On Jan 31, 5:46*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 31, 1:54*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:10:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:27*pm, wrote:
.
Supposedly is the key word here. * According to whom, exactly is an
80% efficiency furnace suddenly 85% efficient, depending on how
it's installed or used?

First of all, it is NOT an 80% efficient furnace. It is an 80+%
efficiency furnace, and test documents the dealer had showed it to be
approxemately 85% efficient when running in the mode mine is running
in (timed low burn) with the specified temp rize across the heat
exchanger etc. Since the company that installed it 8? years ago is no
longer in business I cannot ask for copies of that documentation.
It included all kinds of stack temperature and stack airflow
measurements as well as gas-flow measurements.

It's an 80%+ furnace, just like the 90, 93, or 95 furnaces are 90+,
93+
95+. * Meaning that they are all capable of a wee bit more. * But it
doesn't mean your 80%+ is anywhere near the efficiency of a 95.

I'd also be VERY skeptical of the "dealers" reading of spec sheets
and associated claims.
I can show you plenty of threads where "dealers" are making all
kinds of stupid claims. * I was looking at one the other day where
a guy with 31 years of experience in HVAC was endorsing direct
vent furnaces because using colder outside air results in a lower
flue gas temperature, resulting in higher efficiency..... * WTF?
That's completely wrong and defies not only physics, but common
sense.

I was not dealing with an "idiot" dealer.

Since he believes that a two stage furnaces becomes 5% more efficient
when running at the lower firing stage, I'd say that he could meet
that qualification.

He didn't say that, and nor did I. I said it is an 80+ % efficient
furnace, which he stated is likely running closer to 85% than 80%

Let me refresh your memory. Here's exactly what you said:

" And the 80+% efficient furnace is supposedly running about 85% as
installed -"

And you said the dealer said this:

" It is an 80+% efficiency furnace, and test documents the dealer had
showed it to be
approxemately 85% efficient when running in the mode mine is running
in (timed low burn) with the specified temp rize across the heat
exchanger etc."

So forgive those of us who are totally confused at this point. Is
that furnace
that the manufacurer spec'd at 80% really running at:

A - around 85%

B- closer to 85% than 80%, ie at least 82.6%

C - closer to 80%, which is what the Berkley study I cited shows?



By your own words, it cannot be an 80% efficient furnace because you
said one of the differences between an 80% and a 90% or higher furnace
is the presence of a draft inducer blower - WHICH THIS FURNACE HAS.

I made the mistake of assuming that 80% furnaces don't have a draft
inducer.
I'm wrong on that point. I just looked at one online and it has one
too. But
that detail is a distraction, because it only makes your apparent
advocacy
of an 80% two stage furnace more difficult to defend. The only
difference
left between that furnace and a 93% or 95% furnace today is the latter
has
an additional heat exchanger and costs about $250 more. The cost
differential easily recovered by the 16% reduction in fuel costs.
Even if
your fuel bill is only $500 a year, you'd recover it in 3 years and
then be
ahead. And that is without rebates from govt, utilities, etc. For
many
people, that makes the 95% furnace less expensive from day one. You
can't get a rebate that I know of from anyone for an 80% furnace.

Yeah, I know, that extra heat exchanger could fail, but since they are
covered
under long warranties, like 25 years, seems like a reasonable risk to
me.
You have yet to answer that simple question, which goes to the core of
the
issue:


Say we have a guy with a 2,000 sqft home, living in say Ohio. Would
you
say he should buy an 80% furnace today, or a 95% furnace?



*Did you read the Berkely study? *Can you show me
any study, data sheet, etc that says a two stage furnace, produces 5%
more heat from the same amount of gas as a single stage? * If it is
so,
why don't the manufacturers put it in the specs of the furnace?
Example: * Model XGQ090 *90,000 BTUS, 95% efficient using *first
stage,
90% using second stage. * Would be a hell of a selling feature, no?

There is a small but measurable difference in OVERALL efficiency with
a furnace that runs longer at a time, therefore having fewer purge
cycles and fewer warm-up/cool-down cycles than a "larger" furnace.

I believe the EPA test methodology includes that. And oddly, the
Berkely
study came to the conclusion that two stage furnaces actually benefit
from the current test methods, which they said do not accurately
reflect
actual two stage operation. The new proposed test method, which
Berkley believes more accurately represents two stage operation
shows no efficiency advantage to two stage. None...




The rating of the furnace at 80+% means the furnace will excede 80%
efficiency in any approved installation. High fire, Low fire, timed,
or dual stage thermostat. If it will excede 80% (say for arguement
81%) in a marginal installation, where it is significantly if not
grossly oversised and run on high fire only, it should/will excede 83%
if properly sized to the house/heat load.(on high fire or low fire).
And I don't care what kind of math you use, 83% is closer to 85% than
it is to 80%



Lets' assume the above is true, and the two stage furnace is 83%
efficient in some installations, Then using the same exact
arguments,
the 95% furnace has a slightly higher potential output too. So
what?
83% is still a long way from say 97% and the latter will save about
16% on fuel

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:09:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 31, 5:46Â*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 31, 1:54Â*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:10:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:27Â*pm, wrote:
.
Supposedly is the key word here. Â* According to whom, exactly is an
80% efficiency furnace suddenly 85% efficient, depending on how
it's installed or used?

First of all, it is NOT an 80% efficient furnace. It is an 80+%
efficiency furnace, and test documents the dealer had showed it to be
approxemately 85% efficient when running in the mode mine is running
in (timed low burn) with the specified temp rize across the heat
exchanger etc. Since the company that installed it 8? years ago is no
longer in business I cannot ask for copies of that documentation.
It included all kinds of stack temperature and stack airflow
measurements as well as gas-flow measurements.

It's an 80%+ furnace, just like the 90, 93, or 95 furnaces are 90+,
93+
95+. Â* Meaning that they are all capable of a wee bit more. Â* But it
doesn't mean your 80%+ is anywhere near the efficiency of a 95.

I'd also be VERY skeptical of the "dealers" reading of spec sheets
and associated claims.
I can show you plenty of threads where "dealers" are making all
kinds of stupid claims. Â* I was looking at one the other day where
a guy with 31 years of experience in HVAC was endorsing direct
vent furnaces because using colder outside air results in a lower
flue gas temperature, resulting in higher efficiency..... Â* WTF?
That's completely wrong and defies not only physics, but common
sense.

I was not dealing with an "idiot" dealer.

Since he believes that a two stage furnaces becomes 5% more efficient
when running at the lower firing stage, I'd say that he could meet
that qualification.

He didn't say that, and nor did I. I said it is an 80+ % efficient
furnace, which he stated is likely running closer to 85% than 80%

Let me refresh your memory. Here's exactly what you said:

" And the 80+% efficient furnace is supposedly running about 85% as
installed -"

And you said the dealer said this:

" It is an 80+% efficiency furnace, and test documents the dealer had
showed it to be
approxemately 85% efficient when running in the mode mine is running
in (timed low burn) with the specified temp rize across the heat
exchanger etc."

So forgive those of us who are totally confused at this point. Is
that furnace
that the manufacurer spec'd at 80% really running at:


You REALLY CAN"T READ, can you???
It is an 80+% efficient furnace as advertized by the manufacturer.
That means it is somewhere between, say, 80.5% and 100% efficient.
A - around 85%

B- closer to 85% than 80%, ie at least 82.6%

C - closer to 80%, which is what the Berkley study I cited shows?



By your own words, it cannot be an 80% efficient furnace because you
said one of the differences between an 80% and a 90% or higher furnace
is the presence of a draft inducer blower - WHICH THIS FURNACE HAS.

I made the mistake of assuming that 80% furnaces don't have a draft
inducer.
I'm wrong on that point.


Gee, you were wrong??
What a revelation!!!

I just looked at one online and it has one
too. But
that detail is a distraction, because it only makes your apparent
advocacy
of an 80% two stage furnace more difficult to defend. The only
difference
left between that furnace and a 93% or 95% furnace today is the latter
has
an additional heat exchanger and costs about $250 more. The cost
differential easily recovered by the 16% reduction in fuel costs.
Even if
your fuel bill is only $500 a year, you'd recover it in 3 years and
then be
ahead. And that is without rebates from govt, utilities, etc. For
many
people, that makes the 95% furnace less expensive from day one. You
can't get a rebate that I know of from anyone for an 80% furnace.

Yeah, I know, that extra heat exchanger could fail, but since they are
covered
under long warranties, like 25 years, seems like a reasonable risk to
me.

You ever try to get one replaced under warrantee???????
I know quite a few people who just gave up and paid to replace the
furnace. My brother was lucky enough the dealer who sold him the first
one (5 years earlier) was ****ed off enough about the failure rate and
the warrantee hassles he just gave him a new furnace from a different
manufacturer at cost
You have yet to answer that simple question, which goes to the core of
the
issue:


Say we have a guy with a 2,000 sqft home, living in say Ohio. Would
you
say he should buy an 80% furnace today, or a 95% furnace?

IF he can buy the right sized 95% or better efficient furnace from a
reputable manufacturer and he gets a good rebate from the government
for putting it in, he should definitely put it in. But I'd STILL
reccommend the DC fan and dual stage, because that is what we started
talking about in the first place. The whole 80% or 85% efficiency was
just "noise" which YOU latched onto.

I said I recommended the 2 stage burner, then said what I had and what
my experience was, and why I bought what I bought.

YOU said the 2 stage was not a good idea. YOU said the DC fan was not
a good idea, and then you said the 80% was not a good idea.

Well hear's a news flash for you.
I totally dissagree on your first 2 points.
On the third, it's almost a moot point now in many areas anyway,
because anything less than about 93% does not qualify for the grants
any more.
The new condensing heat exchangers are hopefully better than the old
ones, so I'd say go for it -
BUT - NO WAY would I install a condensing high efficiency furnace with
a conventional AC blower motor, and not very likely in that instance
anything other than a 2 stage furnace (because he doesn't need a
75000BTU furnace - and if he does he should be investing in new
windows, insulation, and other weather-sealing of his chicken-coop.)



Â*Did you read the Berkely study? Â*Can you show me
any study, data sheet, etc that says a two stage furnace, produces 5%
more heat from the same amount of gas as a single stage? Â* If it is
so,
why don't the manufacturers put it in the specs of the furnace?
Example: Â* Model XGQ090 Â*90,000 BTUS, 95% efficient using Â*first
stage,
90% using second stage. Â* Would be a hell of a selling feature, no?

There is a small but measurable difference in OVERALL efficiency with
a furnace that runs longer at a time, therefore having fewer purge
cycles and fewer warm-up/cool-down cycles than a "larger" furnace.

I believe the EPA test methodology includes that. And oddly, the
Berkely
study came to the conclusion that two stage furnaces actually benefit
from the current test methods, which they said do not accurately
reflect
actual two stage operation. The new proposed test method, which
Berkley believes more accurately represents two stage operation
shows no efficiency advantage to two stage. None...




The rating of the furnace at 80+% means the furnace will excede 80%
efficiency in any approved installation. High fire, Low fire, timed,
or dual stage thermostat. If it will excede 80% (say for arguement
81%) in a marginal installation, where it is significantly if not
grossly oversised and run on high fire only, it should/will excede 83%
if properly sized to the house/heat load.(on high fire or low fire).
And I don't care what kind of math you use, 83% is closer to 85% than
it is to 80%



Lets' assume the above is true, and the two stage furnace is 83%
efficient in some installations, Then using the same exact
arguments,
the 95% furnace has a slightly higher potential output too. So
what?
83% is still a long way from say 97% and the latter will save about
16% on fuel


You really can NOT read or comprehend, can you?????
IF the manufacturer is being truthfull in his specifications,( which
may be stretching credulity in the US today,) the 95% efficient
furnace is 95% efficient - on a good day when all the stars align just
right, and the 80+% efficient furnace is something marginally better
than 80% efficient under the same circumstances. Nothing says the 95%
furnace could ever excede 95%, or they would call it a 95+%, or a 97%
efficient furnace, while the manufacturer of the 80+% furnace is
saying it is a MINIMUM of 80% efficient - which means it could be any
amount better than that.
I'll believe about 83%. Which is still "closer to 85% than 80%" no
matter how you do your math.

So ENOUGH.

On Feb 1, 1:17*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:09:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:46*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 31, 1:54*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:10:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:27*pm, wrote:
.
Supposedly is the key word here. * According to whom, exactly is an
80% efficiency furnace suddenly 85% efficient, depending on how
it's installed or used?

First of all, it is NOT an 80% efficient furnace. It is an 80+%
efficiency furnace, and test documents the dealer had showed it to be
approxemately 85% efficient when running in the mode mine is running
in (timed low burn) with the specified temp rize across the heat
exchanger etc. Since the company that installed it 8? years ago is no
longer in business I cannot ask for copies of that documentation..
It included all kinds of stack temperature and stack airflow
measurements as well as gas-flow measurements.

It's an 80%+ furnace, just like the 90, 93, or 95 furnaces are 90+,
93+
95+. * Meaning that they are all capable of a wee bit more. * But it
doesn't mean your 80%+ is anywhere near the efficiency of a 95.

I'd also be VERY skeptical of the "dealers" reading of spec sheets
and associated claims.
I can show you plenty of threads where "dealers" are making all
kinds of stupid claims. * I was looking at one the other day where
a guy with 31 years of experience in HVAC was endorsing direct
vent furnaces because using colder outside air results in a lower
flue gas temperature, resulting in higher efficiency..... * WTF?
That's completely wrong and defies not only physics, but common
sense.

I was not dealing with an "idiot" dealer.

Since he believes that a two stage furnaces becomes 5% more efficient
when running at the lower firing stage, I'd say that he could meet
that qualification.

He didn't say that, and nor did I. I said it is an 80+ % efficient
furnace, which he stated is likely running closer to 85% than 80%

Let me refresh your memory. *Here's exactly what you said:

" And the 80+% efficient furnace is supposedly running about 85% as
installed -"

And you said the dealer said this:

" It is an 80+% efficiency furnace, and test documents the dealer had
showed it to be
approxemately 85% efficient when running in the mode mine is running
in (timed low burn) with the specified temp rize across the heat
exchanger etc."

So forgive those of us who are totally confused at this point. *Is
that furnace
that the manufacurer spec'd at 80% really running at:

You REALLY CAN"T READ, can you???

Of course I can read. You're the one that's having difficulty here
as evidenced by your inability to remember what you posted
two posts back. You claimed that your 80% furnacewas running
at 85%, then you backtracked and claimed that it's just running
at 80%+




It is an 80+% efficient furnace as advertized by the manufacturer.
That means it is somewhere between, say, 80.5% and 100% efficient.

A - around 85%

B- closer to 85% than 80%, ie at least 82.6%

C - closer to 80%, which is what the Berkley study I cited shows?

By your own words, it cannot be an 80% efficient furnace because you
said one of the differences between an 80% and a 90% or higher furnace
is the presence of a draft inducer blower - WHICH THIS FURNACE HAS.

I made the mistake of assuming that 80% furnaces don't have a draft
inducer.
I'm wrong on that point.

Gee, you were wrong??
What a revelation!!!



See, here's the difference. When I'm wrong on a factual point, I'll
admit
it and correct it. And as I pointed out, that factual point does
nothing
to support your argument. With both a new 80% and a 95% furnace
having a draft inducer, the only major remaining difference is the
95%
has the second heat exchanger and costs a couple hundred dollars
more.








I just looked at one online and it has one
too. *But
that detail is a distraction, because it only makes your apparent
advocacy
of an 80% two stage furnace more difficult to defend. *The only
difference
left between that furnace and a 93% or 95% furnace today is the latter
has
an additional heat exchanger and costs about $250 more. *The cost
differential easily recovered by the 16% reduction in fuel costs.
Even if
your fuel bill is only $500 a year, you'd recover it in 3 years and
then be
ahead. *And that is without rebates from govt, utilities, etc. * For
many
people, that makes the 95% furnace less expensive from day one. *You
can't get a rebate that I know of from anyone for an 80% furnace.

Yeah, I know, that extra heat exchanger could fail, but since they are
covered
under long warranties, like 25 years, seems like a reasonable risk to
me.

You ever try to get one replaced under warrantee???????

You ever try to get that ECM motor replaced under warranty?
Or the controller electronics? Or the draft inducer? Or any
other part of a modern furnace? The warranties on the above
are a lot less than the lifetime warranty you can get on heat
exchangers from most manufacturers.



I know quite a few people who just gave up and paid to replace the
furnace. My brother was lucky enough the dealer who sold him the first
one (5 years earlier) was ****ed off enough about the failure rate and
the warrantee hassles he just gave him a new furnace from a different
manufacturer at cost

You have yet to answer that simple question, which goes to the core of
the
issue:

Say we have a guy with a 2,000 sqft home, living in say Ohio. * Would
you
say he should buy an 80% furnace today, or a 95% furnace?

IF he can buy the right sized 95% or better efficient furnace from a
reputable manufacturer and he gets a good rebate from the government
for putting it in, he should definitely put it in. But I'd STILL
reccommend the DC fan and dual stage, because that is what we started
talking about in the first place. The whole 80% or 85% efficiency was
just "noise" which YOU latched onto.

We latched on to it because you took great offense at me suggesting
that
someone who buys a two stage furnace that is 80% efficent is a moron.
And I stand buy that for just about all people buying a furnace today
that live
in climates that are cold enough to use heating a significant portion
of the
time, ie heating bills of $500+ a year.

As for "if he can buy the right sized 95% furnace from a reputable
manufacturer, what's up with that? They are available from every
reputable manufacturer in sizes to fit most homes. Yes, you can find
the pathological exception, but is that what matters? I bet I can
find
a furnace with the same output that you have, but 95% efficient
instead
of 80%.



I said I recommended the 2 stage burner, then said what I had and what
my experience was, and why I bought what I bought.

YOU *said the 2 stage was not a good idea. YOU said the DC fan was not
a good idea, and then you said the 80% was not a good idea.

Now again, it's you who is confused. I never said 2 stage was not a
good
idea. I did say that it's not going to give you a 5% gain in
efficiency and
make an 80% furnace into an 85% furnace. That statement is supported
by the DOE testing that shows at best a 3% gain. And the Berkley
study
that shows a gain of zero.

I also didn't say the ECM blower was not a good idea. I said it's not
the
panacea that some make it out to be. I provided a study in another
thread
that showed that how much energy you save depends on a number of
factors. Those include HOW it's used and what the existing duct work
is like. If you choose to leave the blower running 24/7 and you have
good duct work, you save the most. If you have typical duct work,
and
don't run it 24/7 you
still save, but only 20% or so on electric. If you have poor duct
work,
you save little or possibly increase your electric usage. I would
take
ALL that into account before choosing what kind of blower to buy,
instead of just blindly buying into the great wonders of ECM.




Well hear's a news flash for you.
I totally dissagree on your first 2 points.
On the third, it's almost a moot point now in many areas anyway,
because anything less than about 93% does not qualify for the grants
any more.

Even without the incentives, it quickly pays for itself. As I keep
pointing out, the cost difference between an 80% two stage, ECM
furnace and an identical one that is 95% is a couple hundred bucks.
If you spend $1000 a year on heating costs, you've recovered that
increased upfront cost in less than 2 years. What else has such
a fast payback?



The new condensing heat exchangers are hopefully better than the old
ones, so I'd say go for it -

Geez, finally....





BUT - NO WAY would I install a condensing high efficiency furnace with
a conventional AC blower motor, and not very likely in that instance
anything other than a 2 stage furnace (because he doesn't need a
75000BTU furnace - and if he does he should be investing in new
windows, insulation, and other weather-sealing of his chicken-coop.)


If he needs less than 75000, there are furnaces rated at less, whether
single stage or two stage.




*Did you read the Berkely study? *Can you show me
any study, data sheet, etc that says a two stage furnace, produces 5%
more heat from the same amount of gas as a single stage? * If it is
so,
why don't the manufacturers put it in the specs of the furnace?
Example: * Model XGQ090 *90,000 BTUS, 95% efficient using *first
stage,
90% using second stage. * Would be a hell of a selling feature, no?

There is a small but measurable difference in OVERALL efficiency with
a furnace that runs longer at a time, therefore having fewer purge
cycles and fewer warm-up/cool-down cycles than a "larger" furnace.

I believe the EPA test methodology includes that. *And oddly, the
Berkely
study came to the conclusion that two stage furnaces actually benefit
from the current test methods, which they said do not accurately
reflect
actual two stage operation. * The new proposed test method, which
Berkley believes more accurately represents two stage operation
shows no efficiency advantage to two stage. *None...

The rating of the furnace at 80+% means the furnace will excede 80%
efficiency in any approved installation. High fire, Low fire, timed,
or dual stage thermostat. If it will excede 80% (say for arguement
81%) in a marginal installation, where it is significantly if not
grossly oversised and run on high fire only, it should/will excede 83%
if properly sized to the house/heat load.(on high fire or low fire).
And I don't care what kind of math you use, 83% is closer to 85% than
it is to 80%

Lets' assume the above is true, and the two stage furnace is 83%
efficient in some installations, * *Then using the same exact
arguments,
the 95% furnace has a slightly higher potential output too. * So
what?
*83% is still a long way from say 97% and the latter will save about
16% on fuel

You really can NOT read or comprehend, can you?????
IF the manufacturer is being truthfull in his specifications,( which
may be stretching credulity in the US today,) the 95% efficient
furnace is 95% efficient - on a good day when all the stars align just
right, and the 80+% efficient furnace is something marginally better
than 80% efficient under the same circumstances. Nothing says the 95%
furnace could ever excede 95%, or they would call it a 95+%, or a 97%
efficient furnace, while the manufacturer of the 80+% furnace is
saying it is a MINIMUM of 80% efficient - which means it could be any
amount better than that.

Again, what you believe to somehow be unique about 80% furnaces
just isn't so. I can show you spec sheets on 80% furnaces that just
state
that they are 80% efficient per DOE tests, not marginally better.
And I can show you product
lines for furnaces labeled as the manufacturer's 90% product line that
have efficiencies of 92, 93%. And I have yet to see one where the
manufacturer spec'd ANY difference in efficiency whether it's firing
at
full output or only the lower second stage. Not saying there isn't
some
small difference, only that in the grand scheme of things, it's
neglible
and pales in comparison to the documented efficiency increase you
get in going from an 80% furnace to 93 or 95%.



I'll believe about 83%. Which is still "closer to 85% than 80%" no
matter how you do your math.


Which of course is still a long way from 93% or 95%.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:21:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:



You REALLY CAN"T READ, can you???

Of course I can read. You're the one that's having difficulty here
as evidenced by your inability to remember what you posted
two posts back. You claimed that your 80% furnacewas running
at 85%, then you backtracked and claimed that it's just running
at 80%+


No Idiot.
I NEVER said I had an 80% efficient furnace.
YOU say I have an 80% efficient furnace.

The furnace is an 80+% efficient furnace (which for all you know could
be a 98% efficient furnace if I had not specified it is
non-condensing.)

So you cannot read, or you cannot comprehend what you are reading, or
both.

You also apparrently do not know what you are talking about, as
evidenced by your statement that the difference between an 80% and a
90% efficient furnace included the presence vs absence of a draft
inducer motor.

Go crawl under your rock (or bridge) and bother someone else.

On Feb 2, 9:16*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:21:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You REALLY CAN"T READ, can you???

Of course I can read. *You're the one that's having difficulty here
as evidenced by your inability to remember what you posted
two posts back. *You claimed that your 80% furnacewas running
at 85%, then you backtracked and claimed that it's just running
at 80%+

No Idiot.
I NEVER said I had an 80% efficient furnace.
YOU say I have an 80% efficient furnace.

The furnace is an 80+% efficient furnace (which for all you know could
be a 98% efficient furnace if I had not specified it is
non-condensing.)

Show us any furnace that is sold as an 80%+ furnace that reaches
98% efficiency. Or 95%, or 93%, or 90% in a data sheet spec.
Or a data sheet showing that an 80% furnace reaches 85%.
Whatever that 80% furnace is reaching, it's still pretty close to 80%
and nowhere near the efficiency of a 95% furnace that costs $200
more.

Furnaces of various types, including 80% are marketed
as 80%+ because some models within that product line are capable
of SLIGHTLY higher output when tested according to DOE
procedures. So what? You apparently think that because you
bought an 80%+ furnace, that "+" somehow makes it unique among
furnaces, a marvel of science that defies physics and gets some
significantly greater efficiency than 80%. Let's say it gets 82.6%/
Use 82.6% instead of 95% and it doesn't materially change the
comparison.



So you cannot read, or you cannot comprehend what you are reading, or
both.

I can do both. But you can't even keep straight what you posted:

"And the 80+% efficient furnace is supposedly
running about 85% as installed - "

"He didn't say that, and nor did I. I said it is an 80+ % efficient
furnace, which he stated is likely running closer to 85% than 80% "

So is it 85% or just 82.6%, or just some mumble jumble
crap spouted by some numb nuts guy trying to sell a furnace.



You also apparrently do not know what you are talking about, as
evidenced by your statement that the difference between an 80% and a
90% efficient furnace included the presence vs absence of a draft
inducer motor.

You're incapable of realizing that this point, which you keep bringing
up, just makes your case worse. With a draft inducer in the 80%
furnace, the only difference left between the 80% and the 95%
is the second heat exchanger and $200 in cost.

Two choices:

A - 80%, two stage, ECM blower

B - 95%, two stage, ECM blower, $200 more

I stand by my earlier statement that only a moron would go out and
buy choice A. That's purely from a dollar and sense standpoint.
I'd also consider that with the concern about CO2 emissions, it's
always a good thing today to go with the choice that's going to
emit less CO2, where it's possible and doesn't have a significant
downside.

And I quickly corrected my error on the draft inducer point.
Unlike you, who frequently puts out total
nonsense and then won't even correct it. Want an example? In
another thread here, a couple days ago, you questioned when the
last time anyone saw a car battery with removable vent caps,
implying they don't exist anymore. I have two of them sitting in
my cars in the garage. Another poster responded similarly. Did
you admit you were wrong? Of course not.

Or how about when you claimed modern cars don't have dozens
of microprocessors, because when those microprocessors are
programmed to one or a few functions, function, eg radio control,
or air bag control, they magically are no longer microprocessors?

I'll leave it for others to judge who the village idiot is here.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:05:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 2, 9:16Â*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:21:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You REALLY CAN"T READ, can you???

Of course I can read. Â*You're the one that's having difficulty here
as evidenced by your inability to remember what you posted
two posts back. Â*You claimed that your 80% furnacewas running
at 85%, then you backtracked and claimed that it's just running
at 80%+

No Idiot.
I NEVER said I had an 80% efficient furnace.
YOU say I have an 80% efficient furnace.

The furnace is an 80+% efficient furnace (which for all you know could
be a 98% efficient furnace if I had not specified it is
non-condensing.)

Show us any furnace that is sold as an 80%+ furnace that reaches
98% efficiency. Or 95%, or 93%, or 90% in a data sheet spec.
Or a data sheet showing that an 80% furnace reaches 85%.
Whatever that 80% furnace is reaching, it's still pretty close to 80%
and nowhere near the efficiency of a 95% furnace that costs $200
more.

Furnaces of various types, including 80% are marketed
as 80%+ because some models within that product line are capable
of SLIGHTLY higher output when tested according to DOE
procedures. So what? You apparently think that because you
bought an 80%+ furnace, that "+" somehow makes it unique among
furnaces, a marvel of science that defies physics and gets some
significantly greater efficiency than 80%. Let's say it gets 82.6%/
Use 82.6% instead of 95% and it doesn't materially change the
comparison.



So you cannot read, or you cannot comprehend what you are reading, or
both.

I can do both. But you can't even keep straight what you posted:

"And the 80+% efficient furnace is supposedly
running about 85% as installed - "

"He didn't say that, and nor did I. I said it is an 80+ % efficient
furnace, which he stated is likely running closer to 85% than 80% "

So is it 85% or just 82.6%, or just some mumble jumble
crap spouted by some numb nuts guy trying to sell a furnace.



You also apparrently do not know what you are talking about, as
evidenced by your statement that the difference between an 80% and a
90% efficient furnace included the presence vs absence of a draft
inducer motor.

You're incapable of realizing that this point, which you keep bringing
up, just makes your case worse. With a draft inducer in the 80%
furnace, the only difference left between the 80% and the 95%
is the second heat exchanger and $200 in cost.

Two choices:

A - 80%, two stage, ECM blower

B - 95%, two stage, ECM blower, $200 more

I stand by my earlier statement that only a moron would go out and
buy choice A. That's purely from a dollar and sense standpoint.
I'd also consider that with the concern about CO2 emissions, it's
always a good thing today to go with the choice that's going to
emit less CO2, where it's possible and doesn't have a significant
downside.

And I quickly corrected my error on the draft inducer point.
Unlike you, who frequently puts out total
nonsense and then won't even correct it. Want an example? In
another thread here, a couple days ago, you questioned when the
last time anyone saw a car battery with removable vent caps,
implying they don't exist anymore. I have two of them sitting in
my cars in the garage. Another poster responded similarly. Did
you admit you were wrong? Of course not.

Or how about when you claimed modern cars don't have dozens
of microprocessors, because when those microprocessors are
programmed to one or a few functions, function, eg radio control,
or air bag control, they magically are no longer microprocessors?

I'll leave it for others to judge who the village idiot is here.
You've made your point. You are a difficult, ignorant, crusty cuss.
GO AWAY.