| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Using the Circuit Breaker as an On-Off Switch
I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a
Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He is responsible for the apartment utility bills. He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer. My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short exposed length of pipe. But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? Thanks. |
"Robert E. Lewis" wrote in message he has asked me whether he should turn off the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer. My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? It may end up costing him more to overcome the temperature swings than to just leave it hot. It is also false economy to cool and heat some units and subject them to expansion and contraction over time, although the swings are minimal compared to a boiler. Using the breaker as a switch is not a good idea either. It servers a purpose and it was designed to be a protection device, not a switch. Yes, I've seen it done often in industrial setting where breakers do control lighting. The added insulation may help, especially if it is an older unit. The newer ones are more efficient. |
Robert E. Lewis wrote:
[...] But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where I worked all the way through college. No problems. I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. -- Bo Williams - http://hiwaay.net/~williams/ |
"Robert E. Lewis" wrote in message .. . I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He is responsible for the apartment utility bills. He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer. My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short exposed length of pipe. But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? Thanks. There are switch rated breakers available from most manufactures. Required for switching loads since I think 1999 NEC. It would probably be cheaper and safer to go to Lowes and by their water heater time clock. Absolutely the least expensive I could find ~$35. This time clock needs an neutral to work and only switches one leg. I installed mine last February and no problems since. Remove it when he leaves |
The amount of energy he will save is trivial and the circuit breaker will
wear out unless (and this is unlikely) it is made to be used as a switch. Bad idea. I used to do it weekly on my cottage water heater, but then I put a real switch on it. Costs about $15 if there is enough slack in the wiring. (I ended up rewiring the whole circuit because I found out they used undersized wire!) |
"Bo Williams" wrote in message ... Robert E. Lewis wrote: [...] But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where I worked all the way through college. No problems. I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily basis. basic physics dictate this. randy |
"xrongor" wrote in message ... "Bo Williams" wrote in message ... Robert E. Lewis wrote: [...] But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where I worked all the way through college. No problems. I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily basis. basic physics dictate this. You are dead wrong about that. Basic physics dictates it will be cheaper to turn the heater off. But the difference will probably be trivial. No, I will not argue physics with you; if it is not obvious to you, you don't know enough to grasp it. (though I will give you a hint; heat loss is proportional to the difference in temperature) |
It may end up costing him more to overcome the temperature swings than to just leave it hot. That MAY be true with a heat pump but it just ain't do with a water heater. It is also false economy to cool and heat some units and subject them to expansion and contraction over time, although the swings are minimal compared to a boiler. That's another issue. I can think of several ways an electric water heater can fail. I suppose temperature cycling might be one. But operating time at full temperature might be another. (Hot water is more reactive than cold water.) But in this case, the capital expense is the landlord's but the operating expense is the tenants. Using the breaker as a switch is not a good idea either. It servers a purpose and it was designed to be a protection device, not a switch. Yes, I've seen it done often in industrial setting where breakers do control lighting. The added insulation may help, especially if it is an older unit. The newer ones are more efficient. |
"toller" wrote in message ... "xrongor" wrote in message ... "Bo Williams" wrote in message ... Robert E. Lewis wrote: [...] But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where I worked all the way through college. No problems. I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily basis. basic physics dictate this. You are dead wrong about that. Basic physics dictates it will be cheaper to turn the heater off. But the difference will probably be trivial. No, I will not argue physics with you; if it is not obvious to you, you don't know enough to grasp it. (though I will give you a hint; heat loss is proportional to the difference in temperature) go back to community college and finish your degree... randy |
xrongor wrote:
"toller" wrote in message ... "xrongor" wrote in message ... "Bo Williams" wrote in message ... Robert E. Lewis wrote: [...] But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where I worked all the way through college. No problems. I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily basis. basic physics dictate this. You are dead wrong about that. Basic physics dictates it will be cheaper to turn the heater off. But the difference will probably be trivial. No, I will not argue physics with you; if it is not obvious to you, you don't know enough to grasp it. (though I will give you a hint; heat loss is proportional to the difference in temperature) go back to community college and finish your degree... randy Just so you don't think that it's only one person picking on you Randy, I also firmly believe you are wrong about that point. Now, instead of your just flinging insults, why don't you give us all your technical reasoning involving "basic physics" please. 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" |
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 Just so you don't think that it's only one person picking on you Randy, I also firmly believe you are wrong about that point. Now, instead of your just flinging insults, why don't you give us all your technical reasoning involving "basic physics" please. 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" |
We've gone through 2 sets of breakers in my church in 20 years by using
them as switches ... thanks Mr. Architect. Now there are switch rated breakers installed ... time will tell. BTW, the breakers were replaced because they would run real hot and then trip. Each 20A breaker has an 800 watt load. SQLit wrote: "Robert E. Lewis" wrote in message .. . I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He is responsible for the apartment utility bills. He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer. My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short exposed length of pipe. But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? Thanks. There are switch rated breakers available from most manufactures. Required for switching loads since I think 1999 NEC. It would probably be cheaper and safer to go to Lowes and by their water heater time clock. Absolutely the least expensive I could find ~$35. This time clock needs an neutral to work and only switches one leg. I installed mine last February and no problems since. Remove it when he leaves |
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 snipped -- 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" |
In article ,
xrongor wrote: 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? Hot water :-) OK, so I admit it, in nearly all cases cold water will freeze faster. Look at the limiting case: Take some water that is just about frozen (say it is at 0.001 degrees C, and yes I know that the freezing point of garden-variety water is not exactly 0 degrees). This water will freeze very quickly. But there is a case where hot water will actually freeze first. This is one of the homework problems in "The Flying Circuis of Physics". I think it only works if you use an open cup of water with insulated sides, cool it with very cold air, and make sure there is strong air flow across the surface of the water (or something like this, look it up in the book, it was about 20 years ago that I read this). I think the trick to reproducing this at home is to use an otherwise empty frost-free freezer. If I remember right (and this is a big if), I think it has to do with evaporation: The hot water will evaporate very quickly in this situation. So by the time you get to near freezing, there is a lot less water left, and at that point the somewhat empty cup (formerly full of hot water) will actually win over the full cup (which started out as cold water). I think this also doesn't work if you start with really hot and really cold water (then the really cold water will actually win the race); it works better with really hot and lukewarm water. There are other tricks you can play. For example, put the water into an aluminum pan, and put both pans down on a non-frost-free freezer. In this case the hot one might freeze first. Why? Because it melted through the ice underneath, and the aluminum pan ended being in contact with the cold pipes in the shelf, whereas the cold water pan sat on top of ice (a pretty good insulator). This trick only works because non-frost-free freezers typically are covered in thick layers of ice. There is even tricks you can play with density of water and layering, causing warmer water to hide somewhere (in a layer of water, I think it requires having part of the water below 4deg C, where the density inverts), thereby delaying the freezing because the cold can't get to it as fast. -- The address in the header is invalid for obvious reasons. Please reconstruct the address from the information below (look for _). Ralph Becker-Szendy |
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. If one cannot answer the question based both on the specifications (theoretical knowledge) and practical experience (experimental knowledge), then one does not have an answer. Experimentally I have proved that stop signs can be ignored. Given these two above requirements, can we say I have sufficient information to promote running stop signs? Obviously not. Circuit breakers, like all switches, have life expectancy numbers and other parameters. The question can only be answered by providing the numbers - the specs. Anything less would be junk science reasoning. Bo Williams wrote: We turned off lights with circuit breakers daily at the bookstore where I worked all the way through college. No problems. I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. |
My ballpark estimates by doing same power cycling concluded
that energy saved per day was about one shower of heat. That is heat expended every day to maintain hot water heater at 120 degrees. Again, these were only ball park numbers. Ralph Becker-Szendy wrote: That is nonsense. 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. There is an interesting counter-argument: It could be that the water heater is effectively heating the house. So if you let it cool down, then the house will get colder, which will then cause you to require more heating to keep the house comfortable. If the house heating were electrical, and you had a perfect thermostat on the house, this additional expense would exactly cancel the saving at the water heater. With other forms of heating, and in particular in warm weather, this can go either way. It is also false economy to cool and heat some units and subject them to expansion and contraction over time, although the swings are minimal compared to a boiler. True, but maybe irrelevant (there are other effects that counteract this effect - for example it doesn't corrode as fast as when it is cold, and the thermostat doesn't have to switch off and on as often while the heater is off). Can't tell whether this is a good or a bad effect. Using the breaker as a switch is not a good idea either. It servers a ose and it was designed to be a protection device, not a switch. Yes, I've seen it done often in industrial setting where breakers do control lighting. Some breakers are rates as switches. Some are not. Some are rated to switch only resistive loads, while some are rated also for inductive loads (which may or may not include lighting loads, looking at fluorescents). Look at the Square D catalog (just as an example), and you will find a wide variety of breakers. The garden-variety breakers installed in residences are TYPICALLY BUT NOT ALWAYS rated for switching duty. But two-pole (or 240V breakers) are TYPICALLY NOT rated for switching duty. Again, for example an look at the Square D catalog, and look for HOM120 breaker (a garden-variety 20A single-pole circuit breaker, the cheapest one you can get from Square D). The footnotes to it say: a UL Listed as SWD (switching duty) rated. Suitable for switching 120 Vac fluorescent lighting loads. b UL Listed as HACR type for use with air conditioning, heating and refrigeration equipment having motor group combinations and marked for use with HACR type circuit breakers. The 2-pole 30A breaker (which is what one would typically use for a water heater) does NOT have footnote A. The added insulation may help, especially if it is an older unit. The newer ones are more efficient. This is EXCELLENT advice. We put a "heater blanket" (special pre-made encapsulated fiberglas insulation) around our heater (which was admittedly outdoors), and it saved about $10 per month. |
Thanks for the responses.
The breakers are pretty old Federal Pacific (I remember because my house had FP breakers once upon a time), and I'm guessing they're not rated as switches, so I'll dissuade him from that approach. I suspect the apartment management would disapprove of my tinkering with the wiring to the water heater (though we did ask about changing out an unattractive light fixture), and I don't recall it having much slack. I think I'll wait until he gets some real winter weather before I mention that leaving the water heater on may be warming his apartment slightly -- he left near-freezing weather in the UK and arrived to record highs in the nineties, and is worried his air conditioning bill will be ruinous. I'll just suggest an insulating blanket and will take him some leftover pipe insulation. |
Robert E. Lewis wrote:
I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He is responsible for the apartment utility bills. He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer. My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short exposed length of pipe. But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? Thanks. If the circuit breaker is rated "SWD" (switch duty), it is designed to be used as a switch as well as a breaker. If it is rated "FLD" (fluorescent duty?) it is further rated to be used as a switch for lighting circuits with an inductive load. An SWD breaker would be just fine for switching a water heater. I just looked at my breaker panel and the 30A 2-pole breaker for the clothes dryer is SWD listed. The 60A 2-pole breaker is not SWD listed, it is HACR listed, which I haven't looked up to see what it means (probably has something to do with heating and air conditioning circuits) Notice how I avoided the part about whether switching the water heater was a good idea. Best regards, Bob |
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 You're avoiding the question because you are beginning to see how wrong you are, and you don't have the balls to admit it. Best regards, Bob |
"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 |
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. If you don't do that Randy I'll have to conclude you can't, and will join the ranks of other folks here, who by their comments, seem to feel that you are either a clever guy trying to troll us - or an asshole being serious. Well? 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" |
Robert E. Lewis wrote:
Thanks for the responses. The breakers are pretty old Federal Pacific (I remember because my house had FP breakers once upon a time), and I'm guessing they're not rated as switches, so I'll dissuade him from that approach. I suspect the apartment management would disapprove of my tinkering with the wiring to the water heater (though we did ask about changing out an unattractive light fixture), and I don't recall it having much slack. I think I'll wait until he gets some real winter weather before I mention that leaving the water heater on may be warming his apartment slightly -- he left near-freezing weather in the UK and arrived to record highs in the nineties, and is worried his air conditioning bill will be ruinous. I'll just suggest an insulating blanket and will take him some leftover pipe insulation. WARNING NOTICE DANGER FEDERAL PACIFIC ELECTRIC BREAKERS CAN FAIL TO OPERATE AFTER A SINGLE MANUAL SWITCHING CYCLE OR A SINGLE AUTOMATIC TRIPPING OPERATION. They are not to be trusted to do the job for which they were originally installed and they must never be used as switches. The two pole breakers are especially vulnerable to this sort of failure. -- Tom H |
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:26:30 GMT, "Robert E. Lewis"
wrote: I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He is responsible for the apartment utility bills. He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer. My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short exposed length of pipe. You can save a LOT of money by turning it off...and only turning it on an hour or so before you actually need it. Most families don't need hot water during the day. When I was single, I would turn the tank on in the morning...then have coffee and breakfast while the water got hot. I'd turn it off when I left for work. But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? Many, many retail and commercial businesses shut off breakers at the end of the day. Do some investigative work on your own...at some of the breaker company web sites...and check out their specs. Most breakers are rated for thousands upon thousands of cycles. Have a nice one... Trent Budweiser: Helping ugly people have sex since 1876! |
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:41:05 -0400, w_tom wrote:
Circuit breakers, like all switches, have life expectancy numbers and other parameters. The question can only be answered by providing the numbers - the specs. Anything less would be junk science reasoning. No...the question can only be answered by reality...after the fact. All specs are theoretical. Have a nice one... Trent Budweiser: Helping ugly people have sex since 1876! |
Yikes. Much ado about next to nothing. People do this stuff every day, I skimmed one post on here where a guy told of using the breakers every single day of the year to turn the store lights on and off. I would hazard a guess that this happens a few hundred thousand times a day in our world. Is it "code", is it "right", is it "safe"??? Is it reality? Probably not, don't judge, for all but total morons, you bet. Results of repeated applications: breaker wears out, won't hold one position or the other. Solution: $4.00 and 10 minutes for installing a new breaker. Results of REALLY repeated applications: you wear out the stub on the bus bar, the breaker won't stay in it's slot. Solution: $5 for a new breaker and a snap-in hole filler, move breaker to a new position. What the fugg is all of the fuss about??? -- The real Tom Pendergast [ So if you meet me, have some courtesy, aka I-zheet M'drurz [ have some sympathy, and some taste. Accept no substitutes! [ Use all your well-learned politesse, $1 to Mick for the .sig ---[ or I'll lay your soul to waste. |
"G. Morgan" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:31:45 -0600 "xrongor" used 28 lines of text to write in newsgroup: alt.home.repair I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily basis. basic physics dictate this. Randy, Could you explain the "basic physics" principals used to calculate your observation? I would think you need specific information about the size and thermal resistance of the water heater, and it's heater coil power consumption to make a statement like that. You would also need to know the ambient temperature in the apartment, and the temperature of the incoming cold water. It would also help to know where the thermostat is set. No, you don't need to know any of that. Turning the heater off will always save energy as long as the heating element only has one setting and the water in the heater is free to circulate normally. You can create artificial conditions where the heat must diffuse slowly and the like, but with a real heater turning the power off will always save energy. |
If you really don't use a lot of hot water the biggest saving is by taking the
wire off the bottom element. The heater will heat the top foot of water and quit. My mom's house ran like this for 30 years and it was only when she had the grandkids over that the hot water got skimpy. |
BTW the real answer to the original question is in the U/L white book. Breakers
that are rated for switching duty are marked "SWD". Otherwse you are in an "untested" area. If it is a name brand breaker of recent manufacture (read:"hanging on the wall at the hardware store") I bet you are fine. If this is some "collector model" breaker with no markings I wouldn't screw with it too much. You might be looking for something that is going for $100 on Ebay ... when you can find one. |
Greg wrote:
BTW the real answer to the original question is in the U/L white book. Breakers that are rated for switching duty are marked "SWD". Otherwse you are in an "untested" area. If it is a name brand breaker of recent manufacture (read:"hanging on the wall at the hardware store") I bet you are fine. If this is some "collector model" breaker with no markings I wouldn't screw with it too much. You might be looking for something that is going for $100 on Ebay ... when you can find one. I believe OP said it was a Federal Pacific, so you can't really trust the UL listings. FPE was known to forge UL marks, and even if the breaker is OK for switch duty, it will be expensive and hard to find a replacement. (And the other breakers in the box may fall out when you open the cover -- I've had that happen.) If it was a modern panel (Siemens, GE Powermark, Square D, etc.) I would have no problem with using an SWD or FLD breaker as a switch. Bob |
I believe OP said it was a Federal Pacific,
Sorry, I missed that. FPEs in working condition are certainly in the "collecter item" class. Maybe exercising them makes them work better but they do come with a bad rep. |
it off, and it may even be more expensive.
may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily basis. basic physics dictate this. randy not a chance, it's cheaper to turn it off & back on rahter than leaving it on all day. If it used more energy why would utilities give rebates for setback thermostats???? |
"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. 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 |
"toller" wrote in message ... "G. Morgan" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:31:45 -0600 "xrongor" used 28 lines of text to write in newsgroup: alt.home.repair I'd encourage your friend to try this for a month and then try leaving it on for a month and compare, though. I doubt he'll save much money turning it off, and it may even be more expensive. may? its a sure thing it will be more expensive doing this on a daily basis. basic physics dictate this. Randy, Could you explain the "basic physics" principals used to calculate your observation? I would think you need specific information about the size and thermal resistance of the water heater, and it's heater coil power consumption to make a statement like that. You would also need to know the ambient temperature in the apartment, and the temperature of the incoming cold water. It would also help to know where the thermostat is set. No, you don't need to know any of that. Turning the heater off will always save energy as long as the heating element only has one setting and the water in the heater is free to circulate normally. You can create artificial conditions where the heat must diffuse slowly and the like, but with a real heater turning the power off will always save energy. why? assuming the water will not reach room temperature in the time the heater is off (in which case you would clearly save money) from a power/energy standpoint whats the difference between operating it in a mode where it turns on and off with in 1 degree of its setting, or 5 degrees, or allowing it to cool down 20 degrees before it turns on? whatever you saved by not turning it on earlier, has to be paid again on the way back up. the way i see it the difference is that the lower you let it drop before turning back on, the more thermal inertia to overcome hence it will be more costly to operate it by letting it cool down 20 degrees than it would be to just keep it at the higher temperature. you dont agree i take it... the only way i can see it would be cheaper is if there is some energy lost in the act of cycling the thermostat from on to off, or in initially 'charging' the coils or something like that. in which case fewer cycles would be cheaper... randy |
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 |
Fire is not a 'nothing'. Some breakers are constructed to
also turn off power. Therefore they are rated for that task. Another classic example of why someone must know the underlying theory - the principles - in this case the electrical code - long before jumping to conclusions that all breakers can be switched repeatedly. Have we not had enough murders because the decision maker did not even understand basic decision making concepts? Its called the Challenger - where decisions were made by those who say, "It worked last time so it will always work". We should have been putting them (ditto for Columbia) on trial. Principles could not be demonstrated more obviously. "I run every stop sign and have not yet killed anyone. That proves we can all run stop signs." Exactly the type of decision making that murders people. Some foolishly call them accidents. Exactly the same type of decision makers who should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Just because one does something daily and the building does not burn down does not even begin to prove anything. Provided by responsible posters in this thread are facts. Some breakers are rated to operate as power switches. Others are not. As for those FPE breakers: http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm This should scare the original poster. History of FPE products should be common knowledge. I-zheet M'drurz wrote: Yikes. Much ado about next to nothing. People do this stuff every day, I skimmed one post on here where a guy told of using the breakers every single day of the year to turn the store lights on and off. I would hazard a guess that this happens a few hundred thousand times a day in our world. Is it "code", is it "right", is it "safe"??? Is it reality? Probably not, don't judge, for all but total morons, you bet. Results of repeated applications: breaker wears out, won't hold one position or the other. Solution: $4.00 and 10 minutes for installing a new breaker. Results of REALLY repeated applications: you wear out the stub on the bus bar, the breaker won't stay in it's slot. Solution: $5 for a new breaker and a snap-in hole filler, move breaker to a new position. What the fugg is all of the fuss about??? |
"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 |
Robert E. Lewis wrote:
I have a friend who just moved to the US from the UK. He went from a Victorian house with a gas (I think) tankless heating system to a modern apartment with an electric water heater tank; a new situation for him. He is responsible for the apartment utility bills. He is frugal by nature and is used to having his domestic hot water system on a timer. I doubt it would be practical to put a timer on the apartment's water heater for the time he'll be there (and the apartment management might not like the modification), but he has asked me whether he should turn off the water heater when he leaves for work, and I wasn't sure of the answer. My first thought was that he won't save much electricity -- it's not especially hot water (set to child-safe temps by management, I assume) and it's in an under-stair closet near the center of the building, so it's not leaking a lot of heat to cold outdoors -- I think it might be served well enough by wrapping the tank in an insulating blanket and wrapping the short exposed length of pipe. But I also began to wonder whether a circuit-breaker switch is designed to hold up being switched on and off a couple of times a day, every day. Any trouble liable to result from him using the circuit breaker to turn off the water heater on a daily basis? Thanks. However you look at it, the savings on a day by day basis would be near nothing. Too small to be concerned with. If your friend is like me, he'll forget to turn it on, and end up with a cold shower. When I lived in an apartment I would turn the breaker off when I would leave town for a few days. Once the water heater cooled to outdoor temperature, it couldn't consume any more when heating back up than if I left it on, right? So there was cost savings. Now that I have my own house, I have my water heater on a timer. I'm on the electric company's "time of use plan" so I have the water heater set to turn off half an hour before the peak time, and turn on half an hour after peak time. Let's pretend the water heater must turn on for 5 minutes total during the 7 hour peak time. That would be 5 minutes of energy costs at the peak rate. But if the water heater is off, it cannot use this energy. Once the timer clicked on, it would run for the same (or close) 5 minutes, but at the cheaper rate. Now consider this, after the timer is off, there is still more than enough hot water in the tank to take a shower or do a load of laundry. (For me, that is.) So in essence, the hot shower consumes NO electricity during peak times. Once the time kicks on again during the off peak times, THEN is when the shower costs money. So I am "delaying" the costs. :-) --Mike |
SQLit wrote:
There are switch rated breakers available from most manufactures. Required for switching loads since I think 1999 NEC. It would probably be cheaper and safer to go to Lowes and by their water heater time clock. Absolutely the least expensive I could find ~$35. This time clock needs an neutral to work and only switches one leg. I installed mine last February and no problems since. Remove it when he leaves Mine is an intermatic water heater timer. The timer motor runs on the full 240 volts, no neutral needed. --Mike |
Bob K 207 wrote:
If turning the water heater off uses more energy why do utilities give rebates for setback thermostats???? To shift some of the energy demand out of "peak" hours and manage their load? Best regards, Bob |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter