On Dec 12, 10:14*am, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:
I have a 50 year-old furnace that is more efficient than some
of the new ones after I modified the flame to use 1/2 the gas
it originally used.
Did you keep the same BTU output? ;-)
I bet he did, because by reducing the flame his duty-cycle is
probably longer (just like a modern furnace).

Reducing the flame is as simple as turning the dial on the gas
regulator in the furnace, or partially closing the gas shut-off
valve on the line going to the furnace.

Increase the efficiency even more ...

Are you actually supporting his theory that he increased his
efficiency ?

By turning down the gas supply, his furnace is reducing it's BTU output
and is also reducing the internal temperature of the heat exchanger.
His fan blower is not changing the amount of CFM of air being pushed
through the exchanger. *

Heat exchanger efficiency (any heat exchanger) is not constant over a
range of differential temperature (ie - the temperature difference
between the incoming house-hold return air on one side of the heat
exchanger, and the combustion air on the other side of the exchanger).

For example, if the combustion-air temperature is 300F, and my incoming
household air is 60F and 1000 CFM, I might get an efficiency of 80% at
extracting the heat of that 300F combustion air and transfering it to my
60F incoming air, boosting it by 20F giving me 80F coming out of the
furnace.

On the other hand, if I turn the burners up so the combustion air is now
500F, my incoming household air is still 60F, it's still being moved
through the furnace at 1000 CFM, and maybe it's coming out of the
furnace at 90F. *But my efficiency has dropped to maybe 70%.

This effect is probably more prounounced in the old-style furnaces with
long horizontal burners where the combustion air really doesn't spend a
lot of time in the furnace and has a low resistance path directly up the
flue.

And no, there is no way that a 50-year-old single-stage furnace can
approach the 90%+ efficiency of a modern 2-stage unit, but that's got
everything to do with a completely different burner and combustion
galley arrangement, a longer combustion path, more surface area, thinner
heat-exchanger walls, etc, and nothing to do with using an ECM motor or
electronic pilot or a computer in the furnace.

The point is that by reducing the BTU output of an old furnace, you are
allowing the heat exchanger to operate more efficiently, and you are
reducing the potential payback in getting a new furnace, and you are
increasing perceived comfort by having a more constant heat-output from
the furnace instead of short spikes of high heat followed by long
periods of cool-down.

I agree with the concept that a furnace will be more efficient if the
temperature
differential across the heat exchanger is less. How much it changes,
ie if you
screw around with an old 75% efficient furnace and turn the burners
down, will
it raise the efficiency from 75 to 76, or 75 to 80, however is an
important part.
You are assuming it's substantial. I'm not so sure.

But the problem here aside from the obvious practical problems of
doing it, is
that you can't undo it on the fly. If you can turn the burners down
so that it fires
at 70% for greater efficiency, then one of two things must exist:

1 - The furnace will now be unable to heat the house to normal temp on
the coldest
days

2 - The furnace was oversized all those years and you now have
downsized it permanently.

Those modern two stage or variable burner furnaces can change the
firing % on
the fly. Using it at 100% when the intelligent thermostat knows it's
needed, or firing
it at say 70%, when it's a mild day.

Another thing strikes me here. You keep pointing out how you can buy
cheap HVAC
online and you apparently believe you could do installs yourself or
pay someone on
the cheap to do part of it for you. With the current incentives, ie
Fed 30% credit,
nat gas utility credit, electric credit, state credit, I can
get $3,000 off the cost of a new system. That means doing it your
way, you could
have a whole new high efficiency 95% furnace and AC system for
$1000. Don't you think that's a
good value proposition, with a good payback period?

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:52:17 -0500, ftwhd wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:02:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I agree with the concept that a furnace will be more efficient if the
temperature
differential across the heat exchanger is less.

Are you serious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

--Vic

wrote:

How much it changes, ie if you screw around with an old 75%
efficient furnace and turn the burners down, will it raise
the efficiency from 75 to 76, or 75 to 80, however is an
important part.

You are assuming it's substantial. I'm not so sure.

Based on where I've turned the regulator dial on my home furnace, and by
judging the resulting flame height, I think I'm easily running at about
1/2 the full-throttle fuel flow. My furnace is a lennox g8-120-1,
manufactured October 1976. Specs:

0 - 2500 ft altitude:
120,000 btu input
96,000 bonnet BTU
orifice size 39
temp rise 70 - 100
1/4 hp motor (?)
3 1/4 inch pulley

The furnace is about 22" wide, 28" deep, and about 4.5 ft high. AC
coils mounted in plenum above the furnace.

I changed the pulley to 4" a few years ago to get more airflow (higher
fan RPM). Interesting that it says it's supposed to have 1/4 hp motor.
The higher altitude spec says 1/3 hp, and higher static pressure (.75 vs
..2 inches WC). I am at a lower altitude (850 ft above sea level).

We've had a few nights now where the over-night temp has gone down to
10F, daytime high 15F, and my furnace is still cycling (not 100% duty
cycle). I have the thermostat set for 71F (electronic thermostat, not
mechanical, 2 degrees hysteresis). I haven't started my humidifier (I
don't always run it in the winter). Current indoor humidity is 20%.
Today's low and high temp is 13F / 22F.

Bottom line is that it's amazing how much you can turn down the burners
and still keep the house at the desired temperature, even given these
low outside temps.

But the problem here aside from the obvious practical problems of
doing it, is that you can't undo it on the fly.

?

Turning the control knob on the regulator is pretty-much on the fly. If
you mean that my thermostat can't do it, well I don't think that's
necessary. For the next 3 months I'm looking at a pretty constant
outdoor climate in terms of temperature, so constant regulation of the
furnace burner output is not necessary.

If you can turn the burners down so that it fires at 70% for
greater efficiency, then one of two things must exist:

1 - The furnace will now be unable to heat the house to normal
temp on the coldest days

2 - The furnace was oversized all those years and you now have
downsized it permanently.

I don't know what's normal for a 2000 sq foot (including basement)
2-story house, brick sided first floor, aluminum sided second story (no
insulation under the siding) in terms of furnace BTU. My climate zone
is basically Detroit / Cleveland / Buffalo / Toronto.

I think that the HVAC industry was probably targeting a 25% furnace duty
cycle back in the mid-1970's, so a 120k BTU furnace was spec'd back then
for a house like this.

Those modern two stage or variable burner furnaces can change the
firing % on the fly.

I really don't think that a fully controllable / variable burner is
necessary or is cost efficient for the average home. Two stage -
maybe. Two stage aftermarket electronic thermostats are insanely priced
compared to single stage. I bought a 2-stage programmable thermostat
for a leased office about 10 years ago (to replace a mechanical
thermostat) and I think it cost $300 at the time, compared to $50 - $70
for a single-stage "home" version.

Another thing strikes me here. You keep pointing out how you
can buy cheap HVAC online and you apparently believe you could
do installs yourself or pay someone on the cheap to do part of
it for you.

I would install it myself, because I belong to the school of "it's not
done right unless you do it yourself", and there's a lot of stuff I do
for myself (car restoration, welding, plumbing, wood-working, concrete
work, etc).

With the current incentives, ie Fed 30% credit, nat gas utility
credit, electric credit, state credit, I can get $3,000 off
the cost of a new system. That means doing it your way, you
could have a whole new high efficiency 95% furnace and AC
system for $1000.

A new furnace might cost me $1500 max to buy, a 30% rebate of that is
max $450.

It's not the money that would motivate me one way or another. What
would really cut my energy bills is putting a 2" layer foam-board
insulation around my second-story and getting new windows. I'll let
everyone else pay through the nose for new furnaces so that they will
use less natural gas resulting in a continued depression for natural gas
prices which will mean that people with inefficient furnaces will
continue to pay less anyways.

Don't you think that's a good value proposition, with a good
payback period?

I've got several other home-projects in mind for the next few years.
When I'm ready to alter my air-handling system to include the concepts
I've talked about here, that's when I'll take a good look at my furnace
and decide if I'll buy a new one (I probably will). But I'll still
install it myself, and if that means I'll have to buy it on the internet
because the local hvac dealers won't sell it to me unless they install
it, then so be it.

This clown is going to kill his whole family. Someone needs to turn him in before he does it through his own stupidity:


"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
wrote:

How much it changes, ie if you screw around with an old 75%
efficient furnace and turn the burners down, will it raise
the efficiency from 75 to 76, or 75 to 80, however is an
important part.

You are assuming it's substantial. I'm not so sure.

Based on where I've turned the regulator dial on my home furnace, and by
judging the resulting flame height, I think I'm easily running at about
1/2 the full-throttle fuel flow. My furnace is a lennox g8-120-1,
manufactured October 1976. Specs:

0 - 2500 ft altitude:
120,000 btu input
96,000 bonnet BTU
orifice size 39
temp rise 70 - 100
1/4 hp motor (?)
3 1/4 inch pulley

The furnace is about 22" wide, 28" deep, and about 4.5 ft high. AC
coils mounted in plenum above the furnace.

I changed the pulley to 4" a few years ago to get more airflow (higher
fan RPM). Interesting that it says it's supposed to have 1/4 hp motor.
The higher altitude spec says 1/3 hp, and higher static pressure (.75 vs
.2 inches WC). I am at a lower altitude (850 ft above sea level).

We've had a few nights now where the over-night temp has gone down to
10F, daytime high 15F, and my furnace is still cycling (not 100% duty
cycle). I have the thermostat set for 71F (electronic thermostat, not
mechanical, 2 degrees hysteresis). I haven't started my humidifier (I
don't always run it in the winter). Current indoor humidity is 20%.
Today's low and high temp is 13F / 22F.

Bottom line is that it's amazing how much you can turn down the burners
and still keep the house at the desired temperature, even given these
low outside temps.

But the problem here aside from the obvious practical problems of
doing it, is that you can't undo it on the fly.

?

Turning the control knob on the regulator is pretty-much on the fly. If
you mean that my thermostat can't do it, well I don't think that's
necessary. For the next 3 months I'm looking at a pretty constant
outdoor climate in terms of temperature, so constant regulation of the
furnace burner output is not necessary.

If you can turn the burners down so that it fires at 70% for
greater efficiency, then one of two things must exist:

1 - The furnace will now be unable to heat the house to normal
temp on the coldest days

2 - The furnace was oversized all those years and you now have
downsized it permanently.

I don't know what's normal for a 2000 sq foot (including basement)
2-story house, brick sided first floor, aluminum sided second story (no
insulation under the siding) in terms of furnace BTU. My climate zone
is basically Detroit / Cleveland / Buffalo / Toronto.

I think that the HVAC industry was probably targeting a 25% furnace duty
cycle back in the mid-1970's, so a 120k BTU furnace was spec'd back then
for a house like this.

Those modern two stage or variable burner furnaces can change the
firing % on the fly.

I really don't think that a fully controllable / variable burner is
necessary or is cost efficient for the average home. Two stage -
maybe. Two stage aftermarket electronic thermostats are insanely priced
compared to single stage. I bought a 2-stage programmable thermostat
for a leased office about 10 years ago (to replace a mechanical
thermostat) and I think it cost $300 at the time, compared to $50 - $70
for a single-stage "home" version.

Another thing strikes me here. You keep pointing out how you
can buy cheap HVAC online and you apparently believe you could
do installs yourself or pay someone on the cheap to do part of
it for you.

I would install it myself, because I belong to the school of "it's not
done right unless you do it yourself", and there's a lot of stuff I do
for myself (car restoration, welding, plumbing, wood-working, concrete
work, etc).

With the current incentives, ie Fed 30% credit, nat gas utility
credit, electric credit, state credit, I can get $3,000 off
the cost of a new system. That means doing it your way, you
could have a whole new high efficiency 95% furnace and AC
system for $1000.

A new furnace might cost me $1500 max to buy, a 30% rebate of that is
max $450.

It's not the money that would motivate me one way or another. What
would really cut my energy bills is putting a 2" layer foam-board
insulation around my second-story and getting new windows. I'll let
everyone else pay through the nose for new furnaces so that they will
use less natural gas resulting in a continued depression for natural gas
prices which will mean that people with inefficient furnaces will
continue to pay less anyways.

Don't you think that's a good value proposition, with a good
payback period?

I've got several other home-projects in mind for the next few years.
When I'm ready to alter my air-handling system to include the concepts
I've talked about here, that's when I'll take a good look at my furnace
and decide if I'll buy a new one (I probably will). But I'll still
install it myself, and if that means I'll have to buy it on the internet
because the local hvac dealers won't sell it to me unless they install
it, then so be it.

On Dec 16, 8:50*pm, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:
How much it changes, ie if you screw around with an old 75%
efficient furnace and turn the burners down, will it raise
the efficiency from 75 to 76, or 75 to 80, however is an
important part.
You are assuming it's substantial. *I'm not so sure.

Based on where I've turned the regulator dial on my home furnace, and by
judging the resulting flame height, I think I'm easily running at about
1/2 the full-throttle fuel flow. *My furnace is a lennox g8-120-1,
manufactured October 1976. *Specs:

0 - 2500 ft altitude:
120,000 btu input
96,000 bonnet BTU
orifice size 39
temp rise 70 - 100
1/4 hp motor (?)
3 1/4 inch pulley

The furnace is about 22" wide, 28" deep, and about 4.5 ft high. *AC
coils mounted in plenum above the furnace.

I changed the pulley to 4" a few years ago to get more airflow (higher
fan RPM). *Interesting that it says it's supposed to have 1/4 hp motor.
The higher altitude spec says 1/3 hp, and higher static pressure (.75 vs
.2 inches WC). *I am at a lower altitude (850 ft above sea level).

We've had a few nights now where the over-night temp has gone down to
10F, daytime high 15F, and my furnace is still cycling (not 100% duty
cycle). *I have the thermostat set for 71F (electronic thermostat, not
mechanical, 2 degrees hysteresis). *I haven't started my humidifier (I
don't always run it in the winter). * *Current indoor humidity is 20%..
Today's low and high temp is 13F / 22F.

Bottom line is that it's amazing how much you can turn down the burners
and still keep the house at the desired temperature, even given these
low outside temps.

Which unfortunately says nothing about whether the furnace is more
efficient
at the lower firing rate or by how much. However if you can fire it
at that
reduced rate and keep the house at the desired temp on the coldest
days
it does say the furnace was oversized to begin with.

Any differences in furnace efficiency in heating at full firing rate
versus 70% would be so
small that you'd have to have instrumentation to figure it out.
Note that HVAC
and manufacturing folks claims for two stage "efficiency" are really
based on:

less cycling of the furnace, so less heat loss when it shuts down,
etc

more even heat distribution, due to the blower running longer,
possibly
resulting in feeling more comfortable at a slightly lower tem.



But the problem here aside from the obvious practical problems of
doing it, is that you can't undo it on the fly.

?

Turning the control knob on the regulator is pretty-much on the fly. *If
you mean that my thermostat can't do it, well I don't think that's
necessary. *For the next 3 months I'm looking at a pretty constant
outdoor climate in terms of temperature, so constant regulation of the
furnace burner output is not necessary.


So, essentially you have it throttled back in Fall and Spring and on
full
during winter. That's part of what a two stage furnace would do.
Difference
is that with a two stage furnace and thermostat, if you're out of the
house
in Oct and set it back to 60, it will fire at the higher rate. Even
the 2 stage
without a 2 stage thermostat will start at low, then move to high
after an
adjustable period, eg 5-12mins.



If you can turn the burners down so that it fires at 70% for
greater efficiency, then one of two things must exist:

1 - The furnace will now be unable to heat the house to normal
temp on the coldest days

2 - The furnace was oversized all those years and you now have
downsized it permanently.

I don't know what's normal for a 2000 sq foot (including basement)
2-story house, brick sided first floor, aluminum sided second story (no
insulation under the siding) in terms of furnace BTU. *My climate zone
is basically Detroit / Cleveland / Buffalo / Toronto.

I think that the HVAC industry was probably targeting a 25% furnace duty
cycle back in the mid-1970's, so a 120k BTU furnace was spec'd back then
for a house like this.

25% cycles when? on the coldest days? From all you've said, sounds
like it's oversized.


Those modern two stage or variable burner furnaces can change the
firing % on the fly.

I really don't think that a fully controllable / variable burner is
necessary or is cost efficient for the average home. *Two stage -
maybe. *Two stage aftermarket electronic thermostats are insanely priced
compared to single stage. *I bought a 2-stage programmable thermostat
for a leased office about 10 years ago (to replace a mechanical
thermostat) and I think it cost $300 at the time, compared to $50 - $70
for a single-stage "home" version.

I can buy a top of the line Honeywell VisionPro 2 stage Tstat for
$100-125.
Or a cheaper prgrammable one for $60. The delta for getting two
stages
on a good thermostat is maybe $25




Another thing strikes me here. * You keep pointing out how you
can buy cheap HVAC online and you apparently believe you could
do installs yourself or pay someone on the cheap to do part of
it for you.

I would install it myself, because I belong to the school of "it's not
done right unless you do it yourself", and there's a lot of stuff I do
for myself (car restoration, welding, plumbing, wood-working, concrete
work, etc).

With the current incentives, ie Fed 30% credit, nat gas utility
credit, electric credit, state credit, I can get $3,000 off
the cost of a new system. * That means doing it your way, you
could have a whole new high efficiency 95% furnace and AC
system for $1000.

A new furnace might cost me $1500 max to buy, a 30% rebate of that is
max $450.

Are there no gas company or state rebates/credits available? Here in
NJ
there are and they would chop another $600 off that price. From what
I've seen posted here, there frequently are similar credits available
in
other states. That could make the cost of that new furnace $450.





It's not the money that would motivate me one way or another. *What
would really cut my energy bills is putting a 2" layer foam-board
insulation around my second-story and getting new windows. *I'll let
everyone else pay through the nose for new furnaces so that they will
use less natural gas resulting in a continued depression for natural gas
prices which will mean that people with inefficient furnaces will
continue to pay less anyways.

Hard to see how you would not recover the cost in a reasonable time of
getting a furnace that is:

A - Sized correctly
B - 95% efficient compared to your current whatever, say 75%

Using your own numbers, ie $1500 cost, Fed Tax credit, no other
rebates,
it's $1050. IF you only cut your fuel costs by $200 a year, that's a
fast
payback. With any other rebates/credits it could be down to a few
years.



Don't you think that's a good value proposition, with a good
payback period?

I've got several other home-projects in mind for the next few years.
When I'm ready to alter my air-handling system to include the concepts
I've talked about here, that's when I'll take a good look at my furnace
and decide if I'll buy a new one (I probably will). *But I'll still
install it myself, and if that means I'll have to buy it on the internet
because the local hvac dealers won't sell it to me unless they install
it, then so be it.

wrote:

Bottom line is that it's amazing how much you can turn down the
burners and still keep the house at the desired temperature, even
given these low outside temps.

Which unfortunately says nothing about whether the furnace is more
efficient at the lower firing rate or by how much.

Given a lower BTU output and a slower flame speed (slower combustion air
induction speed) I am promoting more heat residency time inside the heat
exchanger galley and a lower flue stack temperature. My blower fan is
pushing the same CFM through the exchanger, so when taken together my
heat extraction efficiency is going up. By how much, I don't know.

However if you can fire it at that reduced rate and keep the house
at the desired temp on the coldest days it does say the furnace was
oversized to begin with.

Isin't it common knowledge that oversized furnaces were normal a few
decades ago?

For the next 3 months I'm looking at a pretty constant outdoor
climate in terms of temperature, so constant regulation of the
furnace burner output is not necessary.

So, essentially you have it throttled back in Fall and Spring and
on full during winter.

Actually, it's throttled back right now, to at least half of full flow.
That's my point - even given my current outdoor climate (10 to 15f min
and 20 to 25f max outdoor temp) I'm getting enough BTU's to keep the
house at 71 - 72F all day and all night. And even then, my furnace is
not running at 100% duty cycle. Maybe only 65 - 75%.

To be honest, the burner setting I have now is the lowest that gives me
a consistent and even flame pattern and acceptible ignition roll-out.

Fall and spring don't last long enough to warrant their own lower
burner-output setting, which as I just mentioned I probably couldn't
achieve anyways.

25% cycles when? on the coldest days?

Yup.

From all you've said, sounds like it's oversized.

Tell me what a 120,000 BTU input, 96,000 btu bonnet furnace is designed
for. What size house.

Tell me where such a furnace ranks today in terms of size (small,
medium, large, extra-large, etc).

A new furnace might cost me $1500 max to buy, a 30% rebate of
that is max $450.

Are there no gas company or state rebates/credits available? Here
in NJ there are and they would chop another $600 off that price.
From what I've seen posted here, there frequently are similar
credits available in other states. That could make the cost
of that new furnace $450.

First thing, I'm in Ontario (Canada).

Second thing, in order to get gov't rebates, you need to contract for a
home efficienty test by an acredited tester who will evaluate your
current situation (air leakage, current furnace type and efficiency,
maybe a few other things) and he will do it again when your new furnace
is installed, and then he signs off on the tests and then the gov't will
send you money. I don't know if it's "federal" or "state" money (or
both). I also don't know if the local gas utility will kick in any of
their own money.

One of my co-workers had this done, so I'll ask him how much of a
kick-back he's supposed to get.

You've also got to factor in rebates for the heating vs the cooling
components as well. I wouldn't be interested in replacing my A/C
system.

On Dec 17, 8:57*am, Home Guy wrote:
wrote:
Bottom line is that it's amazing how much you can turn down the
burners and still keep the house at the desired temperature, even
given these low outside temps.

Which unfortunately says nothing about whether the furnace is more
efficient at the lower firing rate or by how much. *

Given a lower BTU output and a slower flame speed (slower combustion air
induction speed) I am promoting more heat residency time inside the heat
exchanger galley and a lower flue stack temperature. *My blower fan is
pushing the same CFM through the exchanger, so when taken together my
heat extraction efficiency is going up. *By how much, I don't know.

However if you can fire it at that reduced rate and keep the house
at the desired temp on the coldest days it does say the furnace was
oversized to begin with.

Isin't it common knowledge that oversized furnaces were normal a few
decades ago?

For the next 3 months I'm looking at a pretty constant outdoor
climate in terms of temperature, so constant regulation of the
furnace burner output is not necessary.

So, essentially you have it throttled back in Fall and Spring and
on full during winter.

Actually, it's throttled back right now, to at least half of full flow.
That's my point - even given my current outdoor climate (10 to 15f min
and 20 to 25f max outdoor temp) I'm getting enough BTU's to keep the
house at 71 - 72F all day and all night. *And even then, my furnace is
not running at 100% duty cycle. *Maybe only 65 - 75%.

To be honest, the burner setting I have now is the lowest that gives me
a consistent and even flame pattern and acceptible ignition roll-out. *

Fall and spring don't last long enough to warrant their own lower
burner-output setting, which as I just mentioned I probably couldn't
achieve anyways.

25% cycles when? *on the coldest days?

Yup.

From all you've said, sounds like it's oversized.

Tell me what a 120,000 BTU input, 96,000 btu bonnet furnace is designed
for. *What size house.

One of the experts here would probably be better at guessing that
number. But
that's all it would be without doing a proper load calculation. It
depends on a lot
more than just size, ie how well the house is insulated, number of
windows, location, etc.
However, none of the contractors have actually done that. The most
one of them did
was to measure the house sq ft. I'm not too concerned with that,
because I have the
experience with the current furnace, which IMO is an even better
starting point.

I can tell you that for my house here in coastal NJ, near NYC, I'm
getting quotes of
either 100K or 120K input, 95% efficiency, depending on the
contractor. My own
opinion, based on experience with the current furnace, is that 100K is
the right size.
For example, it's 18F outside and this morning, when recovering from
overnight
setback from 60 back to 70, it's going up about 5.5F per hour. Also
in 16 years,
even on the coldest days, it never is close to running all the time.
Current is 150K,
26 years old, so guessing it's maybe 77% efficient at this point, when
new it was
probably 80%.






Tell me where such a furnace ranks today in terms of size (small,
medium, large, extra-large, etc).

The gas furnaces I've looked at from various manufacturers product
lines
all top out at 105K to 120K, at least in the 95% efficiency series.
Don't
know about the 80%, etc. Two reasons for that. First, is obviously
with
higher eff, you get more heat out. Second is today for a house the
size
of mine they would put in two smaller HVAC system, one up, one down,
which does a better job, allows more flexibility, etc.





A new furnace might cost me $1500 max to buy, a 30% rebate of
that is max $450.

Are there no gas company or state rebates/credits available? Here
in NJ there are and they would chop another $600 off that price.
From what I've seen posted here, there frequently are similar
credits available in other states. *That could make the cost
of that new furnace $450.

First thing, I'm in Ontario (Canada).

Second thing, in order to get gov't rebates, you need to contract for a
home efficienty test by an acredited tester who will evaluate your
current situation (air leakage, current furnace type and efficiency,
maybe a few other things) and he will do it again when your new furnace
is installed, and then he signs off on the tests and then the gov't will
send you money. *I don't know if it's "federal" or "state" money (or
both). *I also don't know if the local gas utility will kick in any of
their own money.

Part of the rebate here, $900 from the state, requires a home eff test
too,
but it's free.



One of my co-workers had this done, so I'll ask him how much of a
kick-back he's supposed to get.

You've also got to factor in rebates for the heating vs the cooling
components as well. *I wouldn't be interested in replacing my A/C
system.

Yes, you may get them for one part, but not the other, or both,
depending on
what rebates are available and the particular system. One problem I
was
not aware of is that on large AC, ie 5 tons, it's apparently harder to
make
them high eff, with 14.5 SEER or similar being more typical, which can
make
that part harder to qualify for. Also, I think here in NJ, we
probably have some
of the best rebates. As I said, I can get $1200 rebated locally and
another
30% Fed tax credit. For me, that makes it a very good deal.

Rebate: When a company over charges you, and then gives you part of
your money back. See also "Tax Refund".

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


wrote in message
...

Also, I think here in NJ, we
probably have some
of the best rebates. As I said, I can get $1200 rebated locally and
another
30% Fed tax credit. For me, that makes it a very good deal.

How are the two related? I can't see it.

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


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:35:13 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Rebate: When a company over charges you, and then gives you part of
your money back. See also "Tax Refund".

You would refuse your neighbors help in paying for the job?

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:42:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

How are the two related? I can't see it.

There is a difference between a tax refund and a tax deduction or credit. The
latter is money paid to you by your neighbors.

I can't see that. Suppose I get a tax deduction. That
means I pay less tax. A tax credit, may be similar.
As I understand, that means that my tax bite just
got lowered. So, how does that mean that my
neighbors pay me money? If I get a deduction for
depreciation of tools for example, how much does
the guy next door give me? I usually file single, and
take the standard deduction. I've never had any of
my neighbors pay me money.

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


wrote in message
...


There is a difference between a tax refund and a tax
deduction or credit. The latter is money paid to you
by your neighbors.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:24:22 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I can't see that. Suppose I get a tax deduction. That
means I pay less tax.

You pay less tax, everyone else pays more.

Nope. There is no self-compensating mechanism in the tax law. One dollar
taken out here doesn't mean another dollar is automatically taken from
over there. You might have a (technical) point on the deficit except
spending in the last 50 years has bore no relationship that I can see to
revenue.


A tax credit, may be similar.
As I understand, that means that my tax bite just
got lowered. So, how does that mean that my
neighbors pay me money?

Certainly. They're paying part of your tax bill.

Nope, see above.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

I can't see that. Suppose I get a tax deduction. That
means I pay less tax.

You pay less tax, everyone else pays more.

Find me the part of the tax code that is even remotely self
compensating for these kinds of things. If it was true, we would only be
in about the pickle we are today. There remains no mechanism where a
dollar saved here is replaced by a dollar from someone else.


CY: If the government spending remains constant, they would
pay a higher percentage of the government take.
And if my aunt had balls she's be my uncle. Who can possibly enter
government spending remaining constant into this conversation and expect
to keep any credibility?




--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:46:56 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:24:22 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I can't see that. Suppose I get a tax deduction. That
means I pay less tax.

You pay less tax, everyone else pays more.

Nope. There is no self-compensating mechanism in the tax law. One dollar
taken out here doesn't mean another dollar is automatically taken from
over there. You might have a (technical) point on the deficit except
spending in the last 50 years has bore no relationship that I can see to
revenue.

Certainly it does, whether the additional tax is paid this year or by our
(grand)children. Expendatures certainly don't go down because a tax credit
was given! Whether they be rebates for "efficient" cars, air conditioners, or
"green energy", that is money taken from the taxpayers at large and given to
an individual.

A tax credit, may be similar.
As I understand, that means that my tax bite just
got lowered. So, how does that mean that my
neighbors pay me money?

Certainly. They're paying part of your tax bill.

Nope, see above.

Yep, see above.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:03:05 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


Your posts are impossible to follow.

Sorry.

In article ,
" wrote:


Certainly it does, whether the additional tax is paid this year or by our
(grand)children. Expendatures certainly don't go down because a tax credit
was given! Whether they be rebates for "efficient" cars, air conditioners, or
"green energy", that is money taken from the taxpayers at large and given to
an individual.



Expenditures have always been independent of revenue. Again, there is no
self-compensating mechanism here. Heck they don't pretend to "pay
for things any more. A tax benefit to one person has no direct impact
on tax increases for another. It makes the deficit go up, in many
cases, but again, there is no discernable relationship between taxes and
what is being spent (oh, only that were true)

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
" wrote:

Certainly it does, whether the additional tax is paid this year or by our
(grand)children. Expendatures certainly don't go down because a tax credit
was given! Whether they be rebates for "efficient" cars, air conditioners, or
"green energy", that is money taken from the taxpayers at large and given to
an individual.
Nor do they go up if it isn't. To do this, is an underlying assumption
that a certain amount of your income is the property of the government
and if any is given to you it must be taken from someone else. The only
thing that you owe the government is what the tax laws (including
credits, etc) require you to pay. Expenditures are not (even with the
conceit of "paying" for things, related to revenues and thus taxes.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:57:21 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Certainly it does, whether the additional tax is paid this year or by our
(grand)children. Expendatures certainly don't go down because a tax credit
was given! Whether they be rebates for "efficient" cars, air conditioners, or
"green energy", that is money taken from the taxpayers at large and given to
an individual.



Expenditures have always been independent of revenue. Again, there is no
self-compensating mechanism here.

Right, so if money is transferred from the whole to an individual, that money
is *BY*DEFINITION* increasing the taxes on the whole.

Heck they don't pretend to "pay
for things any more. A tax benefit to one person has no direct impact
on tax increases for another. It makes the deficit go up, in many
cases, but again, there is no discernable relationship between taxes and
what is being spent (oh, only that were true)

Therefor, any "rebates" paid to you *ARE* being paid for by your neighbors,
either now or later. It really is that simple.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 12:00:47 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Certainly it does, whether the additional tax is paid this year or by our
(grand)children. Expendatures certainly don't go down because a tax credit
was given! Whether they be rebates for "efficient" cars, air conditioners, or
"green energy", that is money taken from the taxpayers at large and given to
an individual.
Nor do they go up if it isn't. To do this, is an underlying assumption
that a certain amount of your income is the property of the government
and if any is given to you it must be taken from someone else.

Wrong. Your assumption is that money if free. All the government has to do
is print it.

The only
thing that you owe the government is what the tax laws (including
credits, etc) require you to pay. Expenditures are not (even with the
conceit of "paying" for things, related to revenues and thus taxes.

There is a difference between normal deductions and things like energy
credits. Energy credits are a manipulation, by the government, in the free
market by transferring money from the treasury to an individual. They really
do matter.

That's cause I'm a Nazi.

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


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 08:03:05 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


Your posts are impossible to follow.

Sorry.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:24:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's cause I'm a Nazi.

Just don't come knocking at my door!

Stormin Mormon wrote:
That's cause I'm a Nazi.

I call a Godwin.

We never knock.

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


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:24:11 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's cause I'm a Nazi.

Just don't come knocking at my door!

Bada, boom! Thanks for picking up on my straight line.

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


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
That's cause I'm a Nazi.

I call a Godwin.

In article ,
" wrote:


Expenditures have always been independent of revenue. Again, there is no
self-compensating mechanism here.

Right, so if money is transferred from the whole to an individual, that money
is *BY*DEFINITION* increasing the taxes on the whole.

By yours, but not mine. We'll just have to leave it at that.



--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
" wrote:

Wrong. Your assumption is that money if free. All the government has to do
is print it.

My assumption was that you were talking about paying more taxes,
which as I mentioned doesn't happen. Now, you are talking inflation
which is a whole 'nother kettle of wax.


The only
thing that you owe the government is what the tax laws (including
credits, etc) require you to pay. Expenditures are not (even with the
conceit of "paying" for things, related to revenues and thus taxes.

There is a difference between normal deductions and things like energy
credits. Energy credits are a manipulation, by the government, in the free
market by transferring money from the treasury to an individual. They really
do matter.

Nonsense. Deductions are manupulation, too. Look at the mortgage
deduction for instance.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Expenditures have always been independent of revenue. Again, there is no
self-compensating mechanism here.

Right, so if money is transferred from the whole to an individual, that money
is *BY*DEFINITION* increasing the taxes on the whole.

By yours, but not mine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

Funny, you never sounded like a Democrat before.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:32:42 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Wrong. Your assumption is that money if free. All the government has to do
is print it.

My assumption was that you were talking about paying more taxes,
which as I mentioned doesn't happen. Now, you are talking inflation
which is a whole 'nother kettle of wax.

A tax is a tax, whether it's paid today or tomorrow.

The only
thing that you owe the government is what the tax laws (including
credits, etc) require you to pay. Expenditures are not (even with the
conceit of "paying" for things, related to revenues and thus taxes.

There is a difference between normal deductions and things like energy
credits. Energy credits are a manipulation, by the government, in the free
market by transferring money from the treasury to an individual. They really
do matter.

Nonsense. Deductions are manupulation, too. Look at the mortgage
deduction for instance.

That depends on the deduction, obviously. The mortgage deduction is similar,
yes.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:32:42 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Wrong. Your assumption is that money if free. All the government has to
do
is print it.

My assumption was that you were talking about paying more taxes,
which as I mentioned doesn't happen. Now, you are talking inflation
which is a whole 'nother kettle of wax.

A tax is a tax, whether it's paid today or tomorrow.

Nah a tax is a tax when it is a tax. Not when it is inflation, which
can and have happened in high(er) tax environments too. All taxes have
to come from Congress, inflation comes from the actions of the Fed
(among others), and the reactions of the economy.


There is a difference between normal deductions and things like energy
credits. Energy credits are a manipulation, by the government, in the
free
market by transferring money from the treasury to an individual. They
really
do matter.

Nonsense. Deductions are manupulation, too. Look at the mortgage
deduction for instance.

That depends on the deduction, obviously. The mortgage deduction is similar,
yes.

Find one that isn't a manipulation of some sort. Heck, the deduction
by the employer of the healthcare insurance is the number 1 cause that
we are in the current trouble there. Even the deduction for some some
state taxes is to manipulate the tax code. THere is no earthly reason
for the Feds to give deductions for state taxes. I'd have to spend more
time than it is worth to look it up, but at least according to an
accountant who was also a lawyer, the only true deduction might be that
for municipal bond interest, if you buy his reading of the
constitutional requirment.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


Expenditures have always been independent of revenue. Again, there is no
self-compensating mechanism here.

Right, so if money is transferred from the whole to an individual, that
money
is *BY*DEFINITION* increasing the taxes on the whole.

By yours, but not mine. We'll just have to leave it at that.

Funny, you never sounded like a Democrat before.

Geez disagree with you once and you start hurling the personal attacks
(grin).

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:24:22 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:

I can't see that. Suppose I get a tax deduction. That
means I pay less tax. A tax credit, may be similar.
As I understand, that means that my tax bite just
got lowered. So, how does that mean that my
neighbors pay me money? If I get a deduction for
depreciation of tools for example, how much does
the guy next door give me? I usually file single, and
take the standard deduction. I've never had any of
my neighbors pay me money.

A deduction is a reduction in income. A nonrefundable credit is a reduction
of tax owed up to the amount on line 44 on Form 1040 (Child Tax Credit).
These are on lines 47 to 53 on Fomr 1040. Refundable tax credits are the
ones your neighbor pays you, such as the Making Work Pay, the EIC, the
Advanced Child Tax Credit. These are the line 61 through line 70 credits.

"Clear as mothers milk"
-- Lt. Col. Henry Blake.

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


"Michael Dobony" wrote in
message ...

A deduction is a reduction in income. A nonrefundable credit
is a reduction
of tax owed up to the amount on line 44 on Form 1040 (Child
Tax Credit).
These are on lines 47 to 53 on Fomr 1040. Refundable tax
credits are the
ones your neighbor pays you, such as the Making Work Pay,
the EIC, the
Advanced Child Tax Credit. These are the line 61 through
line 70 credits.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 06:30:57 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:32:42 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

Wrong. Your assumption is that money if free. All the government has to
do
is print it.

My assumption was that you were talking about paying more taxes,
which as I mentioned doesn't happen. Now, you are talking inflation
which is a whole 'nother kettle of wax.

A tax is a tax, whether it's paid today or tomorrow.

Nah a tax is a tax when it is a tax. Not when it is inflation, which
can and have happened in high(er) tax environments too. All taxes have
to come from Congress, inflation comes from the actions of the Fed
(among others), and the reactions of the economy.

Inflation is a side issue. The loan still has to be repaid, some day.
....maybe.

There is a difference between normal deductions and things like energy
credits. Energy credits are a manipulation, by the government, in the
free
market by transferring money from the treasury to an individual. They
really
do matter.

Nonsense. Deductions are manupulation, too. Look at the mortgage
deduction for instance.

That depends on the deduction, obviously. The mortgage deduction is similar,
yes.

Find one that isn't a manipulation of some sort.

"Manipulation"? The entire tax code is a manipulation. That's got nothing to
do with it. The personal exemption is one that's not at all similar. Everyone
(who pays taxes) gets it.

Heck, the deduction
by the employer of the healthcare insurance is the number 1 cause that
we are in the current trouble there. Even the deduction for some some
state taxes is to manipulate the tax code.

Neither of those are direct transfers from the treasury to individuals.

THere is no earthly reason
for the Feds to give deductions for state taxes. I'd have to spend more
time than it is worth to look it up, but at least according to an
accountant who was also a lawyer, the only true deduction might be that
for municipal bond interest, if you buy his reading of the
constitutional requirment.

What does that have to do with the price of oats in China?