Mike Fritz wrote:
...he'll forget to turn it on, and end up with a cold shower.


I hate it when that happens.

Bob

The "Mpemba" effect, as I recall. Visit:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...hot_water.html to get the real
story.
Whole bunch of inflated egos hangin round these parts...Randy, that be you.
"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Bob K 207" wrote in message
...
Randy-

Chill out, you're wrong, you made a mistake.

Remember the first rule of holes.......stop digging.


basic physics says you're wrong.

I'll do the complete analysis but not for free.

Hopefully you're not a licensed engineer, otherwise I'll have to notify
the PE
board.

If turning the water heater off uses more energy why do utilities give
rebates
for setback thermostats????

admit your mistake, its good for the psyche


you'll be happier & live longer

i have yet to see any proof i am wrong. i will willingly admit it if
proven
wrong.

as for the rebates, one could argue that they make more with the timers so
they kick you back a little and call it a rebate... hehe

randy

In article ,
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
...snipped...

If things are tweaked right, you can find starting water temperatures
and an air temperature which will result in the water remaining in the
"hot" bucket freezing first.
...snipped...

That sounds pretty cool. Can you give a specific example
(temperatures, quantities, etc.) where this will happen?



--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

w_tom wrote:
I run all stop signs without causing problems. That proves
stop signs can be ignored. You have violated a basic
principle. Just because circuit breakers work as switched in
one place does not mean it is acceptable everywhere. Do you
know that those bookstore circuit breakers are specially
designed to be switched? You should know such facts - the
underlying theory - before posting.

I didn't know there were switch-rated circuit breakers and
non-switch-rated circuit breakers. I know that now, as several people
pointed that out, even before I got to your condescending diatribe.

I welcome opportunities to fill gaps in my ignorance. It's not
necessary to be nasty when you perceive such a gap.

[...]
--
Bo Williams -
http://hiwaay.net/~williams/

xrongor wrote:
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

xrongor wrote:

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...


xrongor wrote:



flinging insults. i think 'i wont bother to explain to you' is an
insult.

lets start with a simple question. one that comes up from time to time
in trivia games. which freezes faster, hot water or cold water?

randy


I presume you want to start with two equal sized wooden buckets filled to
the same level, one with hot water and the other with cold, set outside,
no covers on 'em, on a day where the air temperature is below 32F. Right?

The wood provides some insulation between the cold air and the water,
delaying heat loss through that path. The hot water will evaporate faster
than the cold and leave the "hot" bucket with less water in it.

If things are tweaked right, you can find starting water temperatures and
an air temperature which will result in the water remaining in the "hot"
bucket freezing first.

Now, pray tell, where are you going with this? The fellow's water heater
isn't open to the air, so evaporation won't be a factor.

Next?

Jeff


next? we cant even get this far.

hot water freezes slower than cold water. you can manipulate external
factors to create different but seemingly similiar situations to make the
hot water appear to freeze faster but all things being equal, cold water
freezes faster. same reason cold water boils slower than hot water.
temperature = energy.

so, since you decided to ride this horse, here's a taste of how i feel.
****es me off when someone thinks they can slap me away like a child
because they think they know it all. tell me they wont explain cause im
too dumb to understand... bet it does you too. so here's a hint.
entropy.

randy
the guy who is not in the mood for this today

Of course I agree that in most reasonable everyday situations cold water
freezes "faster" than hot water and boils "slower", assuming the masses of
water are equal and the heat removed or added is also equal in each of the
comparisons.

I gave you my response just in case you were trying to be cute and would
then try and "prove" me wrong if I gave you a flat out, "Cold water always
freezes faster", answer.

Several other posters have given good point by point explanations of why
you are wrong, so I don't need to repeat what they've already said.

Skip the hints Randy, I've known what entropy is for over 50 years now.

Just give us a step by step explanation of why you believe the OP's friend
will use MORE overall electrical energy by cutting the power to his water
heater when he leaves for work and turning it back on again when he
returns.


dont sugar coat your insults man. if you want to poke me, look me in the
eye. you say others have proven why i am wrong (although i dont see any
'proof'). why do you need me to say anything? just so you can watch me
squirm? you are the worst of them all. i mean, im used to the usual
'pounce' attack. the ones where people just call you an idiot and be done
with it.

Gee Randy, if that happens so often that you've gotten used to it, it
sounds like you are in the habit of making statements which lead folks
to think that your entire alimentary tract has somehow become reversed.


hell im guilty of it myself sometimes. but you... you pretend
like you give a rip when all you want to do is kick somebody that you think
you have in a weak position. you have offered nothing to this thread that
has anything to do with the topic... but like a shark you smell blood and
here you are.

randy



I didn't have to offer it, because as I said, others had already
explained why you are wrong. IMHO Ralph Becker did an excellent job in
his post of the 28th when he put it this way:

****************************

The water heater will always use less electricity
if you let it cool down. Admittedly, the difference might be
irrelevantly small. Think about it this way: If the unit is being
kept hot, it needs to use energy to overcome the leakage of energy.
This leakage is probably heating the house or basement around the
water heater. But if you let it cool down, it will always leak less
energy. Admittedly, if you let it cool down, you will eventually
(when you heat it back up) have to use a lot of energy at once to
bring it back up to temperature; but still less than if you had kept
it at higher temperature.

Remember: In temperature swings, there is no friction. Getting the
heater back up to temperature costs as much energy as the heater
released when the temperature went down. Where did the heater release
the energy to? Into the leakage - while the power was off. If we had
kept the heater on, we would have had to pay for leakage. But there
was less leakage (due to the lower temperature as the heater cooled
down), so we have a small net gain.

***************************************

Now, if you can find any faulty physics in that Randy, let's hear from you.

No one can't "prove you wrong" unless you give them YOUR proof of why
you think you're right, can they? So where is it?

Sorry if it hurts Randy, but it sounds to me like you just don't know
when it's time to give up, much like my 3 year old grandson in the
throes of a temper tantrum.

Jeff

--
My name is Jeff Wisnia and I approved this message....

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

Jeff Wisnia wrote:

snipped

Sorry if it hurts Randy, but it sounds to me like you just don't know
when it's time to give up, much like my 3 year old grandson in the
throes of a temper tantrum.

Jeff


I just remembered that the only person who is a bigger fool that someone
who is wrong and refuses to admit it - Is the die-hard who continues to
argue with him.

It's time for me to resign from this thread.

So, you're right and I'm wrong Randy. Enjoy your victory party, I
presume the attendance will be as usual, just one person, you. G

Jeff
--
My name is Jeff Wisnia and I approved this message....

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

There is always one who feels it is 'adult' to demand
political correctness. Adults never need politically correct
posts. The post stands technically correct. If it insults Bo
Williams, then that part of Bo Williams is bluntly reminded
that no intent to be condescending existed in any word. It
was posted exactly as was necessary to make a technical
point. Adults say, "Good, I now understand". Lesser people
worry about insults - that actually did not exist in that
post.

Junk science reasoning was demonstrated bluntly and
accurately without wasting words on how it might be
emotionally perceived. Those who must have everything spun in
a politically correct world will be upset with the post and
therefore expose themselves. In some quarters, you can get
arrested for exposing yourself.

The only part 'nasty' in that post was how Bo Williams
emotionally perceived it. A principle of logical thinking -
that something must exist both theoretically and
experimentally - should never be posted any other way but
straight up and blunt. Some find that painful - like hard
whiskey. Sorry you worry too much about how it hurts your
throat.

But fact remains: what you do in a bookstore does not prove
anything other than junk science reasoning. Provided was
knowledge about circuit breaker ratings AND how to tell the
difference between junk science verse technically logical
posts. Did your post meet the criteria of being based both on
theory and experimental evidence? No - absolutely not.
Therefore it demonstrated the principles of junk science - too
often found in that store's fiction section. If there is
insult in this, then insult is only in the mind of that
reader. Defined is the difference between a post based in
junk science verses logical reasoning.

Bo Williams wrote:
I didn't know there were switch-rated circuit breakers and
non-switch-rated circuit breakers. I know that now, as several people
pointed that out, even before I got to your condescending diatribe.

I welcome opportunities to fill gaps in my ignorance. It's not
necessary to be nasty when you perceive such a gap.

[...]

w_tom wrote:

There is always one who feels it is 'adult' to demand
political correctness. Adults never need politically correct
posts. The post stands technically correct. If it insults Bo
Williams, then that part of Bo Williams is bluntly reminded
that no intent to be condescending existed in any word. It
was posted exactly as was necessary to make a technical
point. Adults say, "Good, I now understand".

[snip much more blather]

Many adults learn manners, too, present company obviously excepted.
Bye, now. Take the last word (or 500, as seems to be your wont).

plonk
--
Bo Williams -
http://hiwaay.net/~williams/

while you may have found some info proving me wrong (which nobody else had
done previously, and clearly the savings for turning it off arent that much)
i think its ironic you blame me for having the ego...

and yes, it appears i was wrong. so there. now your ego is placated. do
you feel better, smarter, faster?

randy

"Joe Fabeitz" wrote in message
...
The "Mpemba" effect, as I recall. Visit:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...hot_water.html to get the
real
story.
Whole bunch of inflated egos hangin round these parts...Randy, that be
you.
"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Bob K 207" wrote in message
...
Randy-

Chill out, you're wrong, you made a mistake.

Remember the first rule of holes.......stop digging.


basic physics says you're wrong.

I'll do the complete analysis but not for free.

Hopefully you're not a licensed engineer, otherwise I'll have to notify
the PE
board.

If turning the water heater off uses more energy why do utilities give
rebates
for setback thermostats????

admit your mistake, its good for the psyche


you'll be happier & live longer

i have yet to see any proof i am wrong. i will willingly admit it if
proven
wrong.

as for the rebates, one could argue that they make more with the timers
so
they kick you back a little and call it a rebate... hehe

randy

ya know i did this to shut you up, now i regret it. your link doesnt say
anything. it has no bearing on anything.

go away.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...
while you may have found some info proving me wrong (which nobody else had
done previously, and clearly the savings for turning it off arent that
much) i think its ironic you blame me for having the ego...

and yes, it appears i was wrong. so there. now your ego is placated. do
you feel better, smarter, faster?

randy

"Joe Fabeitz" wrote in message
...
The "Mpemba" effect, as I recall. Visit:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...hot_water.html to get the
real
story.
Whole bunch of inflated egos hangin round these parts...Randy, that be
you.
"xrongor" wrote in message
...

"Bob K 207" wrote in message
...
Randy-

Chill out, you're wrong, you made a mistake.

Remember the first rule of holes.......stop digging.


basic physics says you're wrong.

I'll do the complete analysis but not for free.

Hopefully you're not a licensed engineer, otherwise I'll have to
notify
the PE
board.

If turning the water heater off uses more energy why do utilities give
rebates
for setback thermostats????

admit your mistake, its good for the psyche


you'll be happier & live longer

i have yet to see any proof i am wrong. i will willingly admit it if
proven
wrong.

as for the rebates, one could argue that they make more with the timers
so
they kick you back a little and call it a rebate... hehe

randy

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...
Jeff Wisnia wrote:

snipped

Sorry if it hurts Randy, but it sounds to me like you just don't know
when it's time to give up, much like my 3 year old grandson in the throes
of a temper tantrum.

Jeff


I just remembered that the only person who is a bigger fool that someone
who is wrong and refuses to admit it - Is the die-hard who continues to
argue with him.

It's time for me to resign from this thread.

So, you're right and I'm wrong Randy. Enjoy your victory party, I presume
the attendance will be as usual, just one person, you. G

oh bite me. you say you resign but you cant resist a last poke. the truth
is that i am wrong. but not because of any reasons anyone here provided.

randy

as for the rebates, one could argue that they make more with the timers so
they kick you back a little and call it a rebate... hehe


surely you're joking? my electric & gas utilties give rebates for devices that
they do not sell.

To shift some of the energy demand out of "peak" hours and manage their
load?

heater set backs typically reduce total energy consumption & do little for load
shifting

Peak electrical (summer) afternoon
Peak electrical (winter) early evening

Max peak is typically in summer not winter

the truth
is that i am wrong. but not because of any reasons anyone here provided.

so what is the reason?

ok randy here's the answer

whatever you saved by not
turning it on earlier, has to be paid again on the way back up.

absolutely correct, you've got part of the answer


the lower you let it drop before turning back
on, the more thermal inertia to overcome


no, the energy lost during the cool down is the only energy that needs to be
replaced. Your thermal inertia concept is flawed if you think there is a extra
penalty for letting the temp fall further.

If the tank cools 20 degs & it takes 10000 btu's to bring it back up to temp;
then it will only take twice that energy 20000 btu's if the tank is allowed to
fall 40 degs.

The small (if not trivial) energy savings is had because a cooler tank (one
that is closer to room temp) looses less enery than a hotter tank. If the tank
lost all its heat (fell to room temp) it would stop loosing heat to the
environment.

Electrical water heaters typically are well insulated & loose heat rather
slowly. The only energy saved during the "off period" would be the energy
consumed in the cycling (if any) that would have occured to "maintain" temp
during the day.


By your logic I wouldn't save any energy if I turned the thing off for a week
because "I had to make up all that thermal inertia"?

A cooler house (or water heater) looses less heat to the surroundings.

That's why I turn the heater WAY down when I'm away from the mountain cabin

Unfortunately Bo Williams cannot learn concepts without an
emotional response - feeling a factual post is
"condescending". He wants others to lie to him so he will not
feel demeaned? Sorry. There is no polite way to say this.
Bo Williams posted classic junk science reasoning. Either he
can learn from his mistake or he can feel demeaned. Because
his bookstore uses circuit breakers to switch lights, then he
declares (with neither theory nor experience) that all circuit
breakers can be used as switches. Classic symptoms of junk
science reasoning. A best friend would note these mistakes
rather than worry about silly emotions.

Bo Williams wrote:
w_tom wrote:
But fact remains: what you do in a bookstore does not prove
anything other than junk science reasoning. Provided was
knowledge about circuit breaker ratings AND how to tell the
difference between junk science verse technically logical
posts. Did your post meet the criteria of being based both on
theory and experimental evidence? No - absolutely not.
Therefore it demonstrated the principles of junk science - too
often found in that store's fiction section. If there is
insult in this, then insult is only in the mind of that
reader. Defined is the difference between a post based in
junk science verses logical reasoning.

Many adults learn manners, too, present company obviously excepted.
Bye, now. Take the last word (or 500, as seems to be your wont).

w_tom wrote:
Unfortunately Bo Williams cannot learn concepts without an
emotional response - feeling a factual post is
"condescending". He wants others to lie to him so he will not
feel demeaned? Sorry. There is no polite way to say this.
Bo Williams posted classic junk science reasoning. Either he
can learn from his mistake or he can feel demeaned. Because
his bookstore uses circuit breakers to switch lights, then he
declares (with neither theory nor experience) that all circuit
breakers can be used as switches. Classic symptoms of junk
science reasoning. A best friend would note these mistakes
rather than worry about silly emotions.


But all circuit breakers *might* be switch duty, you don't know until
you look at the tiny label on them to see if they are SWD listed. Many
plain old breakers are SWD listed (or FLD).

Since the breakers in question are FPE's, I wouldn't use them as
switches anyway, but that's a diffrerent issue entirely.

Bob

Lawrence Wasserman wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
...snipped...

If things are tweaked right, you can find starting water temperatures
and an air temperature which will result in the water remaining in the
"hot" bucket freezing first.

...snipped...

That sounds pretty cool. Can you give a specific example
(temperatures, quantities, etc.) where this will happen?





I got the pun..A good one too...

************************************

There's no simple answer to your question because there are LOTS of
factors which must be considered, IIRC they all contribute to the
"Mpemba effect" which ex[lains why hot water freeze faster than cold.

I'm just a flatfooted EE who forgot most of the physics I learned years
ago, but Googling "hot water freezes faster than cold" will get you a
day's worth of reading on the subject.

This URL I particularly like 'cause it's part of the "Marilyn is Wrong"
series. (Marilyn vos Savant, that is.) It has a lot of links to other
sites on the subject:

http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/freezing.html

This URL will give you more than you wanted to know and choke you with
details and references:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...hot_water.html

Hey, I just noticed the /baez/ in that URL. A few backwards steps will
reveal that it's John Baez, a physicist at University of California,
Riverside, who is a relative of Joan Baez, the entertainer. I had the
pleasure of knowing Joan briefly in the 1950s around the time she began
her career by singing in Harvard Square coffee houses. Her father was a
physicist at Harvahd back then.

Enough already?

Jeff

--
My name is Jeff Wisnia and I approved this message....

(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)

"As long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in public
schools"

Is anyone familiar with acceptable replacements for FPE
breakers other than a new breaker box? Also some FPE breaker
boxes were not sufficient. How much should an FPE breaker box
be derated (having heard of power busses in FPE boxes causing
fires)?

zxcvbob wrote:
But all circuit breakers *might* be switch duty, you don't know until
you look at the tiny label on them to see if they are SWD listed. Many
plain old breakers are SWD listed (or FLD).

Since the breakers in question are FPE's, I wouldn't use them as
switches anyway, but that's a diffrerent issue entirely.

Bob