How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:32:51 -0500, "ROANIN"
wrote:

How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.

If in a heated living space they are only more efficient in the
summer (when it is a cooled living space)

ROANIN wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.


By isolation to keep the heat in, and by decreasing the amount of
mass inside the isolation area.
Also stopping in time when the temperature is where you want it.
And then beep for attention.

Sjouke Burry wrote:
ROANIN wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if
they are in a heated living space.


By isolation to keep the heat in, and by decreasing the amount of
mass inside the isolation area.
Also stopping in time when the temperature is where you want it.
And then beep for attention.

So if I have an electric heater that is an old Westinghouse that I figure
was made in 1954 or so, would I save money with a new model? I figure that
any heat lost out of the water heater would be offset the heat required by
my furnace.

ROANIN wrote:
Sjouke Burry wrote:
ROANIN wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if
they are in a heated living space.


By isolation to keep the heat in, and by decreasing the amount of
mass inside the isolation area.
Also stopping in time when the temperature is where you want it.
And then beep for attention.

So if I have an electric heater that is an old Westinghouse that I figure
was made in 1954 or so, would I save money with a new model? I figure that
any heat lost out of the water heater would be offset the heat required by
my furnace.


In my country electricity is 2-3 times as expensive as natural gas,
So (almost) all people have natural gas heating.
Loosing heat from electricity is not compensated on de heating of
our house.
If you heat with electrcity, then yes, there is no net loss.

On Dec 3, 4:32*am, "ROANIN" wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.

Depends on the relative costs of the fuel in heating weather. If it's
non-heating weather, then any heat that escapes is lost. If you have
AC it's even worse, it has to be pumped out.

The way it can be more efficient is if there is less heat loss (it
could be smaller and/or have better insulation. Or the water
temperature control is better. Or it could have a timer if it suits
your usage pattern.
It would be better located nearer to where you use the water. Or you
could have several small heaters mounted under/over the wash basins
etc. . Or it would be best of all if there were instantaneous
heater(s) mounted by each point of use,

On Dec 3, 9:25*am, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:32*am, "ROANIN" wrote:

How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.

Depends on the relative costs of the fuel in heating weather. *If it's
non-heating weather, then any heat that escapes is lost. If you have
AC it's even worse, it has to be pumped out.

The way it can be more efficient is if there is less heat loss (it
could be smaller and/or have better insulation. *Or the water
temperature control is better. *Or it could have a timer if it suits
your usage pattern.
It would be better located nearer to where you use the water. Or you
could have several small heaters mounted under/over the wash basins
etc. . Or it would be best of all if there were instantaneous
heater(s) mounted by each point of use,

Stored water heaters. (if unavoidable)
To get maximum efficiency, you need to determine the biggest amount of
water you're going to want at one time and size the heater to that.
(Bath?)
You also need to ask the recovery time of the heater, that is, how
long it takes to heat up from completely cold to operating temperature
& make sure this is ok for your needs.
This is the next biggest save you can make after the quality of
insulation on the tank, ie if you can downsize from the existing HW
tank.

On Dec 2, 10:32*pm, "ROANIN" wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.

That is a decidedly Yankee point of view, you need to consider that to
a lot of the country, mid summer is the "unseasonable weather". I
spend at least 3 times as much cooling as I do for heating, it is like
January, February and summer.

"ROANIN" wrote in message
...


Sjouke Burry wrote:
ROANIN wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if
they are in a heated living space.


By isolation to keep the heat in, and by decreasing the amount of
mass inside the isolation area.
Also stopping in time when the temperature is where you want it.
And then beep for attention.

So if I have an electric heater that is an old Westinghouse that I figure
was made in 1954 or so, would I save money with a new model? I figure that
any heat lost out of the water heater would be offset the heat required by
my furnace.


Pretty much. The energy used by the heating elements is the same to heat a
gallon of water (say, from 50 to 130) on the old unit as the new. If you
want to offset the heat loss in non-heating months, add a wrap of insulation
and it will be as good as the new units.

Reasons to change a old heater has a buildup of minerals in the bottom,
dip tube is corroded and not functioning properly, unit is about to spring a
leak after so many years.

On Dec 2, 10:32*pm, "ROANIN" wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.

You probably pay 50-100% more per Btu for electricity, so any heat you
get just cost alot more than your gas furnace can provide, they do
sell electric furnaces but I bet nobody has them anywhere near you.
Because they cost to much to run. Is yours foam insulation, how thick.
Look at E.F. - Energy Factor ratings for electric water heaters,
www.energystar.gov they dont loose alot of heat and are efficient.
You can get a new heat pump electric water heater but it costs alot
and may not have a payback. Getting a few insulating blankets would be
the cheapest way to upgrade but is it near the end of its life.
Putting on thermal unions on a new install will save alot.

ROANIN wrote:

So if I have an electric heater that is an old Westinghouse that I
figure was made in 1954 or so, would I save money with a new model? I
figure that any heat lost out of the water heater would be offset the
heat required by my furnace.

They don't make 'em like they used to, mate. Still, I hope you have a full
drip pan and line out underneath that thing.

Jon

On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:02:49 +0100, Sjouke Burry wrote:
In my country electricity is 2-3 times as expensive as natural gas, So
(almost) all people have natural gas heating. Loosing heat from
electricity is not compensated on de heating of our house.
If you heat with electrcity, then yes, there is no net loss.

Correct - but to be a little more accurate, if you heat with electricity
fed using the same supply as the (electric) water heater there is no net
loss during the heating season. We have about 14kW of electric baseboard
under load control at something like 4.5c/kWH, with the water heater on
the regular supply at about 8.5c/kWH, so despite the electric heating
there is a benefit to making the water heater as efficient as possible.

Jon Danniken wrote:
ROANIN wrote:

So if I have an electric heater that is an old Westinghouse that I
figure was made in 1954 or so, would I save money with a new model? I
figure that any heat lost out of the water heater would be offset the
heat required by my furnace.

They don't make 'em like they used to, mate. Still, I hope you have
a full drip pan and line out underneath that thing.

Jon
Actually it is in the basement pretty close to the sump pump hole so if it
springs a leak it would not be a big deal except for the incovienience. I am
going to probably replace it here soon. Actually you are right, they don't
make them like they used to. This thing is a real tank. Very heavy duty
looking, however, it does not have a dip tube at all, the pressure relief
valve is on the hot line just outside the tank, and the cold water enters
the tank at the bottom. I just hate to replace it when it is working fine.
Oh by the way, I do have a timer on it. As for the insulation, it is
fiberglass. I do not have NG so I heat with Fuel Oil. However I used to have
a house that was all electric. This is pretty popular in this area. My
electric is about 8.5 cents per KWH and that house cost me less electric
than this place and it is a smaller house. So we will see if the bill
decreases with the new heater.

R

"ROANIN" wrote in message
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if
they are in a heated living space.

If you have electric heat, then in winter - nothing!

But if you have less expensive heat than electric and for summer when
A/C on, then a better insulated water heater will not lose as much
heat.

For the most $$ savings... If you have chlorinated city water, then
you can place the water heater on a timer so it is only on prior to
your taking showers. Then at other times just on long enough to give
you warm (not hot) water. A water heater will stay warm for a long
time if you are not using much hot water.

Water heater timer...
http://www.rewci.com/inehwaheti24.html

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:18:38 -0500, "ROANIN"
wrote:



Jon Danniken wrote:
ROANIN wrote:

So if I have an electric heater that is an old Westinghouse that I
figure was made in 1954 or so, would I save money with a new model? I
figure that any heat lost out of the water heater would be offset the
heat required by my furnace.

They don't make 'em like they used to, mate. Still, I hope you have
a full drip pan and line out underneath that thing.

Jon
Actually it is in the basement pretty close to the sump pump hole so if it
springs a leak it would not be a big deal except for the incovienience. I am

You should pour a little water on the floor, or enough to find out
which way the water will go when the WH leaks. It might go the other
way.

going to probably replace it here soon. Actually you are right, they don't
make them like they used to. This thing is a real tank. Very heavy duty
looking, however, it does not have a dip tube at all, the pressure relief
valve is on the hot line just outside the tank, and the cold water enters
the tank at the bottom. I just hate to replace it when it is working fine.

I agree.

Oh by the way, I do have a timer on it. As for the insulation, it is
fiberglass. I do not have NG so I heat with Fuel Oil. However I used to have
a house that was all electric. This is pretty popular in this area. My
electric is about 8.5 cents per KWH and that house cost me less electric
than this place and it is a smaller house. So we will see if the bill
decreases with the new heater.

R

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:18:38 -0500, "ROANIN"
wrote:

So we will see if the bill
decreases with the new heater.

So you are getting a new water heater?

You could put a pan underneath it and not put in the pipe going to the
pump unil later, when you're convinced you need it.

My sump has a plastic lip around it, that mates with the big plastic
lid. Water would reach the sump but not go in. I drilled 3 or 4
holes in the lip, but they didn't have much effect, I think. I didn't
want to cut off whole sections of lip. I only had one time when
there was enough water on the floor to test. But water went in many
directions anyhow, and not just towards the sump.

On 12/02/2010 11:32 PM, ROANIN wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if they
are in a heated living space.



Storing hot water is a waste of energy. Get a demand water heater. They
make nice oil fired ones. Unlimited hot water, no storage energy waste.




--
LSmFT

I'm trying to think but nothing happens............

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:52:53 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:02:49 +0100, Sjouke Burry wrote:
In my country electricity is 2-3 times as expensive as natural gas, So
(almost) all people have natural gas heating. Loosing heat from
electricity is not compensated on de heating of our house.
If you heat with electrcity, then yes, there is no net loss.

Correct - but to be a little more accurate, if you heat with electricity
fed using the same supply as the (electric) water heater there is no net
loss during the heating season. We have about 14kW of electric baseboard
under load control at something like 4.5c/kWH, with the water heater on
the regular supply at about 8.5c/kWH, so despite the electric heating
there is a benefit to making the water heater as efficient as possible.
Thner is a small benefit - If you can increase from say 75% to 90%,
you cut the amount of gas the water heater uses by 15%, saving 15% on
the power used by the water heater to maintain water temperature - of
which half is reducing your heat supply power, for a net saving of
roughly 7% of the power your water heater uses to maintain temperature
- which is alrady a small fraction of the power your water heater
uses. If it was possible to save 2 or 3% of your water heater overall
power consumption I'd be VERY surprized.

What he's talking about is the question:- is it better (more
efficient) to keep a lot of warm water or a less amount of hot water?
If you have hot water, you can mix in some cold for use. The hotter
water tank will have a less surface area and loose less heat
relatively.

Actually, heat loss is also a function of the difference in temperature, so
even though
you have less surface area, the hotter water, and thus the hotter tank shell
will loose
heat faster, so I doubt there is much difference.

On Dec 3, 9:03*pm, "Steve Newman" wrote:
What he's talking about is the question:- is it better (more
efficient) to keep a lot of warm water or a less amount of hot water?
If you have hot water, you can mix in some cold for use. *The hotter
water tank will have a less surface area and loose less heat
relatively.

Actually, heat loss is also a function of the difference in temperature, so
even though
you have less surface area, the hotter water, and thus the hotter tank shell
will loose
heat faster, so I doubt there is much difference.

There is a difference. It can be worked out by calculus or
graphically. But the case has to be determined for each design. There
is a point where the lines cross or the minimum on the graph. No use
appyling your American homespun backyard technology here. Doesn't work.

"Jules Richardson" wrote
We have about 14kW of electric baseboard
under load control at something like 4.5c/kWH, with the water heater on
the regular supply at about 8.5c/kWH, so despite the electric heating
there is a benefit to making the water heater as efficient as possible.


Here in New England, electricity is about 17¢ on average.

ransley wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:32 pm, "ROANIN" wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if
they are in a heated living space.

You probably pay 50-100% more per Btu for electricity, so any heat you
get just cost alot more than your gas furnace can provide, they do
sell electric furnaces but I bet nobody has them anywhere near you.
Because they cost to much to run. Is yours foam insulation, how thick.
Look at E.F. - Energy Factor ratings for electric water heaters,
www.energystar.gov they dont loose alot of heat and are efficient.
You can get a new heat pump electric water heater but it costs alot
and may not have a payback. Getting a few insulating blankets would be
the cheapest way to upgrade but is it near the end of its life.
Putting on thermal unions on a new install will save alot.


OK I give up, I tried to google thermal union and did not find anything
related to water heaters. What are they?

R

wrote:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:18:38 -0500, "ROANIN"
wrote:

So we will see if the bill
decreases with the new heater.

So you are getting a new water heater?

Have had a new on on standby for a few years now, but am going to have to
install it here shortly to facilitate a remodeling project I want to do.

You could put a pan underneath it and not put in the pipe going to the
pump unil later, when you're convinced you need it.

My sump has a plastic lip around it, that mates with the big plastic
lid. Water would reach the sump but not go in. I drilled 3 or 4
holes in the lip, but they didn't have much effect, I think. I didn't
want to cut off whole sections of lip. I only had one time when
there was enough water on the floor to test. But water went in many
directions anyhow, and not just towards the sump.

Must not be installed right, I had a leak from the well pump pipe and all
the water that leaked out of that went straight into the sump, so that is
not a problem.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:47:57 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"Jules Richardson" wrote
We have about 14kW of electric baseboard
under load control at something like 4.5c/kWH, with the water heater on
the regular supply at about 8.5c/kWH, so despite the electric heating
there is a benefit to making the water heater as efficient as possible.


Here in New England, electricity is about 17¢ on average.

One of the (many) reasons I moved out of NE.

Efficiency refers to the case when energy is changed from one form to
another.

I'll buy that IF you consider 10 gallons of hot water out of the shower
head divided by the daily cost of the electricity consumed by the water
heater.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wrong. It's a ratio. So it has to be units of the same value.
Dollars and gallons are not the same units.

On Dec 4, 12:43*am, "ROANIN" wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:32 pm, "ROANIN" wrote:
How are newer electric water heaters more efficient than old ones if
they are in a heated living space.

You probably pay 50-100% more per Btu for electricity, so any heat you
get just cost alot more than your gas furnace can provide, they do
sell electric furnaces but I bet nobody has them anywhere near you.
Because they cost to much to run. Is yours foam insulation, how thick.
Look at E.F. - Energy Factor ratings for electric water heaters,
www.energystar.gov*they dont loose alot of heat and are efficient.
You can get *a new heat pump electric water heater but it costs alot
and may not have a payback. Getting a few insulating blankets would be
the cheapest way to upgrade but is it near the end of its life.
Putting on thermal unions on a new install will save alot.

OK I give up, I tried to google thermal union and did not find anything
related to water heaters. What are they?

R

There is no such thing. He is in Lala land.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:02:49 +0100, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
If you heat with electrcity, then yes, there is no net loss.

This and several other replies assume that "heat with electricity"
means electric resistance heating.

A heat pump (which is also electric) is more than 100% efficient, in
the sense that the thermal energy delivered to the interior is greater
than the electrical energy used to pump the heat. This applies to an
interior temperature of about 70F and exterior temperature down to
about 15F. With a greater temperature difference (exterior below 15F)
the heat pump efficiency drops below 100% and you are better off
switching to resistance -- as some heat pumps do automatically.

Edward

In article ,
mike wrote:

And most people count on moving out
long before any
payback on investment in infrastructure could be realized.

Who are all these mythological creatures that move every few years? I
keep seeing these ROI and Resale Value considerations woven into every
thread. Doesn't anyone just settle into a town and a home and stay put
anymore?

harry wrote in news:5f1f1b0d-af44-4fc7-b769-
:


Efficiency refers to the case when energy is changed from one form to
another.

I'll buy that IF you consider 10 gallons of hot water out of the shower
head divided by the daily cost of the electricity consumed by the water
heater.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wrong. It's a ratio. So it has to be units of the same value.
Dollars and gallons are not the same units.


Well, I don't know. Decades ago I knew the price of everything in 6-packs.

On Dec 4, 7:40*am, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:02:49 +0100, Sjouke Burry

wrote:
If you heat with electrcity, then yes, there is no net loss.

This and several other replies assume that "heat with electricity"
means electric resistance heating.

A heat pump (which is also electric) is more than 100% efficient, in
the sense that the thermal energy delivered to the interior is greater
than the electrical energy used to pump the heat. This applies to an
interior temperature of about 70F and exterior temperature down to
about 15F. With a greater temperature difference (exterior below 15F)
the heat pump efficiency drops below 100% and you are better off
switching to resistance -- as some heat pumps do automatically.

Edward

That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example

Again, nothing to do with efficiency.

On Dec 4, 7:40*am, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:02:49 +0100, Sjouke Burry

wrote:
If you heat with electrcity, then yes, there is no net loss.

This and several other replies assume that "heat with electricity"
means electric resistance heating.

A heat pump (which is also electric) is more than 100% efficient, in
the sense that the thermal energy delivered to the interior is greater
than the electrical energy used to pump the heat. This applies to an
interior temperature of about 70F and exterior temperature down to
about 15F. With a greater temperature difference (exterior below 15F)
the heat pump efficiency drops below 100% and you are better off
switching to resistance -- as some heat pumps do automatically.

Edward

On Dec 4, 7:40*am, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:02:49 +0100, Sjouke Burry

wrote:


A heat pump (which is also electric) is more than 100% efficient, in
the sense that the thermal energy delivered to the interior is greater
than the electrical energy used to pump the heat. This applies to an
interior temperature of about 70F and exterior temperature down to
about 15F. With a greater temperature difference (exterior below 15F)
the heat pump efficiency drops below 100% and you are better off
switching to resistance -- as some heat pumps do automatically.

Edward

That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:40:29 GMT, Red Green wrote:

harry wrote in news:5f1f1b0d-af44-4fc7-b769-
:


Efficiency refers to the case when energy is changed from one form to
another.

I'll buy that IF you consider 10 gallons of hot water out of the shower
head divided by the daily cost of the electricity consumed by the water
heater.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wrong. It's a ratio. So it has to be units of the same value.
Dollars and gallons are not the same units.


Well, I don't know. Decades ago I knew the price of everything in 6-packs.

Many economists use Big Macs as the measure of value.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:53:34 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mike wrote:

And most people count on moving out
long before any
payback on investment in infrastructure could be realized.

Who are all these mythological creatures that move every few years? I
keep seeing these ROI and Resale Value considerations woven into every
thread. Doesn't anyone just settle into a town and a home and stay put
anymore?

They may, now, with the housing market dead but in general, no. Jobs move,
and that trend is not going to go the other way.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:05:36 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:
That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example

Again, nothing to do with efficiency.

In that sense, everything is 100% efficient, because mass-energy is
always conserved.

This viewpoint however is not particularly useful to someone trying to
figure out how to heat a house.

For a discussion of efficiency to be meaningful, you have to say what
you are measuring with respect to. Absolutes are not useful.

Edward

On Dec 4, 7:07*pm, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:05:36 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example

Again, nothing to do with efficiency.

In that sense, everything is 100% efficient, because mass-energy is
always conserved.

This viewpoint however is not particularly useful to someone trying to
figure out how to heat a house.

For a discussion of efficiency to be meaningful, you have to say what
you are measuring with respect to. Absolutes are not useful.

Edward

Efficiency is a scientific term and thus scientifically defined.
I wish you'd get your brain into gear before your fingers. Spend ten
seconds checking the facts & then you wouldn't appear half so foolish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ion_efficiency

The thread is about water heaters not heating houses.
But if you want to know about that, start a thread and I can explain
that too.
You need to start with the theory and then move on to the practical
matter of how to apply it.

harry wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:07 pm, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:05:36 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example
Again, nothing to do with efficiency.
In that sense, everything is 100% efficient, because mass-energy is
always conserved.

This viewpoint however is not particularly useful to someone trying to
figure out how to heat a house.

For a discussion of efficiency to be meaningful, you have to say what
you are measuring with respect to. Absolutes are not useful.

Edward

Efficiency is a scientific term and thus scientifically defined.
I wish you'd get your brain into gear before your fingers. Spend ten
seconds checking the facts & then you wouldn't appear half so foolish.

Efficiency is the amount of input converted to useful output
divided by the total input.
I'd say that YOUR efficiency in this thread is pretty low.

So, how about you get back to the point and quit trying to demonstrate
your superiority. It ain't workin'!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ion_efficiency

The thread is about water heaters not heating houses.
But if you want to know about that, start a thread and I can explain
that too.
You need to start with the theory and then move on to the practical
matter of how to apply it.

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 02:45:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 4, 7:07*pm, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:05:36 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example

Again, nothing to do with efficiency.

In that sense, everything is 100% efficient, because mass-energy is
always conserved.

This viewpoint however is not particularly useful to someone trying to
figure out how to heat a house.

For a discussion of efficiency to be meaningful, you have to say what
you are measuring with respect to. Absolutes are not useful.

Edward

Efficiency is a scientific term and thus scientifically defined.

No it is not. It's an agreed upon measurement of inputs and desired outputs.
Just stating your number is not scientific at all.

I wish you'd get your brain into gear before your fingers. Spend ten
seconds checking the facts & then you wouldn't appear half so foolish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ion_efficiency

The thread is about water heaters not heating houses.

Then why did you state that electric water heaters are 100% efficient?

But if you want to know about that, start a thread and I can explain
that too.
You need to start with the theory and then move on to the practical
matter of how to apply it.

Which you've demonstrated is beyond your grasp.

On Dec 5, 12:45*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 02:45:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:07 pm, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:05:36 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example

Again, nothing to do with efficiency.

In that sense, everything is 100% efficient, because mass-energy is
always conserved.

This viewpoint however is not particularly useful to someone trying to
figure out how to heat a house.

For a discussion of efficiency to be meaningful, you have to say what
you are measuring with respect to. Absolutes are not useful.

Edward

Efficiency is a scientific term and thus scientifically defined.

No it is not. *It's an agreed upon measurement of inputs and desired outputs.
Just stating your number is not scientific at all.

I wish you'd get your brain into gear before your fingers. Spend ten
seconds checking the facts & then you wouldn't appear half so foolish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ion_efficiency

The thread is about water heaters not heating houses.

Then why did you state that electric water heaters are 100% efficient?

But if you want to know about that, start a thread and I can explain
that too.
You need to start with the theory and then move on to the practical
matter of how to apply it.

Which you've demonstrated is beyond your grasp.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

electric water heaters are 100% efficent, except for their tiny
standby losses.

Too bad a BTU of electric heat isnt as chaep as a BTU of gas heat,
electricity to heat costs a fortune

On Dec 5, 5:45*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 02:45:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 4, 7:07 pm, Edward Reid
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:05:36 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

That is called the Coefficient Of Performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeffic...rmance#Example

Again, nothing to do with efficiency.

In that sense, everything is 100% efficient, because mass-energy is
always conserved.

This viewpoint however is not particularly useful to someone trying to
figure out how to heat a house.

For a discussion of efficiency to be meaningful, you have to say what
you are measuring with respect to. Absolutes are not useful.

Edward

Efficiency is a scientific term and thus scientifically defined.

No it is not. *It's an agreed upon measurement of inputs and desired outputs.
Just stating your number is not scientific at all.

I wish you'd get your brain into gear before your fingers. Spend ten
seconds checking the facts & then you wouldn't appear half so foolish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ion_efficiency

The thread is about water heaters not heating houses.

Thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_heating#Environmental_and_efficiency_aspe ctshen why did you state that electric water heaters are 100% efficient?

But if you want to know about that, start a thread and I can explain
that too.
You need to start with the theory and then move on to the practical
matter of how to apply it.

Which you've demonstrated is beyond your grasp.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think so zzzzzzzz brain. All electric heating devices are 100%
efficient. It's not possible to make them any other way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ency_aspe cts