Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg

They are advertising. You think they will give the bigger or smaller
number? Bigger. So....

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

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 07:17:00 +0000 (UTC), gregz
wrote:

Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg
Mine quotes input BTUs (basically fuel consumption)

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 06:57:27 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg

They are advertising. You think they will give the bigger or smaller
number? Bigger. So....
The input is the only thing the manufacturer has control over.
Anything that effects the efficiency of the furnace will change the
output BTUs

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 7:53:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 07:17:00 +0000 (UTC), gregz

wrote:



Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?



Greg

Mine quotes input BTUs (basically fuel consumption)

Yes, input and AFAIK that is how it has aways been.

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

On 12/19/2013 9:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Read the spec sheet carefully.

My furnace is rated on output.

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 07:17:00 +0000 (UTC), gregz
wrote:

Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg
Mine quotes input BTUs (basically fuel consumption)

The funny thing, output is what yo need to know in computing requirements.
When I was young, I remember looking at the furnace specs in my teens. I'm
pretty sure it gave specs at 120k btu out, and maybe 160btu in. I'll have
to compute efficiency. I remember nights hearing the furnace shut off, then
come back on in a minute. Before I sold that house, I made many
improvements in insulation. A 100k btu 95% furnace was in place. Also nice
that newer units have more cfm flow.

Greg

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:39:53 PM UTC-5, Irreverent Maximus wrote:
On 12/19/2013 9:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:

Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?



Greg





Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.



Read the spec sheet carefully.



My furnace is rated on output.


Just out of curiousity, you have the make and model?

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says
Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after
the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me
didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if
the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of
furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a
total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,
have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an
agle on them.


It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for
a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,
which won't give as much output as I have now.


Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says
Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after
the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me
didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if
the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of
furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a
total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,
have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an
agle on them.


It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for
a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,
which won't give as much output as I have now.


Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf
How long does your furnace run on the coldest day of the year? If it
runs less than 8 hours, chances are very good the furnace is larger
than required. If it runs over 16 there is a strong chance it is
slightly undersized.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says
Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after
the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me
didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if
the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of
furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a
total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,
have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an
agle on them.


It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for
a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,
which won't give as much output as I have now.


Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf

Even Carrier can't repeal the laws of physics. The only thing they
have control over is the input (and that, only to the degree that
specifications are followed). The output (efficiency) is left to age
and those maintaining the system.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:46:01 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says
Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after
the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me
didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if
the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of
furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a
total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,
have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an
agle on them.


It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for
a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,
which won't give as much output as I have now.


Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf
How long does your furnace run on the coldest day of the year? If it
runs less than 8 hours, chances are very good the furnace is larger
than required. If it runs over 16 there is a strong chance it is
slightly undersized.

Yeah, I've heard about that, and I wish I'd kept track as much as I
could have.

We don't have many days that are the coldest, and I kept NO track
during those.

I could extrapolate maybe, if I kept better track on even non-coldest
days, like most of last week. I did notice, without looking at a
clock, that it often ran maybe 10 minutes, and then was off for only
10 minutes, but I guess those are estimates. Often I'm in the
basement on the computer for hours during the middle of the night. It
might be like that then too.

But it's in the 60's today and until Monday,. I'll have to start
paying attention after that. High in the 40's on Tuesday, t hey
predict now.

Thanks for the question.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:02:50 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says
Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after
the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me
didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if
the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of
furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a
total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,
have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an
agle on them.


It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for
a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,
which won't give as much output as I have now.


Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf

Even Carrier can't repeal the laws of physics. The only thing they
have control over is the input (and that, only to the degree that
specifications are followed). The output (efficiency) is left to age
and those maintaining the system.

True, but nonetheless, that's how this 34 year old oil furnace was
rated, and named. I guess they changed but I don't know when.

Hmmm. Have they changed that much?
I see that currently Carrier names its gas furnaces by the maximum
effficiency they can deliver, Comfort 80, Comfort 92, and Comfort 95,
model names for 80, 92, 95% efficiency. and it's probably no
coincidence that model 59SC5, ending in 5, iis the one that they say
is up to 95% efficient. And 59SC2, ending in 2, is the one they say
is up to 92%.

Not all of them are exaclly like that. Performance 90 (not 92) goes
up to 92.1% they say, but its model number is 59SP2, ending in 2. to
represent 92%. .
http://www.carrier.com/homecomfort/e...ling/furnaces/

And in oil furnaces, Performance 80 ranges they say gp from 85.7 to
86.6% eff. but they are all called Perf. *80*. The model numbers have
no numbers, only letters.

I havent' found the btu ratings, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
have a rating for output, despite its dependance on age and
maintenance. They'll say they're just rating it when it's new.

wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says
Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after
the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me
didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if
the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of
furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a
total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,
have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an
agle on them.


It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for
a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,
which won't give as much output as I have now.


Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf
How long does your furnace run on the coldest day of the year? If it
runs less than 8 hours, chances are very good the furnace is larger
than required. If it runs over 16 there is a strong chance it is
slightly undersized.

I used to have another thermostat when I had an oil furnace. It recorded
daily on time. I knew it used 3/4 gallon per hour. Easy computations. Dam
thing took 5 minutes before the fan came on !!

Greg

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:37:47 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:02:50 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,
too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't
be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat
output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says
Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after
the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me
didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if
the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of
furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a
total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,
have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an
agle on them.


It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for
a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,
which won't give as much output as I have now.


Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf

Even Carrier can't repeal the laws of physics. The only thing they
have control over is the input (and that, only to the degree that
specifications are followed). The output (efficiency) is left to age
and those maintaining the system.

True, but nonetheless, that's how this 34 year old oil furnace was
rated, and named. I guess they changed but I don't know when.

Hmmm. Have they changed that much?
I see that currently Carrier names its gas furnaces by the maximum
effficiency they can deliver, Comfort 80, Comfort 92, and Comfort 95,
model names for 80, 92, 95% efficiency. and it's probably no
coincidence that model 59SC5, ending in 5, iis the one that they say
is up to 95% efficient. And 59SC2, ending in 2, is the one they say
is up to 92%.

Not all of them are exaclly like that. Performance 90 (not 92) goes
up to 92.1% they say, but its model number is 59SP2, ending in 2. to
represent 92%. .
http://www.carrier.com/homecomfort/e...ling/furnaces/

And in oil furnaces, Performance 80 ranges they say gp from 85.7 to
86.6% eff. but they are all called Perf. *80*. The model numbers have
no numbers, only letters.

I havent' found the btu ratings, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
have a rating for output, despite its dependance on age and
maintenance. They'll say they're just rating it when it's new.
My Tempstar(icp) is an ntv6050fb/vne050b12
input 50kbtu/35kbtu input, 40kbtu/28kbtu output spec 80+% 2 stage
variable speed.
On low fire it is better than 85% efficient (so puts out 30kbtu+) -
not as efficient on high fire.
The "smart thermostat" registers run time - I don't think it has ever
run 10 hours in a day, even when it is a nasty -5F and windy out.
Most winter days not over 8 hours out of 24. The furnace is slightly
oversized for this1350sq ft plus finished basement 2 story 40 year old
house. ( new vinyl double glazed LoE2 windows and R50 in the attic)

On 12/21/2013 1:37 PM, micky wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:02:50 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct
rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35
years ago, too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated,
it can't be anything else. There are too many variables to
state the heat output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace
after the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they
gave me didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both
now, of if the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group
of furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious
sizes, a total of 18 models, all of which are named after their
rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he
architect, have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in
big numbers at an agle on them.

It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping
for a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with
85,000 input, which won't give as much output as I have now.

Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page
3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf



Even Carrier can't repeal the laws of physics. The only thing they
have control over is the input (and that, only to the degree that
specifications are followed). The output (efficiency) is left to
age and those maintaining the system.

True, but nonetheless, that's how this 34 year old oil furnace was
rated, and named. I guess they changed but I don't know when.

Hmmm. Have they changed that much? I see that currently Carrier
names its gas furnaces by the maximum effficiency they can deliver,
Comfort 80, Comfort 92, and Comfort 95, model names for 80, 92, 95%
efficiency. and it's probably no coincidence that model 59SC5,
ending in 5, iis the one that they say is up to 95% efficient. And
59SC2, ending in 2, is the one they say is up to 92%.

Not all of them are exaclly like that. Performance 90 (not 92)
goes up to 92.1% they say, but its model number is 59SP2, ending in
2. to represent 92%. .
http://www.carrier.com/homecomfort/e...ling/furnaces/




And in oil furnaces, Performance 80 ranges they say gp from 85.7 to
86.6% eff. but they are all called Perf. *80*. The model numbers
have no numbers, only letters.

I havent' found the btu ratings, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
have a rating for output, despite its dependance on age and
maintenance. They'll say they're just rating it when it's new.


Oil heat for a home is a foreign concept for us down South because NG or
LP are the most common fuels burned for heating homes. Of course there
are heat pumps with a backup that can either be electric resistant heat
or a fuel burning furnace, then there are wood or other solid fuel
burning sources of heat. Many very old homes have coal burning furnaces
that have been converted to NG but they're not as efficient as more
modern forced air systems. We call the old coal burners, "Octopus"
heaters because there is no blower, the furnace in the basement has
large ducts coming out looking like a tree or octopus and the heated air
flows by convection. The old homes have a coal chute from outside to the
basement and when I've serviced some of the old coal furnaces converted
to natural gas, there is often still coal in the coal chute. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 23:01:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2013 1:37 PM, micky wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:02:50 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct
rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35
years ago, too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated,
it can't be anything else. There are too many variables to
state the heat output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106
Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace
after the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they
gave me didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both
now, of if the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group
of furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious
sizes, a total of 18 models, all of which are named after their
rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he
architect, have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in
big numbers at an agle on them.

It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping
for a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with
85,000 input, which won't give as much output as I have now.

Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page
3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf



Even Carrier can't repeal the laws of physics. The only thing they
have control over is the input (and that, only to the degree that
specifications are followed). The output (efficiency) is left to
age and those maintaining the system.

True, but nonetheless, that's how this 34 year old oil furnace was
rated, and named. I guess they changed but I don't know when.

Hmmm. Have they changed that much? I see that currently Carrier
names its gas furnaces by the maximum effficiency they can deliver,
Comfort 80, Comfort 92, and Comfort 95, model names for 80, 92, 95%
efficiency. and it's probably no coincidence that model 59SC5,
ending in 5, iis the one that they say is up to 95% efficient. And
59SC2, ending in 2, is the one they say is up to 92%.

Not all of them are exaclly like that. Performance 90 (not 92)
goes up to 92.1% they say, but its model number is 59SP2, ending in
2. to represent 92%. .
http://www.carrier.com/homecomfort/e...ling/furnaces/




And in oil furnaces, Performance 80 ranges they say gp from 85.7 to
86.6% eff. but they are all called Perf. *80*. The model numbers
have no numbers, only letters.

I havent' found the btu ratings, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
have a rating for output, despite its dependance on age and
maintenance. They'll say they're just rating it when it's new.


Oil heat for a home is a foreign concept for us down South because NG or
LP are the most common fuels burned for heating homes. Of course there
are heat pumps with a backup that can either be electric resistant heat
or a fuel burning furnace, then there are wood or other solid fuel
burning sources of heat.

Nat gas isn't available in much of the NE and LP is exceedingly
expensive. Oil is there, now, too. We had oil-fired hot-water heat
in our NY and VT houses. The latter we converted to Nat Gas as soon
as we could (the gas company gave us a deal we couldn't refuse).

Many very old homes have coal burning furnaces
that have been converted to NG but they're not as efficient as more
modern forced air systems. We call the old coal burners, "Octopus"
heaters because there is no blower, the furnace in the basement has
large ducts coming out looking like a tree or octopus and the heated air
flows by convection. The old homes have a coal chute from outside to the
basement and when I've serviced some of the old coal furnaces converted
to natural gas, there is often still coal in the coal chute. ^_^

Sure, though not that not all "octopi" were coal-fired. There were
also gas and oil-fired gravity fed hot-air systems. Their efficiency
sucked so went away some time back (at least by the end of the '50s).

On 12/22/2013 12:07 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 23:01:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2013 1:37 PM, micky wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:02:50 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:
Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output
?

Greg


Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the
efficienct rating.

Is that true for oil furnace, too?

Yes.

Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces
35 years ago, too?

Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have
stated, it can't be anything else. There are too many
variables to state the heat output.

Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085

And in the owners manual, it says Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh)
106 Output (1000Btuh) 85

So it not only rates the output, it named the model of
furnace after the output.

I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures
they gave me didn't show if they rate them by input or output
or both now, of if the model number reflects either number.

(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a
group of furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of
variious sizes, a total of 18 models, all of which are named
after their rated output)

Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he
architect, have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written
in big numbers at an agle on them.

It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when
shopping for a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy
one with 85,000 input, which won't give as much output as I
have now.

Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at
page 3.
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf





Even Carrier can't repeal the laws of physics. The only thing they
have control over is the input (and that, only to the degree
that specifications are followed). The output (efficiency) is
left to age and those maintaining the system.

True, but nonetheless, that's how this 34 year old oil furnace
was rated, and named. I guess they changed but I don't know
when.

Hmmm. Have they changed that much? I see that currently Carrier
names its gas furnaces by the maximum effficiency they can
deliver, Comfort 80, Comfort 92, and Comfort 95, model names for
80, 92, 95% efficiency. and it's probably no coincidence that
model 59SC5, ending in 5, iis the one that they say is up to 95%
efficient. And 59SC2, ending in 2, is the one they say is up to
92%.

Not all of them are exaclly like that. Performance 90 (not 92)
goes up to 92.1% they say, but its model number is 59SP2, ending
in 2. to represent 92%. .
http://www.carrier.com/homecomfort/e...ling/furnaces/






And in oil furnaces, Performance 80 ranges they say gp from 85.7 to
86.6% eff. but they are all called Perf. *80*. The model
numbers have no numbers, only letters.

I havent' found the btu ratings, but I wouldn't be surprised if
they have a rating for output, despite its dependance on age and
maintenance. They'll say they're just rating it when it's new.


Oil heat for a home is a foreign concept for us down South because
NG or LP are the most common fuels burned for heating homes. Of
course there are heat pumps with a backup that can either be
electric resistant heat or a fuel burning furnace, then there are
wood or other solid fuel burning sources of heat.

Nat gas isn't available in much of the NE and LP is exceedingly
expensive. Oil is there, now, too. We had oil-fired hot-water heat
in our NY and VT houses. The latter we converted to Nat Gas as soon
as we could (the gas company gave us a deal we couldn't refuse).

Many very old homes have coal burning furnaces that have been
converted to NG but they're not as efficient as more modern forced
air systems. We call the old coal burners, "Octopus" heaters
because there is no blower, the furnace in the basement has large
ducts coming out looking like a tree or octopus and the heated air
flows by convection. The old homes have a coal chute from outside
to the basement and when I've serviced some of the old coal
furnaces converted to natural gas, there is often still coal in the
coal chute. ^_^

Sure, though not that not all "octopi" were coal-fired. There were
also gas and oil-fired gravity fed hot-air systems. Their
efficiency sucked so went away some time back (at least by the end of
the '50s).


All the old octopus furnaces I've ever seen were former coal burners
converted to natural gas. Here in Alabamastan, coal has always been
plentiful. The city of Birmingham is young compared to other cities
but it's been around since the mid 19th century when everything ran on
coal plus, Birmingham was "The Steel City" with a lot of steel mills.
During that era, coal was everywhere and the infrastructure for coal
distribution was well established. If I remember right, folks even had
coal fired stoves for cooking. ^_^

TDD

On 12/22/2013 12:01 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Oil heat for a home is a foreign concept for us down South because NG or
LP are the most common fuels burned for heating homes. Of course there
are heat pumps with a backup that can either be electric resistant heat
or a fuel burning furnace, then there are wood or other solid fuel
burning sources of heat. Many very old homes have coal burning furnaces
that have been converted to NG but they're not as efficient as more
modern forced air systems. We call the old coal burners, "Octopus"
heaters because there is no blower, the furnace in the basement has
large ducts coming out looking like a tree or octopus and the heated air
flows by convection. The old homes have a coal chute from outside to the
basement and when I've serviced some of the old coal furnaces converted
to natural gas, there is often still coal in the coal chute. ^_^

TDD

Those octopus furnae used to terrify me. Could not stand the sight of
one. Just some primal fear.

I got to help take out one, when I was adult. It had about 500 pounds of
sand on top, for thermal mass. We scooped it off with a shovel, and took
out to the back yard in bags and buckets. The new furnace saved a lot of
fuel money.

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

On 12/22/2013 7:00 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 12:01 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Oil heat for a home is a foreign concept for us down South because NG or
LP are the most common fuels burned for heating homes. Of course there
are heat pumps with a backup that can either be electric resistant heat
or a fuel burning furnace, then there are wood or other solid fuel
burning sources of heat. Many very old homes have coal burning furnaces
that have been converted to NG but they're not as efficient as more
modern forced air systems. We call the old coal burners, "Octopus"
heaters because there is no blower, the furnace in the basement has
large ducts coming out looking like a tree or octopus and the heated air
flows by convection. The old homes have a coal chute from outside to the
basement and when I've serviced some of the old coal furnaces converted
to natural gas, there is often still coal in the coal chute. ^_^

TDD

Those octopus furnae used to terrify me. Could not stand the sight of
one. Just some primal fear.

I got to help take out one, when I was adult. It had about 500 pounds of
sand on top, for thermal mass. We scooped it off with a shovel, and took
out to the back yard in bags and buckets. The new furnace saved a lot of
fuel money.


The old furnace may be a good thing to have when TSHTF because it is so
simple and just works. Coal may be easier to obtain when the
infrastructure for petroleum and natural gas is destroyed. o_O

TDD

On Saturday, December 21, 2013 2:02:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:28:48 -0500, micky

wrote:



On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 23:37:46 -0500, wrote:



On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:32:10 -0500, micky

wrote:



On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:22:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



On 12/19/2013 2:17 AM, gregz wrote:

Today's furnace specify btu. Is that input or output ?



Greg





Input. Figure the output by multiplying by the efficienct rating.



Is that true for oil furnace, too?



Yes.



Or maybe the question is, Was that true for oil furnaces 35 years ago,

too?



Yes. It was stated as such, on mine. As others have stated, it can't

be anything else. There are too many variables to state the heat

output.



Well, my furnace is a Carrier model 58HV085



And in the owners manual, it says

Ratings, Input (1000 Btuh) 106

Output (1000Btuh) 85



So it not only rates the output, it named the model of furnace after

the output.



I went shopping for a new oil furnace, but the brochures they gave me

didn't show if they rate them by input or output or both now, of if

the model number reflects either number.



(HV means it's an upflow furnace, and 58 is the series, a group of

furnaces including downflow, upflow, loboy, etc of variious sizes, a

total of 18 models, all of which are named after their rated output)



Plus the blueprints for the house, which I got fromt he architect,

have 85,000 (or maybe 85,000 btu) hand-written in big numbers at an

agle on them.





It was installed 34 years and a few months ago, and when shopping for

a new furnace, I have to be careful NOT to buy one with 85,000 input,

which won't give as much output as I have now.





Here's the spec sheet for all of them. The info starts at page 3.

http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/58h-5si.pdf



Even Carrier can't repeal the laws of physics. The only thing they

have control over is the input (and that, only to the degree that

specifications are followed). The output (efficiency) is left to age

and those maintaining the system.


That's like saying Ford can't spec the output horsepower of the
engines on the cars they make, yet obviously they do.
I just looked up the spec sheet for
the Rheem gas furnace I have and they do spec both input and output.
If you think about it, how could they spec that it's 93% efficient,
that it meets govt standards etc, if they can't determine how much
heat comes out, only how much goes in? All kinds of systems are
spec'd for a variety of parameters, but of course if the system isn't
installed properly, maintained properly, is old etc, then those spec;s
aren't going to be met. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether
manufacturers spec furnaces on input or output. Clearly many in fact
do both.

Just admit it, once again, you're wrong krw and Micky is right.

On 12/22/2013 9:11 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

The old furnace may be a good thing to have when TSHTF because it is so
simple and just works. Coal may be easier to obtain when the
infrastructure for petroleum and natural gas is destroyed. o_O

TDD

Fuels are regional. My part of the world has
more firewood. W. Virginia has more coal. Still,
simple is good.

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

I have a 55 year old natural gas fired hot air furnace. Just a giant tin can with a flame in the can and air blowing around it. When we first bought the house 45 years ago, I redid the insulation in walls and attic. I noticed that the furnace was fired up only about 30% of the time even on subzero days. I took the orifice outof the gas nozzle, filled it in with solder, and then redrilled the nozzle so the cross-sectional area was 1/2 of what it had previously been. The flame was greatly reduced, of course, and I had to rebalance the gas - air flow using the adjuster that was part of the nozzle assembly. The furnace now does run longer, but my gas consumption based on degree days is much lower than it used to be.

On 12/22/2013 9:18 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 9:11 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

The old furnace may be a good thing to have when TSHTF because it is so
simple and just works. Coal may be easier to obtain when the
infrastructure for petroleum and natural gas is destroyed. o_O

TDD

Fuels are regional. My part of the world has
more firewood. W. Virginia has more coal. Still,
simple is good.


Think of the old simple cars people are trashing. An EMP will make all
the vehicles with engine control computers, even modern diesels, useless
so the only thing that will run will be things like that old 57 Ford
pickup under all that junk in the barn. Simple is good in some hopeless
situations. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 23:01:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2013 1:37 PM, micky wrote:
.......
And in oil furnaces, Performance 80 ranges they say gp from 85.7 to
86.6% eff. but they are all called Perf. *80*. The model numbers
have no numbers, only letters.

I havent' found the btu ratings, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
have a rating for output, despite its dependance on age and
maintenance. They'll say they're just rating it when it's new.


Oil heat for a home is a foreign concept for us down South because NG or
LP are the most common fuels burned for heating homes. Of course there
are heat pumps with a backup that can either be electric resistant heat
or a fuel burning furnace, then there are wood or other solid fuel
burning sources of heat. Many very old homes have coal burning furnaces
that have been converted to NG but they're not as efficient as more
modern forced air systems. We call the old coal burners, "Octopus"
heaters because there is no blower, the furnace in the basement has
large ducts coming out looking like a tree or octopus and the heated air
flows by convection. The old homes have a coal chute from outside to the
basement and when I've serviced some of the old coal furnaces converted
to natural gas, there is often still coal in the coal chute. ^_^

TDD

The house I first lived in had a coal furnace when my father bought it
in 1945. (No he wasn't a returning vet. He had served in WWI.)

Soon after that, he put in a stoker, so my mother wouldn't have to
shovel coal in the middle of the day. He would do it before leaving
for work, and the stoker would add a little bit of coal all day long.

Soon after that, HE got tired of shovelling coal (at age 53) and he
had put in a gas furnace It has a big fan, I'm sure, to circulate the
air to a 2-story plus basement** house. And because I was a newborn
in 1947, he had put in another fan in the duct that went to my room,
so it was always warm. Born in January, didn't get a bath with water
until April, so I wouldn't get chilled. Oil was used, baby oil or
maybe olive oil!



**Unfinished basement. In fact water came up through the drain in the
middle of the big room, whenever it rained much. So there was
nothing in the big room. The washer and dryer had to be put on wood
boxes, and the furnace rusted quite a bit at the floor.

There was still an iron coal chute door one could see from the
outside, but I don't think there was any coal or even a coal chute
anymore. Although there was a corner of the basement I never went
to. Maybe it was full of coal, now that you mention it. Was it harder
to get coal out of a basement than to suck heating oil out of a tank?

Nat gas isn't available in much of the NE

Much as I hate to admit it, Baltimore is probably not the NE.

I had a gas stove in my apartment in Brooklyn, but here I have no gas
at all. It's avaible 150 yards from here, but the builder didn't pay
to run the pipe to this n'hood. Even though it was the same builder!

At least I don't have to worry about a gas explosion from the n'bors
(or me).

On 12/22/2013 1:51 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/22/2013 9:18 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Fuels are regional. My part of the world has
more firewood. W. Virginia has more coal. Still,
simple is good.


Think of the old simple cars people are trashing. An EMP will make all
the vehicles with engine control computers, even modern diesels, useless
so the only thing that will run will be things like that old 57 Ford
pickup under all that junk in the barn. Simple is good in some hopeless
situations. ^_^

TDD

After the government takes all the guns, I've still
got my claw hammer. And my old bicycle that I rode in
high school.

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

On 12/22/2013 4:19 PM, micky wrote:

Nat gas isn't available in much of the NE

Much as I hate to admit it, Baltimore is probably not the NE.

I had a gas stove in my apartment in Brooklyn, but here I have no gas
at all. It's avaible 150 yards from here, but the builder didn't pay
to run the pipe to this n'hood. Even though it was the same builder!

At least I don't have to worry about a gas explosion from the n'bors
(or me).

In that case, how would we have 4,000 gas explosions
a year, if you didn't help with the numbers? You
aren't doing your fair share.

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

On 12/22/2013 3:29 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 1:51 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/22/2013 9:18 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Fuels are regional. My part of the world has more firewood. W.
Virginia has more coal. Still, simple is good.


Think of the old simple cars people are trashing. An EMP will make
all the vehicles with engine control computers, even modern
diesels, useless so the only thing that will run will be things
like that old 57 Ford pickup under all that junk in the barn.
Simple is good in some hopeless situations. ^_^

TDD

After the government takes all the guns, I've still got my claw
hammer. And my old bicycle that I rode in high school.


A ball-peen hammer works better for self defense. I have several hammers
but I wish I could still ride a bicycle or even walk without pain and
wobbling. ^_^

TDD

On 12/22/2013 7:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

A ball-peen hammer works better for self defense. I have several hammers
but I wish I could still ride a bicycle or even walk without pain and
wobbling. ^_^

TDD

I also wish it for you. You're too valuable to just
fade away in a hospice.

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

On 12/22/2013 8:07 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 7:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

A ball-peen hammer works better for self defense. I have several hammers
but I wish I could still ride a bicycle or even walk without pain and
wobbling. ^_^

TDD

I also wish it for you. You're too valuable to just
fade away in a hospice.


I thought I wrote that I was dropped from hospice care in October. My
nurse told me I wasn't dying fast enough, in fact I wasn't declining at
all but improving. I was sent home from the hospital to die but I'm too
damned ornery. I even shipped back the 32 thousand dollar external
defibrillator unit that I had been wearing. I still take a handful of
pills twice a day. I can't take NSAIDS because of kidney problems so I
must put up with painful swollen joints, chronic pain is a real drag. I
do appreciate the good thoughts though. Now I'm worried about Sandy
because she has a skin problem. o_O

TDD

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 21:25:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/22/2013 8:07 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 7:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

A ball-peen hammer works better for self defense. I have several hammers
but I wish I could still ride a bicycle or even walk without pain and
wobbling. ^_^

TDD

I also wish it for you. You're too valuable to just
fade away in a hospice.


I thought I wrote that I was dropped from hospice care in October. My
nurse told me I wasn't dying fast enough, in fact I wasn't declining at
all but improving. I was sent home from the hospital to die but I'm too
damned ornery. I even shipped back the 32 thousand dollar external
defibrillator unit that I had been wearing. I still take a handful of
pills twice a day. I can't take NSAIDS because of kidney problems so I
must put up with painful swollen joints, chronic pain is a real drag. I
do appreciate the good thoughts though. Now I'm worried about Sandy
because she has a skin problem. o_O

TDD
Only the good die young, so you should be with us for a while yet BG

On 12/22/2013 9:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 21:25:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/22/2013 8:07 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 7:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

A ball-peen hammer works better for self defense. I have several hammers
but I wish I could still ride a bicycle or even walk without pain and
wobbling. ^_^

TDD

I also wish it for you. You're too valuable to just
fade away in a hospice.


I thought I wrote that I was dropped from hospice care in October. My
nurse told me I wasn't dying fast enough, in fact I wasn't declining at
all but improving. I was sent home from the hospital to die but I'm too
damned ornery. I even shipped back the 32 thousand dollar external
defibrillator unit that I had been wearing. I still take a handful of
pills twice a day. I can't take NSAIDS because of kidney problems so I
must put up with painful swollen joints, chronic pain is a real drag. I
do appreciate the good thoughts though. Now I'm worried about Sandy
because she has a skin problem. o_O

TDD
Only the good die young, so you should be with us for a while yet BG


Thanks, the pain lets me know I'm alive and every 2 hours, Mr. Bladder
will demonstrate that I can still walk. If I sleep 3 hours straight, I
feel very lucky. After 2 hours I get rid of 300 to 400cc, after 3 hours
at least 500cc. My record is 600cc because I was in a very deep sleep
and Mr. Bladder had a hard(no pun)time waking me up. I hate drugs. ^_^

TDD

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:34:33 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/22/2013 9:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 21:25:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/22/2013 8:07 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 7:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

A ball-peen hammer works better for self defense. I have several hammers
but I wish I could still ride a bicycle or even walk without pain and
wobbling. ^_^

TDD

I also wish it for you. You're too valuable to just
fade away in a hospice.


I thought I wrote that I was dropped from hospice care in October. My
nurse told me I wasn't dying fast enough, in fact I wasn't declining at
all but improving. I was sent home from the hospital to die but I'm too
damned ornery. I even shipped back the 32 thousand dollar external
defibrillator unit that I had been wearing. I still take a handful of
pills twice a day. I can't take NSAIDS because of kidney problems so I
must put up with painful swollen joints, chronic pain is a real drag. I
do appreciate the good thoughts though. Now I'm worried about Sandy
because she has a skin problem. o_O

TDD
Only the good die young, so you should be with us for a while yet BG


Thanks, the pain lets me know I'm alive and every 2 hours, Mr. Bladder
will demonstrate that I can still walk. If I sleep 3 hours straight, I
feel very lucky. After 2 hours I get rid of 300 to 400cc, after 3 hours
at least 500cc. My record is 600cc because I was in a very deep sleep
and Mr. Bladder had a hard(no pun)time waking me up. I hate drugs. ^_^

TDD
My Dad went through 2 tough years with Multiple Myeloma along with
prostrate problems - on dyalasis for part of the time and in constant
pain from spinal compression fracture. He died at 84. Hang in there!!!

On 12/22/2013 12:08 PM, wrote:
I have a 55 year old natural gas fired hot air furnace. Just a giant tin can with a flame in the can and air blowing around it. When we first bought the house 45 years ago, I redid the insulation in walls and attic. I noticed that the furnace was fired up only about 30% of the time even on subzero days. I took the orifice outof the gas nozzle, filled it in with solder, and then redrilled the nozzle so the cross-sectional area was 1/2 of what it had previously been. The flame was greatly reduced, of course, and I had to rebalance the gas - air flow using the adjuster that was part of the nozzle assembly. The furnace now does run longer, but my gas consumption based on degree days is much lower than it used to be.

Sounds like you can benefit from a heat gain
and loss survey, and a proprerly sized modern
90% efficiency furnace. That one has to be
a bit inefficient.

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

On 12/22/2013 10:25 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

I thought I wrote that I was dropped from hospice care in October. My
nurse told me I wasn't dying fast enough, in fact I wasn't declining at
all but improving. I was sent home from the hospital to die but I'm too
damned ornery. I even shipped back the 32 thousand dollar external
defibrillator unit that I had been wearing. I still take a handful of
pills twice a day. I can't take NSAIDS because of kidney problems so I
must put up with painful swollen joints, chronic pain is a real drag. I
do appreciate the good thoughts though. Now I'm worried about Sandy
because she has a skin problem. o_O

TDD

Yes, you did write that the hospice expelled you,
for bad behaviour. Aparently, you had about as
much compatibility with Hospice as you do with
parochial Catholic Schoolag.

You sent back the defib unit that the tax payers
bought you? I bet they were shocked.

Hope the vet can help Sandy's skin problem.
Dermo-Vet-Ologist? Vetroderm?

In NYS, we keep being subjected to commercials for
something called Dinovite, or Dynovite. Food suppliment
for dogs that helps with itching.

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

On 12/23/2013 7:20 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:34:33 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/22/2013 9:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 21:25:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/22/2013 8:07 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/22/2013 7:43 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

A ball-peen hammer works better for self defense. I have several hammers
but I wish I could still ride a bicycle or even walk without pain and
wobbling. ^_^

TDD

I also wish it for you. You're too valuable to just
fade away in a hospice.


I thought I wrote that I was dropped from hospice care in October. My
nurse told me I wasn't dying fast enough, in fact I wasn't declining at
all but improving. I was sent home from the hospital to die but I'm too
damned ornery. I even shipped back the 32 thousand dollar external
defibrillator unit that I had been wearing. I still take a handful of
pills twice a day. I can't take NSAIDS because of kidney problems so I
must put up with painful swollen joints, chronic pain is a real drag. I
do appreciate the good thoughts though. Now I'm worried about Sandy
because she has a skin problem. o_O

TDD
Only the good die young, so you should be with us for a while yet BG


Thanks, the pain lets me know I'm alive and every 2 hours, Mr. Bladder
will demonstrate that I can still walk. If I sleep 3 hours straight, I
feel very lucky. After 2 hours I get rid of 300 to 400cc, after 3 hours
at least 500cc. My record is 600cc because I was in a very deep sleep
and Mr. Bladder had a hard(no pun)time waking me up. I hate drugs. ^_^

TDD
My Dad went through 2 tough years with Multiple Myeloma along with
prostrate problems - on dyalasis for part of the time and in constant
pain from spinal compression fracture. He died at 84. Hang in there!!!


Thanks for good thoughts. I spent most of May in the hospital then the
doctors sent me home to die and I was put into home hospice care. At
1:00am July first I woke up with breathing trouble thinking I had thrown
up in my sleep and aspirated some vomit. So I went to the bathroom and
coughed and coughed then back to sit on the bed and when my breathing
got worse I yelled for my roommate to help me and hook up the oxygen
cylinder which I had never used. The regulator wouldn't seal so high
pressure oxygen spewed everywhere. That's when I told roommate to dial
911, by the time paramedics got there I was drowning in my own body
fluids due to a sudden onset of pulmonary edema. In the emergency room,
I told them they should stick in a catheter and start draining me. I
couldn't lie down because it felt like I was drowning so they shot me
full of Lasix, my kidneys kicked into overdrive and voluminous amounts
of urine started draining through the catheter into a big bag. When I
could breathe again I was sent to intensive care for a few days then to
a regular room for another several days then home after 5 days in the
hospital. I've spent more time in the hospital this year than I have in
my whole life. I was dropped from hospice because I wasn't declining and
my nurse would scold me for getting out and trying to work. I still
live in pain but at least I know I'm not going to drop dead no matter
how much certain Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks wish for
it to happen. ^_^

TDD