to 140F to get a
pot of hot water for beverages -- will try that in a few days.

Cons? Sure. Certainly more expensive than a tank HWH, though don't
underestimate the cost of a gas tank HWH. And remember that my cost
included a good bit of plumbing work, not just installing the HWH. I
suspect it's not that much more than a comparable tank installation.

When electric power goes out, I lose HW immediately -- I have about
eight seconds worth in the pipes. This is unlike a gas tank HWH, which
will operate indefinitely without electric power, and unlike an
electric tank HWH, which will usually have a tank full of HW when the
electricity fails. One of the Bosch/Aquastar HWHs (1600H) has a
piezo-electric ignition powered by the water flow, and operates with
no other electric power. I like the idea but that unit has no remote
control and little temp control.

In a cold climate, you have to be careful that an outdoor unit doesn't
freeze. It has built-in protection, but there are caveats in the
manual which I skimmed over quickly since I don't have to worry about
them.

There are times when I want less than half a gallon a minute of hot
water, even with the temp set so I can use pure hot. I may want a slow
stream at the kitchen sink. I may even want a very slow shower.
Generally, though, these are infeasible with my previous setup, and
possibly only a circulating HW system would satisfy these desires.

The rated flow rates are for a 35F temperature rise. Since I never
need anywhere near 5 GPM and my cold water ... well, I'm guessing, but
I suspect it seldom drops below 60F ... isn't very cold, so I'll never
run out of 110F water. A household up north, with probably 40F or
lower winter cold water temp and needing two simultaneous showers,
might hit the limit. OTOH, such a household might have trouble keeping
enough HW from a tank HWH.

Really needs the remote control in each use location for greatest
benefit. This of course increases the cost, and in some households
would probably bring up user conflicts. (OTOH, if simultaneous users
are that common, perhaps it's better to have only one control and not
to count on having fine temp control, as I do.)

If you already have gas, you probably have an adequate supply. If you
don't have gas, then you have to add it or else have a large electric
feed (as others have described).

Note that on my unit, the trip-on time is only half a second, thus
very little water lost to the trip time. But if you're trying to get
just enough to trip it, you are likely to waste some water while
ramping up the flow.

Edward

On Nov 10, 1:59*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/10/2010 5:53 AM spake thus:





On Nov 9, 7:06 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

The thing is, the tankless heater can save you money on gas, but it
depends on a couple factors:

o The distance from the heater to the farthest hot water outlet
o The usage patterns of the household

The latter one is the most important. I'm not an expert in this
field, but it seems obvioous to me, at least, that if a household
uses a lot of hot water throughout the day--say, doing a lot of
laundry plus hot showers--then a tankless heater could actually end
up costing more. Why? Because in order to heat the same amount of
water as in a water heater tank, the tankless heater is going to
use a lot more gas.

What is your basis for the above? * It would seem to me that both a
tank heater as well as tankless are going to get about the same
amount of heat out of a given amount of gas that goes in. * The
tankless just uses a lot of gas or electric over a short period of
time, while the tank type uses less over a longer time. *If anything,
I would suspect that a tankless is more efficient compared to a std
efficiency tank water heater. *The main energy savings AFAIK, comes
from the elimination of the standby losses from a tank type heater.
Whether that savings is enough to pay for the cost difference,
including install, is questionable.

And I fail to see what relevancy the usage patterns have, at least
with a typical whole house unit. * *If I use X gallons of hot water,
what difference does it make when I use it, unless the point here is
that with electric units there could be a time of day difference in
rates for some? * *With a typical whole house unit installed
somewhere, you're going to have piping losses with either type. * And
if you put in mutiple tankless to cut down the delay time for hot
water, I would think the increased cost would take so long to recover
you may never come out ahead.

Well, like I said, it was a guess on my part, hopefully an educated one.
Your take is just as plausible; my point is that we really don't know,
do we?

I think if you go to any independent, credible source on tankless, eg
DOE, they in fact say they are more efficient than tank type and they
don't give caveats like yours about them becoming less efficient if
you use water frequently throughout the day. In fact, that is
precisely what tankless are good for, supplying continous hot water
without ever running out.





Here's one argument in favor of my thesis:

Consider the most ridiculous case possible, someone who only uses hot
water once a day, say to wash their hands. In such a case, a tankless
heater will fire up exactly once, while a tank heater will fire up
several times during the day to maintain the tank's temperature. So it
seems likely that a tankless heater could save fuel in such a case.

Now consider the opposite case: someone who runs hot water all day long
for some strange reason. In such a case, both a tankless heater and a
tank heater will be burning fuel all the time. The main difference here
between them is the size of the burner: the tankless burner is a lot
larger (think your oven's burner as compared to the tank heaters's
stovetop burner). So again it seems likely that in such a case a
tankless heater could use more gas for the equivalent usage. (Of course,
the other difference is that the tank heater will eventually stop
putting out hot water, unlike the tankless.)

What you're missing here is a couple of things. First, the
efficiency of the unit is what determines how much hot water you get
out for a given amount of gas or electricity that goes in. Whether it
uses a smaller burner over a longer time or a larger one over a
shorter time, doesn't matter. Second, the tank type heater has
basicly the same standby loss whether it's used once a day or
frequently throughout the day. Just because it's already running due
to hot water having been drawn and consequently you don't notice the
burner starting up due to standby losses, doesn't mean they
disappear. Heat is still continually escaping from the tank.



So it seems likely that one could construct some kind of crude curve of
comparative fuel costs vs. water usage.

If there was a need for such a curve, don't you think we'd have one by
now?




But I don't know for sure. It's sure be nice to have some better
information on the subject.

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -