On 11/29/2011 2:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Propane works when the electric is gone out.


I don't spend much time in the garage when the electric is out so it
doesn't matter. But if it did matter I'd run a cord from the generator
to the garage for some lights and to power the torpedo style propane
heater, which is loud and doesn't cycle on and off by itself and uses
electric.

On 11/29/2011 1:22 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:03:38 -0500, Ed wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:29:20 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:




P.S. I'm back to struggling with whether or not I should use a
constantly running oil-filled heater (set on low) in my small workshop
or should I run a small electric heater with a fan only during those
times when I'm in the shop, usually a couple of nights a week and a
few more hours on weekends.

I have both, so the initial cost is not a factor.

How big of a shop and how low of an outside temperature?

The typical electric heater will put out 1500 watts or 5000 BTU. If
the outside temperature is below 40, it is not worth even plugging in.
In my garage/shop I used a 30,000 BTU unit and it was not enough below
20F so I bought a 60,000 BTU unit.

As for the article you refer to, it is poorly written rubbish. I have
no idea what they are talking about oil filled units "conserving more
heat". I'd like to see some real numbers on output.


Heat output is the same. If you open a door and let some heat out, the
oil filled MAY recover heat in the room faster than an "open coil"
type heater, and the temperature will be more even - less "on-off"
effect

The oil filled heater may also take longer to recover heat loss if it
had been cycled off for a little while. They can be good if you set
them properly, most are adjustable 500/1000/1500 watts in addition to
the thermostat. So depending on the outside temps, you want to adjust
the wattage so the unit cycles less often. If done right it's hard to
tell by feeling it if it is on or off and it gives a nice steady heat.
Put it on 1500 watts when it's not very cold and it will cycle from very
hot to lukewarm and not be a "comfortable" heater.

On 11/30/2011 8:07 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:29:20 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:

I thought that all electric heaters were 100% efficient.

What is this site talking about when they say:

"During the process of converting electrical energy into heat energy a
great deal of it is lost. Therefore an electrical heater is left with
45% of the energy for heating purposes."

http://recomparison.com/comparisons/...diant-heaters/

P.S. I'm back to struggling with whether or not I should use a
constantly running oil-filled heater (set on low) in my small workshop
or should I run a small electric heater with a fan only during those
times when I'm in the shop, usually a couple of nights a week and a
few more hours on weekends.

I have both, so the initial cost is not a factor.

When electric energy is converted to to heat it goes thru a resistive
type of wire. While the electricity is being converted to heat, much
of the energy is lost as heat, thus you're wasting much of the
electricity in the form of heat.

LOL. Heat is what you want! And it's 100%, not "much".

On 11/28/2011 12:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I thought that all electric heaters were 100% efficient.

What is this site talking about when they say:

"During the process of converting electrical energy into heat energy a
great deal of it is lost. Therefore an electrical heater is left with
45% of the energy for heating purposes."

http://recomparison.com/comparisons/...diant-heaters/

P.S. I'm back to struggling with whether or not I should use a
constantly running oil-filled heater (set on low) in my small workshop
or should I run a small electric heater with a fan only during those
times when I'm in the shop, usually a couple of nights a week and a
few more hours on weekends.

I have both, so the initial cost is not a factor.

Typical marketing department nonsense.

This line "During the process of converting electrical energy into heat
energy a great deal of it is lost. " is total nonsense.

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny fraction
as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case not a factor
since the objective is to heat the room)

George wrote:
On 11/28/2011 12:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I thought that all electric heaters were 100% efficient.

What is this site talking about when they say:

"During the process of converting electrical energy into heat energy
a great deal of it is lost. Therefore an electrical heater is left
with 45% of the energy for heating purposes."

http://recomparison.com/comparisons/...diant-heaters/

P.S. I'm back to struggling with whether or not I should use a
constantly running oil-filled heater (set on low) in my small
workshop or should I run a small electric heater with a fan only
during those times when I'm in the shop, usually a couple of nights
a week and a few more hours on weekends.

I have both, so the initial cost is not a factor.

Typical marketing department nonsense.

This line "During the process of converting electrical energy into
heat energy a great deal of it is lost. " is total nonsense.

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny
fraction as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case not
a factor since the objective is to heat the room)

I've heard, that if you look closely, you'll find some very fine powder or
dust in the vicinity of some electric heaters. This is the loss in energy
inasmuch as the energy has been converted to matter. Of course it takes an
enormous amount of energy to create even the smallest amount of matter (and
vice-versa), so don't expect to see piles of the pills. But every electric
heater I've ever had will show dust around it after sitting in one place for
the winter season.

Perhaps that's what the "loss of energy" people are talking about.

On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:30:59 PM UTC-7, HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
On 11/28/2011 12:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I thought that all electric heaters were 100% efficient.

What is this site talking about when they say:

"During the process of converting electrical energy into heat energy
a great deal of it is lost. Therefore an electrical heater is left
with 45% of the energy for heating purposes."

http://recomparison.com/comparisons/...diant-heaters/

P.S. I'm back to struggling with whether or not I should use a
constantly running oil-filled heater (set on low) in my small
workshop or should I run a small electric heater with a fan only
during those times when I'm in the shop, usually a couple of nights
a week and a few more hours on weekends.

I have both, so the initial cost is not a factor.

Typical marketing department nonsense.

This line "During the process of converting electrical energy into
heat energy a great deal of it is lost. " is total nonsense.

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny
fraction as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case not
a factor since the objective is to heat the room)

I've heard, that if you look closely, you'll find some very fine powder or
dust in the vicinity of some electric heaters. This is the loss in energy
inasmuch as the energy has been converted to matter. Of course it takes an
enormous amount of energy to create even the smallest amount of matter (and
vice-versa), so don't expect to see piles of the pills. But every electric
heater I've ever had will show dust around it after sitting in one place for
the winter season.

Perhaps that's what the "loss of energy" people are talking about.

And perhaps the electrical field produced attracted the dust?

On 11/30/2011 4:30 PM, HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:
On 11/28/2011 12:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I thought that all electric heaters were 100% efficient.

What is this site talking about when they say:

"During the process of converting electrical energy into heat energy
a great deal of it is lost. Therefore an electrical heater is left
with 45% of the energy for heating purposes."

http://recomparison.com/comparisons/...diant-heaters/

P.S. I'm back to struggling with whether or not I should use a
constantly running oil-filled heater (set on low) in my small
workshop or should I run a small electric heater with a fan only
during those times when I'm in the shop, usually a couple of nights
a week and a few more hours on weekends.

I have both, so the initial cost is not a factor.

Typical marketing department nonsense.

This line "During the process of converting electrical energy into
heat energy a great deal of it is lost. " is total nonsense.

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny
fraction as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case not
a factor since the objective is to heat the room)

I've heard, that if you look closely, you'll find some very fine powder or
dust in the vicinity of some electric heaters. This is the loss in energy
inasmuch as the energy has been converted to matter. Of course it takes an
enormous amount of energy to create even the smallest amount of matter (and
vice-versa), so don't expect to see piles of the pills. But every electric
heater I've ever had will show dust around it after sitting in one place for
the winter season.

Perhaps that's what the "loss of energy" people are talking about.

I can't tell if you are joking or not? Gawd I hope it was a joke!

Well said. *1 watt = 3.414 BTU of heat (at least since the 1870s when it was
defined). *No exceptions so far.



Actually 1 Watt = 3.414 BTU ___per Hour___

So if you run a 1 Watt heater for one hour it will consume 1 Watt
hour of energy and deliver 3.414 BTU of heat.

Or in more useful number

if you run a 1 kW heater for 1 hour it will consume 1 kW Hour of
energy and cost about $0.15 and deliver 3414 BTU of heat.


Mark


Mark

Tony Miklos wrote:

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny
fraction as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case
not a factor since the objective is to heat the room)

I've heard, that if you look closely, you'll find some very fine
powder or dust in the vicinity of some electric heaters. This is the
loss in energy inasmuch as the energy has been converted to matter.
Of course it takes an enormous amount of energy to create even the
smallest amount of matter (and vice-versa), so don't expect to see
piles of the pills. But every electric heater I've ever had will
show dust around it after sitting in one place for the winter season.

Perhaps that's what the "loss of energy" people are talking about.

I can't tell if you are joking or not? Gawd I hope it was a joke!

My apologies. I try to be ambiguous on almost every post - it gets people
either thinking or outraged. Even in the latter case, my view is that
adrenaline is good for you. I should have said that up front.

Sorry.

"Mark" wrote in message
...


Well said. 1 watt = 3.414 BTU of heat (at least since the 1870s when it
was
defined). No exceptions so far.



Actually 1 Watt = 3.414 BTU ___per Hour___

So if you run a 1 Watt heater for one hour it will consume 1 Watt
hour of energy and deliver 3.414 BTU of heat.

Or in more useful number

if you run a 1 kW heater for 1 hour it will consume 1 kW Hour of
energy and cost about $0.15 and deliver 3414 BTU of heat.

Mark


Yes, good point. Since Energy= Power x Time and the BTU is an energy
unit, time has to be included someplace.

It could also be written as 1 watt of power used for 1 hour or 1 watt-hour =
3.414 BTU

Tomsic

Stormin Mormon wrote:
No, it just means that the oil heater uses more watts while
it's on, to warm up the oil.

IIRC, a 1500 watt heater produces 5200 BTU per hour. I've
heard the ceramic ones are more efficient than the filament
type. I've no data to prove this.

Unless the heater has a vent or conductive path to the outside, ALL the power
used stays in the area heated. Period.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:16:22 -0500, Peter wrote:

On 11/28/2011 2:20 PM, Bob F wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
Disregarding the specific situation regarding my shop, are oil-filled
heaters cheaper to operate than fan-based heaters since the oil
retains/emits the heat even when the element is off?

The only difference might be a slight difference in how often they cycle on/off.


If you only examine BTUs per KWH, the oil-filled heaters convert a
larger percentage of total energy to heat than to fan-based heaters
because with the fan, you are using some electricity to blow air rather
than using all of it to generate heat. That said, a fan-based heater
may be cheaper to operate if your specific requirements include rapid
heating of a volume of air (e.g., an entire room) and no prolonged
heating after the room has warmed.

Wrong. All of the energy used to spin the fan eventually ends up as heat,
too.

For example, if I want to take a shower in a warmed bathroom, I would
need to turn on the oil-filled heater well before I undressed and
entered the shower to let the heater warm and then warm the room. With
a fan-based heater, the room might get comfortable in only a few
minutes. Also when I was out of the shower, the oil-based heater would
continue to provide heat to the room long after I was dressed and out of
the room. The fan-based heater stops generating heat almost
instantaneously when turned off. Therefore, even though an oil-based
heater will be more efficient in converting electricity to heat, the
fan-based heater, for that application, will use less electricity and be
cheaper to operate.

No, both have exactly the same "efficiency". The "oil-filled" heater has more
thermal mass, so will heat (and cool off) slower. This may or may not be
desired (can't think of a reason it would be, other than marketing).

OTOH, a radiant heater may *feel* warmer because it will directly warm the
skin. However, it puts exactly the same heat into the room, assuming the
infrared light isn't escaping through a window, or some such. A kW is a kW,
is 3400BTU/Hr.

On 11/30/2011 7:21 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Tony Miklos wrote:

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny
fraction as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case
not a factor since the objective is to heat the room)

I've heard, that if you look closely, you'll find some very fine
powder or dust in the vicinity of some electric heaters. This is the
loss in energy inasmuch as the energy has been converted to matter.
Of course it takes an enormous amount of energy to create even the
smallest amount of matter (and vice-versa), so don't expect to see
piles of the pills. But every electric heater I've ever had will
show dust around it after sitting in one place for the winter season.

Perhaps that's what the "loss of energy" people are talking about.

I can't tell if you are joking or not? Gawd I hope it was a joke!

My apologies. I try to be ambiguous on almost every post - it gets people
either thinking or outraged. Even in the latter case, my view is that
adrenaline is good for you. I should have said that up front.

Sorry.

I thought it was really funny (as is).

On 11/30/2011 8:21 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Tony Miklos wrote:

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny
fraction as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case
not a factor since the objective is to heat the room)

I've heard, that if you look closely, you'll find some very fine
powder or dust in the vicinity of some electric heaters. This is the
loss in energy inasmuch as the energy has been converted to matter.
Of course it takes an enormous amount of energy to create even the
smallest amount of matter (and vice-versa), so don't expect to see
piles of the pills. But every electric heater I've ever had will
show dust around it after sitting in one place for the winter season.

Perhaps that's what the "loss of energy" people are talking about.

I can't tell if you are joking or not? Gawd I hope it was a joke!

My apologies. I try to be ambiguous on almost every post - it gets people
either thinking or outraged. Even in the latter case, my view is that
adrenaline is good for you. I should have said that up front.

Sorry.



So your new justification for your bizarre posts to screw with people
for personal entertainment is that you are "helping"?

energy into heat. Virtually ALL heaters that plug into the wall are
equivalent in total heat output.

Well said. *1 watt = 3.414 BTU of heat (at least since the 1870s when it was
defined). *No exceptions so far.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Way out. 1Kwh =3412 BTU

George wrote:

I can't tell if you are joking or not? Gawd I hope it was a joke!

My apologies. I try to be ambiguous on almost every post - it gets
people either thinking or outraged. Even in the latter case, my view
is that adrenaline is good for you. I should have said that up front.

Sorry.



So your new justification for your bizarre posts to screw with people
for personal entertainment is that you are "helping"?

No, it's not for my personal pleasure. Read the post again (above). It's for
purely altruistic motives.

I just want to leave the world a better place.

In that regard, I'm designing a line of hand painted, ceramic nose puppets:
George Washington, Bucky the Beaver, Eiffel Tower, and so on. You push one
up a nostril and go about in style.

On 12/2/2011 11:19 AM, bud-- wrote:
On 11/30/2011 7:21 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Tony Miklos wrote:

Where exactly is the energy lost except maybe a very, very tiny
fraction as heat in the wiring and connections? (and in this case
not a factor since the objective is to heat the room)

I've heard, that if you look closely, you'll find some very fine
powder or dust in the vicinity of some electric heaters. This is the
loss in energy inasmuch as the energy has been converted to matter.
Of course it takes an enormous amount of energy to create even the
smallest amount of matter (and vice-versa), so don't expect to see
piles of the pills. But every electric heater I've ever had will
show dust around it after sitting in one place for the winter season.

Perhaps that's what the "loss of energy" people are talking about.

I can't tell if you are joking or not? Gawd I hope it was a joke!

My apologies. I try to be ambiguous on almost every post - it gets people
either thinking or outraged. Even in the latter case, my view is that
adrenaline is good for you. I should have said that up front.

Sorry.

I thought it was really funny (as is).

I sure am glad it was a joke!

My hat's off, to you, and most of my hair.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

So your new justification for your bizarre posts to screw with people
for personal entertainment is that you are "helping"?

No, it's not for my personal pleasure. Read the post again (above). It's
for purely altruistic motives.

I just want to leave the world a better place.

In that regard, I'm designing a line of hand painted, ceramic nose
puppets: George Washington, Bucky the Beaver, Eiffel Tower, and so on. You
push one up a nostril and go about in style.