"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
It's another component that can fail on you on the coldest night of the
year, over a holiday weekend, fouling up your vacation or christmas
plans.

Tell me if your precious, modern furnaces with their ECM fan motors save
electricity when they also have to have these draft motors running.

http://www.nextag.com/Fasco-A165-115...65/prices-html

Hmmm. Here's a PSC (!) draft motor, consuming 80 watts. I hope you're
factoring in this 80 watts into your furnace's electricity use.

That's true. But with the induced draft they can safely operate at high
efficiency because they can better control how much air goes up the stack.

Last summer we changed out an "old style" gas furnace with an induced draft
unit. Tremendous difference in gas usage.

Because we have also switched over to nearly 100% CFL for lighting, we have
saved so much electricity that we just don't notice the extra 80 watts used
for the draft blower.

But I agree with your main point: the old style motors in gas furnaces do
waste quite a bit of power. But the main power hog is the air circulation
motor. That can easily cost $.05/hour. That may not seem like much but
if that blower operates 24/7, it adds up to over $30/month. A good reason
to keep the fan on "auto" rather than "on."

You furnace should be sized so that it can keep you comfortable on a very
cold day by operating continuously. You can pick your own numbers but
your furnace shouldn't be expected to operate 24/7 more than a day or two
each year. That's an extra $1 or 2 or so.

Maybe the next generation of furnaces will also take account motor
efficiency. Right now the 90 (plus) % efficiency systems are much, much
more expensive than the 80% (the condensation feature adds to the complexity
and cost). But like so many other things, prices will come down with
competition. It may end up being less expensive to buy a high efficiency
HVAC system than to "super insulate!"

On Dec 14, 7:13*am, "John Gilmer" wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in ....
It's another component that can fail on you on the coldest night of the
year, over a holiday weekend, fouling up your vacation or christmas
plans.

Tell me if your precious, modern furnaces with their ECM fan motors save
electricity when they also have to have these draft motors running.

http://www.nextag.com/Fasco-A165-115...65/prices-html

Hmmm. *Here's a PSC (!) draft motor, consuming 80 watts. *I hope you're
factoring in this 80 watts into your furnace's electricity use.

That's true. * But with the induced draft they can safely operate at high
efficiency because they can better control how much air goes up the stack..

Last summer we changed out an "old style" gas furnace with an induced draft
unit. * *Tremendous difference in gas usage.

Because we have also switched over to nearly 100% CFL for lighting, we have
saved so much electricity that we just don't notice the extra 80 watts used
for the draft blower.

But I agree with your main point: * the old style motors in gas furnaces do
waste quite a bit of power. * *But the main power hog is the air circulation
motor. * That can easily cost $.05/hour. * That may not seem like much but
if that blower operates 24/7, it adds up to over $30/month. * *A good reason
to keep the fan on "auto" rather than "on."

You furnace should be sized so that it can keep you comfortable on a very
cold day by operating continuously. * *You can pick your own numbers but
your furnace shouldn't be expected to operate 24/7 more than a day or two
each year. * That's an extra $1 or 2 or so.

Maybe the next generation of furnaces will also take account motor
efficiency. * Right now the 90 (plus) % efficiency systems are much, much
more expensive than the 80% (the condensation feature adds to the complexity
and cost). * *But like so many other things, prices will come down with
competition. * *It may end up being less expensive to buy a high efficiency
HVAC system than to "super insulate!"

As the Idjit who filled in the orifice and then redrilled it, I can
assure everyone that I did calculations on what size orifice I needed
to get a certain BTU flow. I did this 20+ years ago and don't
remember the details any longer, but it was not strictly based on
cross-section of the orifice opening, but also included the effects of
friction of the gas with the orifice walls.

If the flame ever gets close to the orifice opening, there will be
major problems as at least in my furnace, the actual flame is several
inches into the furnace from where the orifice is located. The is an
air-mixing tube that goes between the orifice and the burner, and that
is where you adjust the airflow to match the gas flow. It may not
meet some PhD type of analysis, but it cut down the gas consumption
and we stay warm on -10 degree nights and days so I guess I did
something right.

In article ,
a poster wrote:

...snipped...
As the Idjit who filled in the orifice and then redrilled it, I can
assure everyone that I did calculations on what size orifice I needed
to get a certain BTU flow. I did this 20+ years ago and don't
remember the details any longer, but it was not strictly based on
cross-section of the orifice opening, but also included the effects of
friction of the gas with the orifice walls.

.... It may not
meet some PhD type of analysis, but it cut down the gas consumption
and we stay warm on -10 degree nights and days so I guess I did
something right.


Most likely the unit was originally greatly oversized or grossly inefficient
for your tinkering to have worked so effectively.


--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:50:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
a poster wrote:

...snipped...
As the Idjit who filled in the orifice and then redrilled it, I can
assure everyone that I did calculations on what size orifice I needed
to get a certain BTU flow. I did this 20+ years ago and don't
remember the details any longer, but it was not strictly based on
cross-section of the orifice opening, but also included the effects of
friction of the gas with the orifice walls.

.... It may not
meet some PhD type of analysis, but it cut down the gas consumption
and we stay warm on -10 degree nights and days so I guess I did
something right.


Most likely the unit was originally greatly oversized or grossly inefficient
for your tinkering to have worked so effectively.

MOST 30 year old and older units were grossly oversized.

On Dec 15, 5:20*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:50:42 +0000 (UTC),





(Larry W) wrote:
In article ,
a poster wrote:

...snipped...
As the Idjit who filled in the orifice and then redrilled it, I can
assure everyone that I did calculations on what size orifice I needed
to get a certain BTU flow. *I did this 20+ years ago and don't
remember the details any longer, but it was not strictly based on
cross-section of the orifice opening, but also included the effects of
friction of the gas with the orifice walls.

.... It may not
meet some PhD type of analysis, but it cut down the gas consumption
and we stay warm on -10 degree nights and days so I guess *I did
something right.

Most likely the unit was originally greatly oversized or grossly inefficient
for your tinkering to have worked so effectively.

MOST 30 year old and older units were grossly oversized.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not the unit was oversized, the unit was oversized for the
particular size house or heating application.

On Dec 14, 8:13*am, "John Gilmer" wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in ....
It's another component that can fail on you on the coldest night of the
year, over a holiday weekend, fouling up your vacation or christmas
plans.

Tell me if your precious, modern furnaces with their ECM fan motors save
electricity when they also have to have these draft motors running.

http://www.nextag.com/Fasco-A165-115...65/prices-html

Hmmm. *Here's a PSC (!) draft motor, consuming 80 watts. *I hope you're
factoring in this 80 watts into your furnace's electricity use.

That's true. * But with the induced draft they can safely operate at high
efficiency because they can better control how much air goes up the stack..

Last summer we changed out an "old style" gas furnace with an induced draft
unit. * *Tremendous difference in gas usage.

Because we have also switched over to nearly 100% CFL for lighting, we have
saved so much electricity that we just don't notice the extra 80 watts used
for the draft blower.

But I agree with your main point: * the old style motors in gas furnaces do
waste quite a bit of power. * *But the main power hog is the air circulation
motor. * That can easily cost $.05/hour. * That may not seem like much but
if that blower operates 24/7, it adds up to over $30/month. * *A good reason
to keep the fan on "auto" rather than "on."

You furnace should be sized so that it can keep you comfortable on a very
cold day by operating continuously. * *You can pick your own numbers but
your furnace shouldn't be expected to operate 24/7 more than a day or two
each year. * That's an extra $1 or 2 or so.

Maybe the next generation of furnaces will also take account motor
efficiency. * Right now the 90 (plus) % efficiency systems are much, much
more expensive than the 80% (the condensation feature adds to the complexity
and cost). * *But like so many other things, prices will come down with
competition. * *It may end up being less expensive to buy a high efficiency
HVAC system than to "super insulate!"

They really aren't more expensive at all TODAY. With a 95% furnace
you get
a 30% Fed tax credit. That's 30% off the price to begin with. Then I
get $400
from the gas company and another $400 from the state clean energy
program.
Add all that together and the 95% furnace is a no brainer compared to
80%

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:16:19 -0800 (PST), "hr(bob) "
wrote:

On Dec 15, 5:20Â*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:50:42 +0000 (UTC),





(Larry W) wrote:
In article ,
a poster wrote:

...snipped...
As the Idjit who filled in the orifice and then redrilled it, I can
assure everyone that I did calculations on what size orifice I needed
to get a certain BTU flow. Â*I did this 20+ years ago and don't
remember the details any longer, but it was not strictly based on
cross-section of the orifice opening, but also included the effects of
friction of the gas with the orifice walls.

.... It may not
meet some PhD type of analysis, but it cut down the gas consumption
and we stay warm on -10 degree nights and days so I guess Â*I did
something right.

Most likely the unit was originally greatly oversized or grossly inefficient
for your tinkering to have worked so effectively.

MOST 30 year old and older units were grossly oversized.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not the unit was oversized, the unit was oversized for the
particular size house or heating application.
What else did you think I meant? Pretty obviouse it is "oversized
for the application" because if the same furnace was installed in an
arena it would be grossly undersized.

The tendancy was to go with "bigger is better"

On Dec 16, 1:04*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:16:19 -0800 (PST), "hr(bob) "





wrote:
On Dec 15, 5:20*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:50:42 +0000 (UTC),

(Larry W) wrote:
In article ,
a poster wrote:

...snipped...
As the Idjit who filled in the orifice and then redrilled it, I can
assure everyone that I did calculations on what size orifice I needed
to get a certain BTU flow. *I did this 20+ years ago and don't
remember the details any longer, but it was not strictly based on
cross-section of the orifice opening, but also included the effects of
friction of the gas with the orifice walls.

.... It may not
meet some PhD type of analysis, but it cut down the gas consumption
and we stay warm on -10 degree nights and days so I guess *I did
something right.

Most likely the unit was originally greatly oversized or grossly inefficient
for your tinkering to have worked so effectively.

MOST 30 year old and older units were grossly oversized.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not the unit was oversized, the unit was oversized for the
particular size house or heating application.

* What else did you think I meant? Pretty obviouse it is "oversized
for the application" because if the same furnace was installed in an
arena it would be grossly undersized.

The tendancy was to go with "bigger is better"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would think for the installer, erring on the side of being say 20%
too big is
more of an issue of playing it safe. Worst case, the furnace runs a
little less
and is a little less efficient, something the homeowner will never
bitch
about. If theyt make the mistake of putting in one that's too
small, then the customer is going to be screaming because the house
won't
maintain temperature on the coldest days. And that's a difficult
problem to fix.

you made my day Ha he he


"ftwhd" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:16:19 -0800 (PST), "hr(bob) "
wrote:


MOST 30 year old and older units were grossly oversized.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not the unit was oversized, the unit was oversized for the
particular size house or heating application.

By God you ****ing homemoaners are God damn smart! LOL

You know I got to tell you something. You home owners are a ****ing
hoot. The recent flurry of cross posting from alt.HO.repair make me
so glad I don't have to deal with you clowns anymore. You ****ers are
funny.

The King is dead but not forgotten.

The real problem? The house was under sized. Hope that was funny.

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



It's not the unit was oversized, the unit was oversized for the
particular size house or heating application.

By God you ****ing homemoaners are God damn smart! LOL

You know I got to tell you something. You home owners are a ****ing
hoot. The recent flurry of cross posting from alt.HO.repair make me
so glad I don't have to deal with you clowns anymore. You ****ers
are
funny.

The King is dead but not forgotten.