In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



But we don't tax on wealth (at least yet, although I suppose the case
could be made that the estate tax comes close).

Wait. What would make it NOT a tax on wealth. If you inherit over X
dollars, Uncle Sam and his state cousins will have their hand out for a big
chunk. We've also had a round of luxury taxes in the US that some talk
about reviving even though the results were not what the Feds expected.
Both are taxes poor people can only wish they'd have to pay. Mostly what
the poor inherit is the cost of burying their parents and getting phone
calls from creditors trying to convince them they're liable for their
parent's debts. They are not, but many pay anyway.
I was giving the estate tax the benefit of the doubt because I did
not want to debate the issue with a few hundred people (g).
"Not what the Feds expected" is sorta of an understatement. They
generally end up costing poor people jobs since the rich can go
elsewhere for their toys. These are mainly punitive type taxes anyway.



The facts are and always
will be, that on INCOME taxes, the rich payer a higher percentage of
their income on taxes than the poor do. (Okay maybe not always, but
always under the current system).

Don't you mean that they are "supposed to pay a higher percentage?" Warren
Buffet strenuously claims the reverse of what you are saying is true.
Buffet says he pays a lower overall percentage than his staff.
ANd the stats strenously show that is cherry picking. The IRS stats
say otherwise.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-secretary-pay
-higher-taxes-millionaire/

Interesting that one of his people pays 6% more in taxes than the
highest bracket and the average is 1% more. Adding back in the FICA 6.2%
employee contribution-- which is disingenous since it is a payroll tax
that is (supposed to anyway) be returned in benefits, not an income tax,
and has always been discussed separately from income taxes--means most
of his secretaries are paid north of $70k a year (assuming married
filing jointly.




I don't get how. We, again, are talking wealth and that has nothing
to do with the relative progressiveness of taxes. If you want to
regulate wealth by taxation you have to make it VERY regressive at the
top end. Which is a whole ball of policy wax.

Indeed. Very steep taxes for the uber-rich may eventually come to pass as
the gulf between American's richest and poorest people widens. I don't know
where the answers lie, just that there are some troubling issues to be dealt
with, like people with skills willing to work but unable to find jobs. You
know there's trouble when Wal*mart advertises for 100 new positions and gets
10,000 applicants, even with crappy benefits. They are also pros at hiring
mostly part time workers whom they don't have to pay ANY health bennies.
Which in a whole different bowl of policy fruit from taxing the top 1%
solely BECAUSE they are top 1% (well actually that and because they ****
certain people off).


OWS might finally convince Wall St. that if they can't rein in excessive CEO
compensation, they run the risk of Congress doing it for them. While you've
talked about how that's been a failure, given enough time, they could close
the necessary loopholes to make it so. In the long run, very few people are
going to vote for taxing themselves and not the uber-rich. As you've noted,
when they're compensated in stock, that devalues every other shareholder's
investment. With so damn few people supporting it, I find it amazing that
it not only persists, but appears to be growing each year.

They could, maybe. This does, however, show that when Congress tries
to do one thing (the original concept was to reign in CEO pay and align
their interests with shareholders) they quite often do another. I'd be
concerned about making things worse if you let the Great Minds on
Capital Hill loose on this issue again.


HeyBub, IIRC, is fond of saying Obama's stimulus money just disappeared.
A lot of it did. But then I can't say any more than the normal level
of graft built into the system.


between OWS and the Tea Party is who they blame for the 2008 crash. Another
interesting column by David Brooks talks about whether we're really the
rational agents that economic theories often rely on:


Unfortunately, business is well aware of these foibles and uses them to
sell, sell, sell. That pressure pushes a lot of people to think they need
something they really don't. Part of the great real estate crisis was the
belief that owning a home was a one-way ticket to wealth and that houses
will always rise in cost. It sadly parallels the belief that a college
diploma is an automatic ticket to wealth.
Both of which are also falacies promoted by the political class, too. Of
course, we sometimes (okay usually) forget that politics is a business
just like any others. Buying and selling influence and laws. Politicians
tell us (at least that section of "us" that is likely to vote for them)
exactly what we want to hear and tell us we need them.


We're going to eventually see a debate about "where wealth comes from" and
whether accumulated wealth should be taxed heavily to prevent so much money
from concentrating in the hands of so few that the economy locks up. Henry
Ford presciently said he paid his workers a good wage so that they could
afford to buy his products. Turning that premise on its head, Wal*mart just
announced it's cutting back on the meager health benefits that it pays its
workers. If people can't work hard and become successful, the American
Dream is dying. And people at Wal*mart work pretty damn hard to get mostly
nowhere. That worries me.

Yep because popluar revolutions seldom do damage only to the parts they
are revolting about.


Securities and Exchange Commission unveiled its latest charges involving
mortgage-backed securities. In what may be a new low for conduct by a major
Wall Street firm in the walk-up to the financial crisis, Citigroup settled
charges (without admitting or denying guilt) that it defrauded investors by
creating a package of mortgage-backed securities for which it selected a
pool of mortgages likely to default, bet against the security for the bank's
benefit by shorting it and then foisted it off on unwitting investors
without disclosing any of this. According to the S.E.C., one trader
characterized this particular security in an all-too-candid e-mail as
"possibly the best short EVER!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/bu...om-simple-to-c
omplex.html?ref=todayspaper

"Without admitting to guilt." A blind man could "see" their guilt with his
cane.
That's fraud and there are already rather nasty laws on the books
to cover that. The REAL point that OWS has is the inability (or should I
say unwillingness) of the current system to actually enforce laws
already on the books.


If you're saying the middle class is still A-OK, I've got to strongly
disagree. When Wal*mart ****s (oops, shifts!) the burden of health care
costs onto the backs of its middle and lower class employees, they are
taking a serious pay cut. Wal*mart stockholders (whom I believe are mostly
upper class and wealthy) gain, middle and lower class workers lose. That
same scene is being repeated all across America. It's a recipe for social
disaster. Part of the reason fewer jobs are open to young people is that
older folks have determined they HAVE to keep on working until they can't
work anymore just to be sure to have enough to survive their old age.
This was going to be a problem as the Boomers Aged no matter what
happened otherwise. Just too many of them saving too little (through
most of our working years, the savings rate went down) and spending too
much.


What bothers me is the banks and Wall Streets resistance to reinstating some
sort of law that would reduce the exposure of FDIC insured banks from huge
speculative losses.
It is their job (actually if you look at the securities law their
fudiciary duty) to make as much as possible. The fact that they get a
bunch of it personally only makes it more intense. It isn't their
responsibility to fall on their sword and probably goes against human
nature. (g).


Heck, if you bought into the Prevailing Wisdom, even the bad loans
were a great idea since (both sides of the equation thought) the house
HAS to be worth a lot more in a couple of years than it was now. So, the
homeowner KNEW that they would be able to sell the house for more than
the balloon payment or that their salary HAD to keep going up. The worst
case scenario for the lenders was they foreclosed and got a house to
resell on the cheap. (There were similar idiocies on the general
business side)

Until there were so many foreclosures that they collapsed the entire market.
All of this is nothing more than a classic bubble. The problem this
last time is that we had such a good run (over 20-30 years) that the
economy itself became a bubble.



So what you're saying is look for a turn-around in 2016. I might not even
know who I am by 2016. Perhaps it's time to spend while I can still
appreciate it. Actually, Medicare will pressure me to spend wildly and
divorce my wife just to be eligible for nursing home care. We keep joking
that we should get divorced now so it won't be considered a sham divorce.
Three years claw back. I, seriously, would get an elder law attorney
involved while you still can.


Yet we are ignoring the single biggest unfunded liability, the SS
"surplus"

Well, if we're ignoring the liability of the states, why not the much larger
one? They're all invisible elephants in the room.

They are not invisible. It is just that the politicians and us have
erected a "Somebody Else's Problem field? (g).

For those of you not fans of The Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy:
An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let
us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The brain
just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly
you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is
to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.
The technology involved in making something properly invisible is
so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's
simpler just to take the thing away and do without it....... The
"Somebody Else's Problem field" is much simpler, more effective, and
"can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery."
This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to
see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain.


the equivalent of economic anti-gravity. When I grew up, most fathers
worked, most women stayed at home and we enjoyed a comfortable standard
of
living. Now, to enjoy that same standard, both parents have to work.

Houses are now almost 1/4 bigger than they were in the 50s (although
that might be heading back down). We have internet, A/C, regulations
adding something like $1500 to the cost of a car and around $7500 to the
cost of a house, etc. etc. We are enjoying a better standard and for
that both have to work.

Is it really that much better? The fact that the poor have such "amenities"
now indicates that the baseline has moved, but that a higher income is not
necessarily required to have those things.
Overall is sort of a personal decision. But these are some of the
reasons why most mothers can no longer stay at home.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead of
staying on or off until room temperature has varied by a few degrees.

Largely because the thermostat is not in the right room.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-world.html

Elections are important to the big players, but not as important as to
the little players. Short term corrections kill off the little
players, and as long as the long term trend is in the "right"
direction, the big players aren't greatly affected.

R

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:



We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
R

The technical term is hysteresis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per house will
never be much good.

On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:





On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house..

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -


You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

On Oct 25, 8:48*am, "
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:









On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.


My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I use Google, too, ya maroon. It cuts nothing out on its own - the
error is between your ears.

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.

Where are you that each room's heat is on an entirely separate loop,
and when that room's thermostat calls for heat, heat is not delivered
to other rooms? If you do have such a system, and each radiator calls
for heat on its own, then your burner will be short cycling endlessly.

Systems have to be balanced, which does not equate to throwing more
thermostats on the walls.

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

The Old Dead Guys spent a lot of time designing and balancing a steam
system, and they worked just fine with one thermostat. When they
don't work well it's because the plumbers that came afterwards didn't
understand the system as well and renovations threw the balance out of
whack.

R

After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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


wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:


I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -


You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

On Oct 25, 1:48*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

I have had a look round domestic house contsruction sites in America.
Absolutely appaliing standards. Primitive, poor workmanship, designed
by morons.

Most of the construction problems frequently brought up on this group
never exist in Europe. I read them and marvel.

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

....
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:



I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. At
night the reverse was set. (We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.

On Oct 25, 12:26*pm, harry wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:48*pm, "
wrote:





On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.

Right, we are all looking forward to going back to having a window
unit in every room to cool and a heater in every room in the winter.


Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

I have had a look round domestic house contsruction sites in America.
Absolutely appaliing standards. Primitive, poor workmanship, designed
by morons.

Most of the construction problems frequently brought up on this group
never exist in Europe. *I read them and marvel.-

Total BS!

On Oct 25, 7:06*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 25, 12:26*pm, harry wrote:





On Oct 25, 1:48*pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.

Right, we are all looking forward to going back to having a window
unit in every room to cool and a heater in every room in the winter.

Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

I have had a look round domestic house contsruction sites in America.
Absolutely appaliing standards. Primitive, poor workmanship, designed
by morons.

Most of the construction problems frequently brought up on this group
never exist in Europe. *I read them and marvel.-

Total BS!-

First hand knowledge.

On Oct 25, 2:55*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:48*am, "
wrote:





On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I use Google, too, ya maroon. *It cuts nothing out on its own - the
error is between your ears.

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.

Where are you that each room's heat is on an entirely separate loop,
and when that room's thermostat calls for heat, heat is not delivered
to other rooms? *If you do have such a system, and each radiator calls
for heat on its own, then your burner will be short cycling endlessly.

Systems have to be balanced, which does not equate to throwing more
thermostats on the walls.

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

The Old Dead Guys spent a lot of time designing and balancing a steam
system, and they worked just fine with one thermostat. *When they
don't work well it's because the plumbers that came afterwards didn't
understand the system as well and renovations threw the balance out of
whack.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is not possible to properly balance a (wet) sytem. The balancing
is upset every time a radiator valve is adjusted.
Unless that system is properly designed. Which they aren't in America.

In a warm air system (long abandoned in Europe), the balancing is
upset every time a door is opened or a register operated.

Steam systems have the worste of all worlds in terms of efficiency.

On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"





wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

....
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, when you had two thermostats instead of one the heating bill went
down?
It therefor follows that a thermostat in each room will put your
heating bill down even more?

On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"





wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

....
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -


That's because you are so primitive.
Gas is the "normal" fuel over here.
No one uses heated air over here. Far too inefficient. Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)
The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

Some boilers additionally instantaneously provide hot water.(ie no
storage)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combi-b...nation_boilers

I am expecting the "save energy" crowd to call for a half
hour timer on all thermostats. You need to push a button
every half hour, or the thermostat shuts down. During the
winterm, for example, you'd need to get out of bed every
half hour, and push the thermostat button if you wanted the
room to stay at the government approved 62F for over night.
More like 55f if you vote Republican.

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


"BobR" wrote in message
...

This because you are so primitive/backward in America.
Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically
controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. It ii
seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. American heating
systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.

Right, we are all looking forward to going back to having a
window
unit in every room to cool and a heater in every room in the
winter.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:58:39 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I am expecting the "save energy" crowd to call for a half
hour timer on all thermostats. You need to push a button
every half hour, or the thermostat shuts down. During the
winterm, for example, you'd need to get out of bed every
half hour, and push the thermostat button if you wanted the
room to stay at the government approved 62F for over night.
More like 55f if you vote Republican.

No problem. The Chinese will make a killing selling automatic thermostat
pushers.

On Oct 25, 1:23*pm, harry wrote:
On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, when you had two thermostats instead of one the heating bill went
down?
It therefor follows that a thermostat in each room will put your
heating bill down even more?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very poor logic on your part. The thermostat isn't what caused the
heating bill to go down. Having more thermostats than actual heating/
cooling units would be totally useless. The only reason for multiple
thermostats is to control multiple units and putting a unit in every
room would not necessarily mean lower cost, it could in fact increase
the costs depending on the effeciency of the units and usage.

Yes, I can imagine that.

Some years ago on, on Alt.HVAC (alternating havoc, I call
the list). Some had a furnace that worked, if he whacked it.
One of the comics suggested he needed a Rono Autowhacker.
that's a good memory.

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


wrote in message
...

hour timer on all thermostats. You need to push a button
every half hour, or the thermostat shuts down. During the

No problem. The Chinese will make a killing selling
automatic thermostat
pushers.

On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing.

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. I have
changed my mind. Please don't ever go away. You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

On Oct 25, 10:42*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:23*pm, harry wrote:





On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, when you had two thermostats instead of one the heating bill went
down?
It therefor follows that a thermostat in each room will put your
heating bill down even more?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very poor logic on your part. *The thermostat isn't what caused the
heating bill to go down. *Having more thermostats than actual heating/
cooling units would be totally useless. *The only reason for multiple
thermostats is to control multiple units and putting a unit in every
room would not necessarily mean lower cost, it could in fact increase
the costs depending on the effeciency of the units and usage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have central high efficiency units here,
Every room has to be independently controlled because of (for example)
changes in wind speed/direction and the movement of the sun causes
changes in heating requirements of each room.

More thermoststs always means closer control and hence a fuel saving.

On Oct 26, 4:24*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:



This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. *It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. *A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. *Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing.

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. *Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. *A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. *I have
changed my mind. *Please don't ever go away. *You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.
Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

I don't know why you lecture me on a topic which cleariy you have zero
knowledge, haven't even thought about and come from a proliferate/
wasteful and backward society..
American heating engineering has stood still for sixty years. I see
equipment described as "new" on this forum that is long obsolete
elsewhere. As for new house construction, standards are unbelievably
low.
All arises out of a reluctance to do basic research for which America
is now paying the price in terms of jobs lost.
Even the Chinese have passed America in technology.. (In fact they own
you).

Short termism has killed the likes of for example GM. All down to
greed and the pursuit of instant wealth.

The only branch of engineering America is up to date on is weapons
manufacture. Hence the needfor endless war.

On Oct 26, 4:24*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:



This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. *It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. *A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. *Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing.

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. *Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. *A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. *I have
changed my mind. *Please don't ever go away. *You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

BTW the idea that "balancing" a heating sytem somehow makes it energy
efficent shows how clueless YOU are.
Balancing a system merely ensures that the heating water is able to
get to all parts of the sytem. It is not a means of temperature
control.

On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:
On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

That's because you are so primitive.
Gas is the "normal" fuel over here.
No one uses heated air over here. Far too inefficient.

Tell that to the 95% efficient forced air furnace in
my house. Forced air furnaces with efficiencies from
90 to 95% are reasonably priced and have been widely
available from all manufacturers for years now. They
are in the same efficiency range as boilers.

Again, why do you make a fool of yourself about things
you know nothing about?



*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)
The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

How do you get over 100% efficiency? Sounds like some harry
physics.



Some boilers additionally instantaneously provide hot water.(ie no
storage)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combi-b...ation_boilers- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:24*am, RicodJour wrote:





On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. *It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. *A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. *Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing.

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. *Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. *A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. *I have
changed my mind. *Please don't ever go away. *You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.
Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

I don't know why you lecture me on a topic which cleariy you have zero
knowledge, haven't even thought about and come from a proliferate/
wasteful and backward society..

This coming from the village idiot that just claimed gas furnaces
are no good because they are too inefficient. I have a 95% one
in my basement.


American heating engineering has stood still for sixty years.

Funny since those heating systems went from 65% efficiency
to 97% over those years.



I see
equipment described as "new" on this forum that is long obsolete
elsewhere. *As for new house construction, standards are unbelievably
low.

You a building inspector now too?

All arises out of a reluctance to do basic research for which America
is now paying the price in terms of jobs lost.

Then why is it that America is the home to companies like Intel,
Microsoft
and Apple? Where are the Britts semiconductor companies? You have
not a one. Where are the Apples? Msfts? Hmmm?


Even the Chinese have passed America in technology.. (In fact they own
you).

Clearly some type of drug or mental disease owns your mind.




Short termism has killed the likes of for example GM. All down to
greed and the pursuit of instant wealth.

How many UK companies followed that path too? Nothing
new, economies change and companies succeed or fail.




The only branch of engineering America is up to date on is weapons
manufacture. *Hence the needfor endless war.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, that's why we have countless high tech companies.
If you go to China or Jamaica and say Intel, Apple or Google,
people immediately know what you're talking about. Again,
the UK's contribution to great, powerful world class high
tech engineering would be? what, yorkshire pudding?

On Oct 25, 2:06*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 25, 12:26*pm, harry wrote:





On Oct 25, 1:48*pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.

Right, we are all looking forward to going back to having a window
unit in every room to cool and a heater in every room in the winter.

Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

I have had a look round domestic house contsruction sites in America.
Absolutely appaliing standards. Primitive, poor workmanship, designed
by morons.

Most of the construction problems frequently brought up on this group
never exist in Europe. *I read them and marvel.-

Total BS!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Gee, if everything is built so fine in Europe, why is it that
everytime
there is an earthquake in Greece, so many buildings just fall apart
killing tens of thousands of people?

As for one thermostat per room being essential, I've been to
Europe and can tell you that there is no noticeable positive
difference in comfort there vs the USA. IF anything, it's
worse in Europe. In Italy, for example, the AC sucks, hotels,
restaurants, etc tend to be hot and
you can't even get a cold beverage at a convenience store.

Harry talks about one thermostat per room as if that is
all that's needed. When you have a residential AC
system, having a thermostat in each room would
require an automated damper system that would add
significantly to the cost, complexity and maintenance
of the system. Would it be nice to have? Sure.
Would most people here want it given what it adds
versus the cost? I think not. Nor do I think they would
want it or have it in the UK.

What you do have in Europe are more mini-splits.
Here in the USA we tend to avoid them because one
central unit is more cost effective and architecturally,
it's ugly having mini-splits hanging around everywhere.
And in most cases you can balance a central system close
enough that it's fine with one thermostat per system.

On Oct 26, 7:52*am, "
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)

Latest arrangement, eh? Curious that Levittown, NY had something like
45,000 homes built with hydronic radiant heating in the late 1940's.
That 'latest arrangement' has been around for millenia. Google
underfloor heating.

The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.

"Some claim over 100%..." It's the claim that counts. The same way
that the village idiot claims to know WTF he's talking about.

R

On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. It moves about. If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. You know - imaginary, much like your logic.

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them. If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat.
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings.

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.

R

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Even the Chinese have passed America in technology..

rolls eyes Obviously, you have never shopped at Harbor Freight.

On Oct 26, 2:56*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 7:52*am, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)

Latest arrangement, eh? *Curious that Levittown, NY had something like
45,000 homes built with hydronic radiant heating in the late 1940's.
That 'latest arrangement' has been around for millenia. *Google
underfloor heating.

The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating..

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.

"Some claim over 100%..." *It's the claim that counts. *The same way
that the village idiot claims to know WTF he's talking about.

R

Do you not know the difference beween gross and net efficiencies?
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/bo...ncy-d_438.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_...Usage_of_terms

On Oct 26, 3:21*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:



It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? *Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. *It moves about. *If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. *For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. *You know - imaginary, much like your logic.

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them. *If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. *Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat.
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings.

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. *I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. *So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. *Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. *It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.

R

You really are a half wit. I see you have cunningly moved from
denying that I am right to questioning the need for this level of
control.
The point of accurate temperature control is not only to do with
comfort but energy saving. If the temperature in a heated area is
reduced by only a couple of unnecesary degrees, large savings can be
made.
Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

The problem with "balancing" is that the boiler needs a constant water
flow and the heating system needs a constant pressure.

There are many other heating/cooling technologies too such as optimum
start, weather prediction etc. Equally unknown to you I imagine.

On Oct 26, 4:09*pm, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Even the Chinese have passed America in technology..

rolls eyes *Obviously, you have never shopped at Harbor Freight.

I heard it was full of Chinese technology. Is that right?

On Oct 26, 12:45*pm, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:21*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:22*am, harry wrote:

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.

Are you some sort of rare orchid that requires a precise temperature
+/-1 degree to live? *Regardless of weather conditions and "other
activities", heat does not stay put. *It moves about. *If your
thermostat is set at that Hot House Harry optimum, there will easily
be a five or ten degree swing in temperature in that particular room.
You understand that much, right?

Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

You are a veritable font of prejudice, bias and misinformation,
wrapped in a sugarplum coating of misanthropy.

I find it difficult to address your Rule Britannia! mentality without
accidentally laying into the British, but I realize that you are an
anomaly and in no way reflect a thinking man's perspective. *For
instance, your average person would understand that no one at any
point mentioned balancing a system permanently, as that is only
possible in a closed system at a particular point in time, with a
constant heat source. *You know - imaginary, much like your logic.

Your average sane person would realize that, unlike you, they have
friends and family that can bear to be in the same room with them. *If
there are two people in a room, you have two different opinions on
what the thermostat setting should be. *Three people - four opinions.
Conduct a little test - next time you are in a room and it's two
degrees too cold for you, you great sloth, ask a 50ish woman with
perspiration on her upper lip if she'd like you to turn up the heat.
After you can see straight again, report back here on your findings.

There have also been rumors that people are warm-blooded and can
actually produce heat from food. *I suppose in your lethargic layabout
world, exercise is anathema, and even getting up and moving about
requires the greatest effort. *So it is understandable that you are
seeking that constant supremely regulated temperature of the womb so
you have one less thing to do for yourself. *Most people don't have
those issues.

Do give exercise a try. *It regulates your metabolism and helps you
deal with temperatures a couple of degrees higher or lower than what
you believe is required by all.


You really are a half wit. *I see you have cunningly moved from
denying that I am right to questioning the need for this level of
control.

Au contraire, mon ferret, I quite clearly called you non compos mentis
_and_ that you were wrong in both specifics and details.

Take for instance one of your other inane posts where you spout about
gross efficiency and buy into some claim of heating efficiency greater
than 100%. Regardless of how _you_ look at it, it is misleading.
You're buying the amp with the volume control that goes to 11. Google
it.

Run it by me again how a TRV works. Someone is cold in the house and
everyone else is warm, how does the TRV call for heat in that one
radiator? More importantly, why would you want to fire a boiler for
one radiator? Talk about wasteful.

You also ignore, conveniently, the costs of installation and
maintenance of a needlessly more complex system.

The point of accurate temperature control is not only to do with
comfort but energy saving. If the temperature in *a heated area is
reduced by only a couple of unnecesary degrees, large savings can be
made.

You do understand that the human heating apparatus is far more
variable, and its sensing mechanism far more sensitive to perceived
temperature, than a thermostat, right? You do know that a person's
heat output and sense of temperature varies by time of day, when food
is consumed, and the thoughts they are thinking, right? You do know
that only an idiot looks at a thermostat to see if they are warm or
cool, right? Oops. Sorry.

I don't dither with things. If I am a bit cool, I put on a long
sleeve shirt. If I'm a bit warm I roll up the sleeves. No technology
can possibly sense where on my body I am cool/warm and adjust just
that area. I have arms, legs and a brain and I use them to temper my
environment to suit me. I don't see a need to lay about waiting for
it to be done for me. That way lays obesity and sluggish thinking.
Oops, again. Sorry.

Accurate temperature control can easily knock 25% off the energy
bill.

Easily knock 25% of an energy bill for someone who has an unbalanced
system and dithers with a thermostat to 'fix' it. Sure - that I can
buy.

You could also save 25% on your heating bill by burning some of that
excess adipose swaddling your carcass, and not sit in your recliner
with your TV remote wondering when someone will bring some food for
you to stuff into your gob.

The problem with "balancing" is that the boiler needs a constant water
flow and the heating system needs a constant pressure.

Really? So it's pointless to use mass as a heat sink? Pointless to
incorporate passive means to retain and distribute heat? Remind me to
tell that to the Earth.

There are many other heating/cooling technologies too such as optimum
start, weather prediction etc. *Equally unknown to you I imagine.

So, instead of using the actual temperature, an accurate measurement
at the thermostat location, you would prefer to use some right-50%-of-
the-time weather prediction algorithm. Sure, makes perfect sense.

If you're talking about some heat storage mechanism and electrical
heat where buying power in the off hours saves money, _then_ you
wouldn't be talking out of your fundamental orifice.

Humans have simple needs. You have simple thoughts.
Buy technology and fix everything! Yep, sure, never fails. Sheesh.

Anyway, you grow wearisome. Feel free to blather as I ignore you
until I feel a further need to poke you with a stick.

R

On Oct 26, 1:06*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:42*pm, BobR wrote:





On Oct 25, 1:23*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, when you had two thermostats instead of one the heating bill went
down?
It therefor follows that a thermostat in each room will put your
heating bill down even more?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very poor logic on your part. *The thermostat isn't what caused the
heating bill to go down. *Having more thermostats than actual heating/
cooling units would be totally useless. *The only reason for multiple
thermostats is to control multiple units and putting a unit in every
room would not necessarily mean lower cost, it could in fact increase
the costs depending on the effeciency of the units and usage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We have central high efficiency units here,
Every room has to be independently controlled because of (for example)
changes in wind speed/direction and the movement of the sun causes
changes in heating requirements of each room.

More thermoststs always means closer control and hence a fuel saving.

NO, they don't! That is only true if each room has it's own unit. If
you are using a central unit, the unit will be forced to run based on
the needs of the hottest and/or coldest room resulting in some rooms
being over cooled or over heated.

On Oct 26, 6:52*am, "
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:





On Oct 25, 7:03*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 9:10*am, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
After installing heating and AC systems for six years, I can
only remember seeing one thermostat per heating or cooling
device. Usually one for both heating, or cooling.

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

wrote in message

...
On Oct 25, 2:02 am, harry wrote:

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly.
Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. A single thermostat per
house will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one
thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have
had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM.
That's what's done in most new construction as well.

In most instances one thermostat is enough. *In my previous residence
there were two, one for the upstairs system and one for the
downstairs. *Each controlled a different central heating/cooling
unit. *The system was well balanced and the result was much lower
heating and cooling bills. *We added the second unit when we added on
the second floor almost doubling the square footage. * During the day,
when 99% of the activity was down stairs the upstairs unit was set for
higher cooling temps while the downstairs was set for cooler. *At
night the reverse was set. *(We used cooling far more than heating so
in the winter time the reverse was used.) *Our heating and cooling
costs actually went down after doing the add on to the house. *More
efficient units, better insulation, and a well balanced system.

The only time I have ever seen thermostats in individual rooms was
when room units were used instead of central units.- Hide quoted text -

That's because you are so primitive.
Gas is the "normal" fuel over here.
No one uses heated air over here. Far too inefficient.

Tell that to the 95% efficient forced air furnace in
my house. *Forced air furnaces with efficiencies from
90 to 95% are reasonably priced and have been widely
available from all manufacturers for years now. *They
are in the same efficiency range as boilers.

Again, why do you make a fool of yourself about things
you know nothing about?

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)
The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.



I wondered that too but then I saw the "Some CLAIM over 100%" and know
that claims and reality often vary greatly.

On Oct 26, 11:20*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 2:56*pm, RicodJour wrote:





On Oct 26, 7:52*am, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:42*pm, harry wrote:

*Central hot
water generators/boilers are used and each room is heated by
thermostatically controlled water filled radiators or, in the latest
arrangements, underfloor heating (pipes set in the concrete floors)

Latest arrangement, eh? *Curious that Levittown, NY had something like
45,000 homes built with hydronic radiant heating in the late 1940's.
That 'latest arrangement' has been around for millenia. *Google
underfloor heating.

The boilers are all condensing and efficiencies of 90% plus. Some
claim over 100% *gross efficiency when used with underfloor heating.

How do you get over 100% efficiency? *Sounds like some harry
physics.

"Some claim over 100%..." *It's the claim that counts. *The same way
that the village idiot claims to know WTF he's talking about.

R

Do you not know the difference beween gross and net efficiencies?http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/bo...sage_of_terms-

Yes, and we know the difference between fact and fantasy too.

On Oct 26, 1:22*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:24*am, RicodJour wrote:





On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. *It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. *A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. *Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing.

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. *Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. *A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. *I have
changed my mind. *Please don't ever go away. *You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

It's not possible to balance a system because heating requirements
vary around the house depending on weather conditions and other
activities.
Eg it you turn the TV or even the lights on it produces heat, a
thermostat will turn the room heating down.

I don't know why you lecture me on a topic which cleariy you have zero
knowledge, haven't even thought about and come from a proliferate/
wasteful and backward society..
American heating engineering has stood still for sixty years. I see
equipment described as "new" on this forum that is long obsolete
elsewhere. *As for new house construction, standards are unbelievably
low.
All arises out of a reluctance to do basic research for which America
is now paying the price in terms of jobs lost.
Even the Chinese have passed America in technology.. (In fact they own
you).

Short termism has killed the likes of for example GM. All down to
greed and the pursuit of instant wealth.

The only branch of engineering America is up to date on is weapons
manufacture. *Hence the needfor endless war

Yes sir, Europe is really showing us how it's done. How many of the
European countries are on the verge of going bankrupt? Don't give us
that line of crap until you have your own house in order.

On Oct 26, 10:09*am, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Even the Chinese have passed America in technology..

rolls eyes *Obviously, you have never shopped at Harbor Freight.

GOOD ONE! Cheap does not equate to good technology, it's just cheap.

On Oct 26, 1:32*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 4:24*am, RicodJour wrote:





On Oct 25, 1:26 pm, harry wrote:

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.
Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

A TRV does not control the furnace, it controls a radiator. *It can
only _prevent_ heat from going to a radiator in a room that doesn't
need the heat. *A balanced system does not need redundant
thermostats. *Redundant thermostats are for systems where the original
installation was done by people who did not know what they were doing.

TRVs are thrown on every radiator to make up for systems that are
messed up by clueless renovations done by someone's half-wit cousin
who didn't know WTF they were doing, didn't know how to run heat loss
calculations, and removed/replaced radiators or otherwise threw a
system out of whack. *Sticking a TRV on every radiator is akin to
using premium fuel to 'fix' your inbred cousin's shade-tree mechanic
tune-up of your car. *A waste of money and a band-aid in the wrong
place.

You are truly spectacularly and entertainingly clueless. *I have
changed my mind. *Please don't ever go away. *You are welcome to be
our dear old village idiot for as long as you live.

R

BTW the idea that "balancing" a heating sytem somehow makes it energy
efficent shows how clueless YOU are.
Balancing a system merely ensures that the heating water is able to
get to all parts of the sytem. *It is not a means of temperature
control.

There is more than one effective and efficient heating system and I
can assure you that your heating water isn't worth **** to people that
live in climates where cooling is used more than your single purpose
heating system. A well balanced system, be it forced air or heated
water will ensure that the heat is not going to areas that don't need
it leaving them cold while over heating other areas. Your individual
room thermostat may be an attempt to compensate with individual
controls for a system that was not properly designed and balanced to
start with.

The single point that you consistantly seem to miss throughtout this
discussion is that NO SINGLE SYSTEM can be all things to all people
and there is more than one effective and efficient way to heat and /
or cool a residence.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT), BobR
wrote:

The single point that you consistantly seem to miss throughtout this
discussion is that NO SINGLE SYSTEM can be all things to all people
and there is more than one effective and efficient way to heat and /
or cool a residence.

Heh. When harry tells you the huckleberries are ripe, grab your bucket
and run...