"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The point is that what you're talking about is insignificant in most
homes.
That's what the DOE statement is all about: cycling of the heat mass
overwhelms the effect of the insulation, until the temperature is
reduced
and stabilized for a while. Otherwise, all you're doing is cycling the
heat
retention of the thermal mass, with relatively much less actual savings
as
the temperature drops in the house.

Furnaces cycle anyway, and often at about the same cyclic rate almost
independent of temperature or heat load. To meet higher heat load
(higher indoor temp or lower outdoor temp) they just have a higher
percentage of "on" time each cycle. Even the venerable Honeywell
"round" (T-87), which has been around for over 50 years, did and does
a surprisingly good job of this by virtue of it's anticipator --
which almost nobody outside of their engineering org really completely
understood.


Whether or not the savings on the energy bill is noticable is another
question depending on how much the setback was for how long.

I wonder how much the DOE spent on a study to address what would be an
easy test question in thermodynamics 101.

Probably enough to know that you learned your thermodynamics with a
calculator and a vacuum jar, rather than a house. g

They'd be wrong about that too. During my 33 years with Honeywell I
worked with engineers and scientists worldwide,including those from
their homes and buildings divisions.

I was invited by DOE just last week to serve as a technical reviewer
for buildings programs. (I'm not going to do it.) I was also on the
Technical Advisory Board for DOE's Brookhaven National Labs back in
the late 90's.

I've seen those studies for years, Don, starting with a book I read in
the
'70s, titled something like _Low-cost, Energy-efficient Shelter_. What
the
DOE says is widely known.

It is indeed, and it's known in the technical community to be wrong.

I've lost track of what you're saying is "right" or "wrong." It's a fact
that your savings are much lower than many would expect when you simply
let the temperature drop to some particular temperature and then start
heating the house up again, as you would if you turned the furnace off
when you left in the morning and then turned it back on when you got
home.

It's another fact that the savings become significant when the lowest
inside temperature prevails for most of the cycle time, whether it's
because the house has reached outside temperature or because you simply
set the thermostat down to some temperature above outside temperature.

Physics was my best subject, too, Don. I'm aware of the physics involved.
There even was a time when I could do the equations without batting an
eye. Now, I let my thumbs rule. d8-) The question concerns whether the
saving is enough to make it worthwhile, not whether you can calculate the
exponential decay and the integrated temperature differential and show
some numerical value for the savings. Again, it's much less than most
people expect.

--
Ed Huntress

The misconception is that the heating plant will have to "work harder" to
catch up, leading some people to believe that a setback actually wastes
energy. Except in the specialized case of a heat pump on the verge of
electric resistance operation, that is not the case. Whether it is "worth
it" or not is another question. In a leaky building it definitely is.

Yeah, that's one of the misconceptions the DOE is addressing with their
notes to consumers. The other one, which I've heard a lot more, actually, is
that shutting off your furnace for half of a day saves a half-day's worth of
the energy you'd use if you kept the house at your usual temperature. That,
too, is a big misconception.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The point is that what you're talking about is insignificant in most
homes.
That's what the DOE statement is all about: cycling of the heat mass
overwhelms the effect of the insulation, until the temperature is
reduced
and stabilized for a while. Otherwise, all you're doing is cycling the
heat
retention of the thermal mass, with relatively much less actual savings
as
the temperature drops in the house.

Furnaces cycle anyway, and often at about the same cyclic rate almost
independent of temperature or heat load. To meet higher heat load
(higher indoor temp or lower outdoor temp) they just have a higher
percentage of "on" time each cycle. Even the venerable Honeywell
"round" (T-87), which has been around for over 50 years, did and does
a surprisingly good job of this by virtue of it's anticipator --
which almost nobody outside of their engineering org really completely
understood.


Whether or not the savings on the energy bill is noticable is another
question depending on how much the setback was for how long.

I wonder how much the DOE spent on a study to address what would be an
easy test question in thermodynamics 101.

Probably enough to know that you learned your thermodynamics with a
calculator and a vacuum jar, rather than a house. g

They'd be wrong about that too. During my 33 years with Honeywell I
worked with engineers and scientists worldwide,including those from
their homes and buildings divisions.

I was invited by DOE just last week to serve as a technical reviewer
for buildings programs. (I'm not going to do it.) I was also on the
Technical Advisory Board for DOE's Brookhaven National Labs back in
the late 90's.

I've seen those studies for years, Don, starting with a book I read in
the
'70s, titled something like _Low-cost, Energy-efficient Shelter_. What
the
DOE says is widely known.

It is indeed, and it's known in the technical community to be wrong.

I've lost track of what you're saying is "right" or "wrong." It's a fact
that your savings are much lower than many would expect when you simply
let the temperature drop to some particular temperature and then start
heating the house up again, as you would if you turned the furnace off
when you left in the morning and then turned it back on when you got
home.

It's another fact that the savings become significant when the lowest
inside temperature prevails for most of the cycle time, whether it's
because the house has reached outside temperature or because you simply
set the thermostat down to some temperature above outside temperature.

Physics was my best subject, too, Don. I'm aware of the physics involved.
There even was a time when I could do the equations without batting an
eye. Now, I let my thumbs rule. d8-) The question concerns whether the
saving is enough to make it worthwhile, not whether you can calculate the
exponential decay and the integrated temperature differential and show
some numerical value for the savings. Again, it's much less than most
people expect.

--
Ed Huntress

The misconception is that the heating plant will have to "work harder" to
catch up, leading some people to believe that a setback actually wastes
energy. Except in the specialized case of a heat pump on the verge of
electric resistance operation, that is not the case. Whether it is "worth
it" or not is another question. In a leaky building it definitely is.

Yeah, that's one of the misconceptions the DOE is addressing with their
notes to consumers. The other one, which I've heard a lot more, actually, is
that shutting off your furnace for half of a day saves a half-day's worth of
the energy you'd use if you kept the house at your usual temperature. That,
too, is a big misconception.

Well, when this issue was hot some years ago, I measured the thermal
time constant of my then house, which was built in 1896. The test is
simple:

In the winter, heat house to 90 F, turn the boiler off, and record the
declining temperature periodically. The time constant (to 1/e of temp
difference between 90 and outside ambient temperature) was an hour or
two, if memory serves.

So, for my then house, it made sense to reduce the temperature if one
would be away for more than about 5 hours.

It turned out that the temperature decline curve was well described by a
simple exponential curve, plotting as a straight line on log-linear
paper. This implies that the thermal mass of the wall and ceiling
plaster and to a lesser degree the wood floors dominated, and these
swamped all the other thermal storage mechanisms.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The point is that what you're talking about is insignificant in most
homes.
That's what the DOE statement is all about: cycling of the heat mass
overwhelms the effect of the insulation, until the temperature is
reduced
and stabilized for a while. Otherwise, all you're doing is cycling
the
heat
retention of the thermal mass, with relatively much less actual
savings
as
the temperature drops in the house.

Furnaces cycle anyway, and often at about the same cyclic rate almost
independent of temperature or heat load. To meet higher heat load
(higher indoor temp or lower outdoor temp) they just have a higher
percentage of "on" time each cycle. Even the venerable Honeywell
"round" (T-87), which has been around for over 50 years, did and does
a surprisingly good job of this by virtue of it's anticipator --
which almost nobody outside of their engineering org really
completely
understood.


Whether or not the savings on the energy bill is noticable is
another
question depending on how much the setback was for how long.

I wonder how much the DOE spent on a study to address what would be
an
easy test question in thermodynamics 101.

Probably enough to know that you learned your thermodynamics with a
calculator and a vacuum jar, rather than a house. g

They'd be wrong about that too. During my 33 years with Honeywell I
worked with engineers and scientists worldwide,including those from
their homes and buildings divisions.

I was invited by DOE just last week to serve as a technical reviewer
for buildings programs. (I'm not going to do it.) I was also on the
Technical Advisory Board for DOE's Brookhaven National Labs back in
the late 90's.

I've seen those studies for years, Don, starting with a book I read
in
the
'70s, titled something like _Low-cost, Energy-efficient Shelter_.
What
the
DOE says is widely known.

It is indeed, and it's known in the technical community to be wrong.

I've lost track of what you're saying is "right" or "wrong." It's a
fact
that your savings are much lower than many would expect when you
simply
let the temperature drop to some particular temperature and then start
heating the house up again, as you would if you turned the furnace off
when you left in the morning and then turned it back on when you got
home.

It's another fact that the savings become significant when the lowest
inside temperature prevails for most of the cycle time, whether it's
because the house has reached outside temperature or because you
simply
set the thermostat down to some temperature above outside temperature.

Physics was my best subject, too, Don. I'm aware of the physics
involved.
There even was a time when I could do the equations without batting an
eye. Now, I let my thumbs rule. d8-) The question concerns whether the
saving is enough to make it worthwhile, not whether you can calculate
the
exponential decay and the integrated temperature differential and show
some numerical value for the savings. Again, it's much less than most
people expect.

--
Ed Huntress

The misconception is that the heating plant will have to "work harder"
to
catch up, leading some people to believe that a setback actually wastes
energy. Except in the specialized case of a heat pump on the verge of
electric resistance operation, that is not the case. Whether it is
"worth
it" or not is another question. In a leaky building it definitely is.

Yeah, that's one of the misconceptions the DOE is addressing with their
notes to consumers. The other one, which I've heard a lot more, actually,
is
that shutting off your furnace for half of a day saves a half-day's worth
of
the energy you'd use if you kept the house at your usual temperature.
That,
too, is a big misconception.

Well, when this issue was hot some years ago, I measured the thermal
time constant of my then house, which was built in 1896. The test is
simple:

In the winter, heat house to 90 F, turn the boiler off, and record the
declining temperature periodically. The time constant (to 1/e of temp
difference between 90 and outside ambient temperature) was an hour or
two, if memory serves.

So, for my then house, it made sense to reduce the temperature if one
would be away for more than about 5 hours.

It turned out that the temperature decline curve was well described by a
simple exponential curve, plotting as a straight line on log-linear
paper. This implies that the thermal mass of the wall and ceiling
plaster and to a lesser degree the wood floors dominated, and these
swamped all the other thermal storage mechanisms.

Joe Gwinn

Veddy interesting. You must have a very determined curiosity. Although your
house may be different from a typical house built more recently, it does
give an idea about how long one has to reduce the temperature to make it
worthwhile.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The point is that what you're talking about is insignificant in most
homes.
That's what the DOE statement is all about: cycling of the heat mass
overwhelms the effect of the insulation, until the temperature is
reduced
and stabilized for a while. Otherwise, all you're doing is cycling
the
heat
retention of the thermal mass, with relatively much less actual
savings
as
the temperature drops in the house.

Furnaces cycle anyway, and often at about the same cyclic rate almost
independent of temperature or heat load. To meet higher heat load
(higher indoor temp or lower outdoor temp) they just have a higher
percentage of "on" time each cycle. Even the venerable Honeywell
"round" (T-87), which has been around for over 50 years, did and does
a surprisingly good job of this by virtue of it's anticipator --
which almost nobody outside of their engineering org really
completely
understood.


Whether or not the savings on the energy bill is noticable is
another
question depending on how much the setback was for how long.

I wonder how much the DOE spent on a study to address what would be
an
easy test question in thermodynamics 101.

Probably enough to know that you learned your thermodynamics with a
calculator and a vacuum jar, rather than a house. g

They'd be wrong about that too. During my 33 years with Honeywell I
worked with engineers and scientists worldwide,including those from
their homes and buildings divisions.

I was invited by DOE just last week to serve as a technical reviewer
for buildings programs. (I'm not going to do it.) I was also on the
Technical Advisory Board for DOE's Brookhaven National Labs back in
the late 90's.

I've seen those studies for years, Don, starting with a book I read
in
the
'70s, titled something like _Low-cost, Energy-efficient Shelter_.
What
the
DOE says is widely known.

It is indeed, and it's known in the technical community to be wrong.

I've lost track of what you're saying is "right" or "wrong." It's a
fact
that your savings are much lower than many would expect when you
simply
let the temperature drop to some particular temperature and then start
heating the house up again, as you would if you turned the furnace off
when you left in the morning and then turned it back on when you got
home.

It's another fact that the savings become significant when the lowest
inside temperature prevails for most of the cycle time, whether it's
because the house has reached outside temperature or because you
simply
set the thermostat down to some temperature above outside temperature.

Physics was my best subject, too, Don. I'm aware of the physics
involved.
There even was a time when I could do the equations without batting an
eye. Now, I let my thumbs rule. d8-) The question concerns whether the
saving is enough to make it worthwhile, not whether you can calculate
the
exponential decay and the integrated temperature differential and show
some numerical value for the savings. Again, it's much less than most
people expect.

--
Ed Huntress

The misconception is that the heating plant will have to "work harder"
to
catch up, leading some people to believe that a setback actually wastes
energy. Except in the specialized case of a heat pump on the verge of
electric resistance operation, that is not the case. Whether it is
"worth
it" or not is another question. In a leaky building it definitely is.

Yeah, that's one of the misconceptions the DOE is addressing with their
notes to consumers. The other one, which I've heard a lot more, actually,
is
that shutting off your furnace for half of a day saves a half-day's worth
of
the energy you'd use if you kept the house at your usual temperature.
That,
too, is a big misconception.

Well, when this issue was hot some years ago, I measured the thermal
time constant of my then house, which was built in 1896. The test is
simple:

In the winter, heat house to 90 F, turn the boiler off, and record the
declining temperature periodically. The time constant (to 1/e of temp
difference between 90 and outside ambient temperature) was an hour or
two, if memory serves.

So, for my then house, it made sense to reduce the temperature if one
would be away for more than about 5 hours.

It turned out that the temperature decline curve was well described by a
simple exponential curve, plotting as a straight line on log-linear
paper. This implies that the thermal mass of the wall and ceiling
plaster and to a lesser degree the wood floors dominated, and these
swamped all the other thermal storage mechanisms.

Joe Gwinn

Veddy interesting. You must have a very determined curiosity. Although your
house may be different from a typical house built more recently, it does
give an idea about how long one has to reduce the temperature to make it
worthwhile.

Well, I couldn't make head or tails of the then debate, and the
measurement is pretty easy to make. The measurement times need not be
evenly spaced, so long as one records the actual time each temperature
is taken. The general pattern is to measure just before turning the
heat off, after 10 minutes, after 20 minutes, after 40 minutes, after 80
minutes, and so on, each time measuring from the prior measurement time.
This works because the rate of temperature change is fastest at first
but soon slows. So long as one knows when the measurements were made,
it doesn't really matter how well one follows the schedule.

Or, one can buy one of those USB temperature monitor/recorder units and
use it to collect the data.

Excel is adequate to reduce the data, however generated.

So one can know exactly how one's house behaves, bringing the discussion
out of the theoretical into the practical.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



The point is that what you're talking about is insignificant in
most
homes.
That's what the DOE statement is all about: cycling of the heat
mass
overwhelms the effect of the insulation, until the temperature is
reduced
and stabilized for a while. Otherwise, all you're doing is cycling
the
heat
retention of the thermal mass, with relatively much less actual
savings
as
the temperature drops in the house.

Furnaces cycle anyway, and often at about the same cyclic rate
almost
independent of temperature or heat load. To meet higher heat load
(higher indoor temp or lower outdoor temp) they just have a higher
percentage of "on" time each cycle. Even the venerable Honeywell
"round" (T-87), which has been around for over 50 years, did and
does
a surprisingly good job of this by virtue of it's anticipator --
which almost nobody outside of their engineering org really
completely
understood.


Whether or not the savings on the energy bill is noticable is
another
question depending on how much the setback was for how long.

I wonder how much the DOE spent on a study to address what would
be
an
easy test question in thermodynamics 101.

Probably enough to know that you learned your thermodynamics with
a
calculator and a vacuum jar, rather than a house. g

They'd be wrong about that too. During my 33 years with Honeywell
I
worked with engineers and scientists worldwide,including those
from
their homes and buildings divisions.

I was invited by DOE just last week to serve as a technical
reviewer
for buildings programs. (I'm not going to do it.) I was also on
the
Technical Advisory Board for DOE's Brookhaven National Labs back
in
the late 90's.

I've seen those studies for years, Don, starting with a book I
read
in
the
'70s, titled something like _Low-cost, Energy-efficient Shelter_.
What
the
DOE says is widely known.

It is indeed, and it's known in the technical community to be
wrong.

I've lost track of what you're saying is "right" or "wrong." It's a
fact
that your savings are much lower than many would expect when you
simply
let the temperature drop to some particular temperature and then
start
heating the house up again, as you would if you turned the furnace
off
when you left in the morning and then turned it back on when you
got
home.

It's another fact that the savings become significant when the
lowest
inside temperature prevails for most of the cycle time, whether
it's
because the house has reached outside temperature or because you
simply
set the thermostat down to some temperature above outside
temperature.

Physics was my best subject, too, Don. I'm aware of the physics
involved.
There even was a time when I could do the equations without batting
an
eye. Now, I let my thumbs rule. d8-) The question concerns whether
the
saving is enough to make it worthwhile, not whether you can
calculate
the
exponential decay and the integrated temperature differential and
show
some numerical value for the savings. Again, it's much less than
most
people expect.

--
Ed Huntress

The misconception is that the heating plant will have to "work
harder"
to
catch up, leading some people to believe that a setback actually
wastes
energy. Except in the specialized case of a heat pump on the verge
of
electric resistance operation, that is not the case. Whether it is
"worth
it" or not is another question. In a leaky building it definitely
is.

Yeah, that's one of the misconceptions the DOE is addressing with
their
notes to consumers. The other one, which I've heard a lot more,
actually,
is
that shutting off your furnace for half of a day saves a half-day's
worth
of
the energy you'd use if you kept the house at your usual temperature.
That,
too, is a big misconception.

Well, when this issue was hot some years ago, I measured the thermal
time constant of my then house, which was built in 1896. The test is
simple:

In the winter, heat house to 90 F, turn the boiler off, and record the
declining temperature periodically. The time constant (to 1/e of temp
difference between 90 and outside ambient temperature) was an hour or
two, if memory serves.

So, for my then house, it made sense to reduce the temperature if one
would be away for more than about 5 hours.

It turned out that the temperature decline curve was well described by
a
simple exponential curve, plotting as a straight line on log-linear
paper. This implies that the thermal mass of the wall and ceiling
plaster and to a lesser degree the wood floors dominated, and these
swamped all the other thermal storage mechanisms.

Joe Gwinn

Veddy interesting. You must have a very determined curiosity. Although
your
house may be different from a typical house built more recently, it does
give an idea about how long one has to reduce the temperature to make it
worthwhile.

Well, I couldn't make head or tails of the then debate, and the
measurement is pretty easy to make. The measurement times need not be
evenly spaced, so long as one records the actual time each temperature
is taken. The general pattern is to measure just before turning the
heat off, after 10 minutes, after 20 minutes, after 40 minutes, after 80
minutes, and so on, each time measuring from the prior measurement time.
This works because the rate of temperature change is fastest at first
but soon slows. So long as one knows when the measurements were made,
it doesn't really matter how well one follows the schedule.

Or, one can buy one of those USB temperature monitor/recorder units and
use it to collect the data.

Excel is adequate to reduce the data, however generated.

So one can know exactly how one's house behaves, bringing the discussion
out of the theoretical into the practical.

Joe Gwinn

I can identify with that kind of thinking, Jim, and especially with that
attitude toward finding out things for oneself.

--
Ed Huntress

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:39:09 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


You in Kansas? My sister is single..and working for a Sherriffs
department in Kansas.....

Ooh, sounds interesting.

Alas, I have not lived in Kansas ... ack. Since before she was
born. There were only 48 states! No wait, that was after the start
of Camelot ... never mind. There were fifty. It just seems like it
was shortly after the glaciers receded, when the central sea dried
up...

Interested? Rather a hotty too as it happens.....

Not really my sister..but has been my "sister" for humm...20 yrs now. I
think she is 40..41ish.

If so..Ill turn you on to her face book page..and give you a strong
recommendation......

Alas, that is too far, or not far enough. I'm considering looking
into following the Boeing move.

Shrug...you really really dont know what you are missing.

Probably a good thing. I already have enough old flames too far
away to keep me warm.

The woman can
keep you satisfied till the day you die..which would probably be a week
from next Thursday, given her sex drive.....and skills....

But then...

...who wants to live forever?

Well, I'd like to, live that is. "Life is a banquet! and most
poor suckers are starving to death."
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that Larry Jaques
on or about Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:44:25 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:39:27 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that jeff_wisnia
on or about Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:59:36 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Poll question:

How many guys here have wives who mistakenly think that when warming up
a cooled down house the rate of temperature change produced by a typical
home heating system will be faster if they shove the thermostat setting
all the way up to 90F than if they just move it to the appropriate setpoint.

Then of course, they forget to reset it when the place reaches a
comfortable temperature which some time later causes the man of the
house to snarl, "Why the hell is it so damn hot in here?"

Ah, but there is a difference here. As I heard it, God created
Adam, and he said "Yoicks its hot! I can't wait to invent air
conditioning." Shortly afterwards, God takes advantage of Adam
knocking himself out trying, and creates Eve. Her first words are
"Good God, it's cold in here, why not create some warm clothes and
central heat!"
And it has been a problem ever since.

Ayup. If any of my short list of girlfriends ever had control of the
thermostat, I could bop around the house naked without a care for
warmth. I was still hot. (No, not like that. Well, OK, that, too, but
I meant the "I-feel-like-I'm-in-Hawaii-on-the-beach" warm.)
It's a major reason I never got married. Common sense prevailed.

HA! You missed out on the Greatest Catastrophe known to man. But
.... each to his own.

God, that was a meanass thing to do with male/female thermostats.

What confuses me, is how she, with that lovely layer of
subcutaneous insulation, gets cold so easily.

Dames! Can't live with 'em, can live with 'em.

pyotr

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:49:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
Incidentally the problem can not be
accurately described by lump constants. The electrical analogy is a
transmission line, not a capacitor.

Dan

An accurate simulation is far more complex than any simple models
using leaky buckets, capacitors or transmission lines. Building such
a simulation that actually did show good correllation with observed
(measured) behavior in a range of buildings and climates took some
very competent senior engineers a couple of man years and a whole
bunch of programming.

Let the Record show that Don Foreman
on or about Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:02:27 -0500 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Ah, but there is a difference here. As I heard it, God created
Adam, and he said "Yoicks its hot! I can't wait to invent air
conditioning." Shortly afterwards, God takes advantage of Adam
knocking himself out trying, and creates Eve. Her first words are
"Good God, it's cold in here, why not create some warm clothes and
central heat!"
And it has been a problem ever since.
-

The Garden of Eden was obviously not in Minnesota. Minnesota Mary
thinks 40's is wet sheet weather while Bubba Don about can't sleep
unless he's sweating a little.

Which is why they go together: he's sweating, and she's getting
the wet sheets.

I can relate to Sam McGee, oh yeah! Don't bury me in cold Fort
Snelling, please, take me to a roaring furnace!

"Please shut that door!
It's warm in here, but I greatly fear
You'll let in the cold and storm.
Since I left Plumtree, down in Tennessee,
It's the first time I've been warm."

pyotr


"And sometimes I wonder if they was, the awful things I done.
And as I sit and the parson talks, expounding of the Law,
I often think of poor old Bill--and how hard he was to saw."


-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:49:26 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:39:27 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Let the Record show that jeff_wisnia
on or about Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:59:36 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Poll question:

How many guys here have wives who mistakenly think that when warming up
a cooled down house the rate of temperature change produced by a typical
home heating system will be faster if they shove the thermostat setting
all the way up to 90F than if they just move it to the appropriate setpoint.

Then of course, they forget to reset it when the place reaches a
comfortable temperature which some time later causes the man of the
house to snarl, "Why the hell is it so damn hot in here?"

Ah, but there is a difference here. As I heard it, God created
Adam, and he said "Yoicks its hot! I can't wait to invent air
conditioning." Shortly afterwards, God takes advantage of Adam
knocking himself out trying, and creates Eve. Her first words are
"Good God, it's cold in here, why not create some warm clothes and
central heat!"
And it has been a problem ever since.

In my house..the ex is the one that likes it cold..I like it warm, but
not hot.

She considers anything above 50 to be tropical. Who else has a large
ceiling fan, and a 20" fan at the foot of the bed, and a 20" fan to her
right..all blowing on High nearly all year long?

LOL. A friend thought anything below 50 was arctic. So of
course, she married and moved to Anchorage.

We have a very large King sized bed..and she puts extra blankets on my
side of the bed. Even the dogs cuddle up with me in mid winter..on the
left..sheltered by me from the freaking fans.

Then there was the lass who wore the long johns (top & bottoms) to
bed, with the extra blankets on her side, while I stuck a leg out to
keep cool. She came to bed all but shivering, and the first time I
took her hands and said "warm yourself." Later, that could prove to
be ... "entertaining" when I wasn't expecting it. But, "A Man's gotta
do, what a Man's got to do."
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Oct 31, 4:15*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:49:38 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Incidentally the problem can not be
accurately described by lump constants. *The electrical analogy is a
transmission line, not a capacitor.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

An accurate simulation is far more complex than any simple models
using leaky buckets, capacitors or transmission lines. *Building such
a simulation that actually did show good correllation with observed
(measured) *behavior in a range of buildings and climates took some
very competent senior engineers a couple of man years and a whole
bunch of programming. *

Right. The transmission line analogy is a significant step closer
than a capacitor and works well enough when one is working with
something simple as a homogeneous mass surrounded by insulation. A
house is not homogeneous and then there are other things as solar
gain.

My current house has significant solar heat gain. On a sunny day the
outside temperature can be about 40 degrees and the house will be
comfortable with the furnace turned off. I take the window screens off
in the Fall to maximize the solar heat gain.

Dan

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Let the Record show that jeff_wisnia
on or about Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:59:36 -0400 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Poll question:

How many guys here have wives who mistakenly think that when warming up
a cooled down house the rate of temperature change produced by a typical
home heating system will be faster if they shove the thermostat setting
all the way up to 90F than if they just move it to the appropriate setpoint.

Then of course, they forget to reset it when the place reaches a
comfortable temperature which some time later causes the man of the
house to snarl, "Why the hell is it so damn hot in here?"


Ah, but there is a difference here. As I heard it, God created
Adam, and he said "Yoicks its hot! I can't wait to invent air
conditioning." Shortly afterwards, God takes advantage of Adam
knocking himself out trying, and creates Eve. Her first words are
"Good God, it's cold in here, why not create some warm clothes and
central heat!"
And it has been a problem ever since.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

I've long considered Eve as the world's first order of take out ribs. G

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

Let the Record show that "Stormin Mormon"
on or about Thu, 29 Oct 2009
08:22:48 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Please forgive me while I troll for a moment.....

Is it energy saving to turn the thermostat down, when
leaving the house? I mean, the furnace has to run to catch
up when I get home. I have a way of looking at the matter.
I'll explain my point of view after the argument is
underway.

Now that we've thrashed out the heater thermostat setting, what
about the hot water supply?
I'm starting to think I seriously goofed when I got a new hot
water tank, rather than go for an on demand system. I wonder how
difficult it might be to retro-fit one into the kitchen, anyway?
I might add, by way of explanation, I'm a single guy. That means
I do the dishes every six weeks whether they need to be done or not,
laundry when the pile on the floor is all dirty clothes, and shower
only when I'm leaving the house. Not a lot of demand for hot water,
on a daily basis.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

I've heard of 5 gal water heaters in RV, and trailers. I had
12 gal heater in one place I rented. Like you say, your
water needs are minimal.

Did you install gas or electric? In either case, a "water
heater blanket" is a good idea. More insulation.

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


"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

Now that we've thrashed out the heater thermostat setting,
what
about the hot water supply?
I'm starting to think I seriously goofed when I got a new
hot
water tank, rather than go for an on demand system. I
wonder how
difficult it might be to retro-fit one into the kitchen,
anyway?
I might add, by way of explanation, I'm a single guy. That
means
I do the dishes every six weeks whether they need to be done
or not,
laundry when the pile on the floor is all dirty clothes, and
shower
only when I'm leaving the house. Not a lot of demand for
hot water,
on a daily basis.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Oct 30, 8:26*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
...
Well, when this issue was hot some years ago, I measured the thermal
time constant of my then house, which was built in 1896. *The test is
simple: *

In the winter, heat house to 90 F, turn the boiler off, and record the
declining temperature periodically. *The time constant (to 1/e of temp
difference between 90 and outside ambient temperature) was an hour or
two, if memory serves. *

So, for my then house, it made sense to reduce the temperature if one
would be away for more than about 5 hours.

It turned out that the temperature decline curve was well described by a
simple exponential curve, plotting as a straight line on log-linear
paper. *This implies that the thermal mass of the wall and ceiling
plaster and to a lesser degree the wood floors dominated, and these
swamped all the other thermal storage mechanisms.

Joe Gwinn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you read my Google Groups posting you'll see I did the same and
found a cooldown rate of 2% - 3% of the in-out difference per hour,
another way to state the exponential nature of Newton's Law of
Cooling. I've also measured the heating rate, and I think that those
two rates are enough to predict the likely savings for setback
routines and let you select a good one before making lengthy
measurements.

I don't have a multichannel temperature datalogger yet and recording
only 10PM and 6AM temperatures doesn't catch a rapid temperature drop
outside until clouds form and stop it, or how long the stove burns.
During the day solar gain is an unknown. For my house I think it's
equivalent to adding 10 - 15F to the outside air temperature.

Pyotr, you can reduce electric water heating cost with a tempering
tank that effectively uses your main heating system to bring cold
water to room temperature, or by shutting off the lower element to do
the same internally. On my tank the non-adjustable upper quick-
recovery thermostat heats to the right temp for a shower with no cold
mixed in. My sink-spray shower hose limits demand enough that the
element can keep up. Last month I used 33 KWH for showers and laundry
(no solar hot water).

jsw

In article
,
Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Oct 30, 8:26*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
...
Well, when this issue was hot some years ago, I measured the thermal
time constant of my then house, which was built in 1896. *The test is
simple: *

In the winter, heat house to 90 F, turn the boiler off, and record the
declining temperature periodically. *The time constant (to 1/e of temp
difference between 90 and outside ambient temperature) was an hour or
two, if memory serves. *

So, for my then house, it made sense to reduce the temperature if one
would be away for more than about 5 hours.

It turned out that the temperature decline curve was well described by a
simple exponential curve, plotting as a straight line on log-linear
paper. *This implies that the thermal mass of the wall and ceiling
plaster and to a lesser degree the wood floors dominated, and these
swamped all the other thermal storage mechanisms.

Joe Gwinn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you read my Google Groups posting ...

Never touch the stuff


... you'll see I did the same and
found a cooldown rate of 2% - 3% of the in-out difference per hour,
another way to state the exponential nature of Newton's Law of
Cooling. I've also measured the heating rate, and I think that those
two rates are enough to predict the likely savings for setback
routines and let you select a good one before making lengthy
measurements.

I don't have a multichannel temperature datalogger yet and recording
only 10PM and 6AM temperatures doesn't catch a rapid temperature drop
outside until clouds form and stop it, or how long the stove burns.
During the day solar gain is an unknown. For my house I think it's
equivalent to adding 10 - 15F to the outside air temperature.

The solar bump is noticeable. I could see it in phase stability plots
when I was tracking the electrical length of a cable to picosecond
precision for days. Could also see the boiler cycling on and off in the
night.

One can get the little USB temp loggers for $50 to $100. Here is the
successor to the one I have:

http://www.onsetcomp.com/products/da...s-product_page
_tabs1-1


Joe Gwinn

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
Let the Record show that "Stormin Mormon"
snip


Now that we've thrashed out the heater thermostat setting, what
about the hot water supply?
I'm starting to think I seriously goofed when I got a new hot
water tank, rather than go for an on demand system. I wonder how
difficult it might be to retro-fit one into the kitchen, anyway?
I might add, by way of explanation, I'm a single guy. That means
I do the dishes every six weeks whether they need to be done or not,
laundry when the pile on the floor is all dirty clothes, and shower
only when I'm leaving the house. Not a lot of demand for hot water,
on a daily basis.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

a water heater is a lot smaller than a house. It is inexpensive to insulate
it very very well, so there is, even outside in a cold climate very little
heat loss from the tank - and if it's inside in a cold climate, any heat
loss goes to heating the house anyway. My understanding from people who
live where a sweater is occasionally needed, is that the more serious
concern is to plumb outside air to the firebox, so it doesn't take your warm
inside air and send it up the chimney. Of course, if this is an electric,
not gas heater, that does not apply.

If you don't feel a lot of warmth on the outside of the heater, you aren't
loosing much energy

pyotr filipivich writes:

Let the Record show that "Stormin Mormon"
on or about Thu, 29 Oct 2009
08:22:48 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Please forgive me while I troll for a moment.....

Is it energy saving to turn the thermostat down, when
leaving the house? I mean, the furnace has to run to catch
up when I get home. I have a way of looking at the matter.
I'll explain my point of view after the argument is
underway.

Now that we've thrashed out the heater thermostat setting, what
about the hot water supply?
I'm starting to think I seriously goofed when I got a new hot
water tank, rather than go for an on demand system. I wonder how
difficult it might be to retro-fit one into the kitchen, anyway?

I looked into it a little bit when we replaced our heater a little while
ago; the increased exhaust requirements were a killer in my house
(hot water heater is located about dead center in my house, so there
were going to be no shortcuts running the exhaust).
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

Let the Record show that "Stormin Mormon"
on or about Sun, 1 Nov 2009
07:57:48 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote:
Now that we've thrashed out the heater thermostat setting,
what about the hot water supply?
I'm starting to think I seriously goofed when I got a new
hot water tank, rather than go for an on demand system. I
wonder how difficult it might be to retro-fit one into the kitchen,
anyway?
I might add, by way of explanation, I'm a single guy. That
means I do the dishes every six weeks whether they need to be done
or not, laundry when the pile on the floor is all dirty clothes, and
shower only when I'm leaving the house. Not a lot of demand for
hot water, on a daily basis.

I've heard of 5 gal water heaters in RV, and trailers. I had
12 gal heater in one place I rented. Like you say, your
water needs are minimal.

My _hot_ water needs are minimal. Water for Coffee, OTOH, is the
reason I laid in the supply of bottled water. Just In Case- a Case!

Did you install gas or electric? In either case, a "water
heater blanket" is a good idea. More insulation.

Electric. I think I'm out far enough that 'gas' means 'Propane.'

And a water heater blanket sounds good ... ("Strudelmeyer - write
that down!")

pyotr

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that "Bill Noble" on or
about Sun, 1 Nov 2009 08:38:44 -0800 did write/type or cause to appear
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
Let the Record show that "Stormin Mormon"
snip


Now that we've thrashed out the heater thermostat setting, what
about the hot water supply?
I'm starting to think I seriously goofed when I got a new hot
water tank, rather than go for an on demand system. I wonder how
difficult it might be to retro-fit one into the kitchen, anyway?
I might add, by way of explanation, I'm a single guy. That means
I do the dishes every six weeks whether they need to be done or not,
laundry when the pile on the floor is all dirty clothes, and shower
only when I'm leaving the house. Not a lot of demand for hot water,
on a daily basis.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

a water heater is a lot smaller than a house. It is inexpensive to insulate
it very very well, so there is, even outside in a cold climate very little
heat loss from the tank - and if it's inside in a cold climate, any heat
loss goes to heating the house anyway. My understanding from people who
live where a sweater is occasionally needed, is that the more serious
concern is to plumb outside air to the firebox, so it doesn't take your warm
inside air and send it up the chimney. Of course, if this is an electric,
not gas heater, that does not apply.

If you don't feel a lot of warmth on the outside of the heater, you aren't
loosing much energy

Right now, I think it is set for 120F. Hot enough for most
purposes. OTOH, the last place (where I rented) was set much higher.
That was useful for getting the grease off plates.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Let the Record show that Joe Pfeiffer on or
about Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:39:59 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich writes:

Let the Record show that "Stormin Mormon"
on or about Thu, 29 Oct 2009
08:22:48 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Please forgive me while I troll for a moment.....

Is it energy saving to turn the thermostat down, when
leaving the house? I mean, the furnace has to run to catch
up when I get home. I have a way of looking at the matter.
I'll explain my point of view after the argument is
underway.

Now that we've thrashed out the heater thermostat setting, what
about the hot water supply?
I'm starting to think I seriously goofed when I got a new hot
water tank, rather than go for an on demand system. I wonder how
difficult it might be to retro-fit one into the kitchen, anyway?

I looked into it a little bit when we replaced our heater a little while
ago; the increased exhaust requirements were a killer in my house
(hot water heater is located about dead center in my house, so there
were going to be no shortcuts running the exhaust).

Straight up? My Mom's house had a collection of bad executions
of reasonable ideas. One major one was a gas water heater, in the
garage, under the stairs up to the family room. And a plastic
connecting the previous owner's dogs had chewed on.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:31:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Oct 29, 8:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]
As Pete C. points out there are some heating systems that change
efficiency depending on the demand. Heat pumps are one case.

Approximately 8% of homes.

Really?

I'm not going to contradict you, since I've never seen any data, and
heat pumps are probably not very effective in areas where winters stay
pretty cold, but here in the sort-of-south (SC Appalachians), heat
pumps are installed in nearly every house that is worth more than
about 80 grand. My old 10 SEER unit works fine down to about 38F. If
8% is correct, then I'd say that a lot of people in the more temperate
regions are missing out on a fair amount of savings, especially now
that NG is about the same cost as electricity per BTU, oil is higher
and LPG is outrageous.

Another
case is modulating furnaces. These will be less efficient at higher
loads. But the common furnace located in a non heated area, will be
somewhat more efficient as the furnace will run for a longer time
before shutting off and loosing heat to the unheated area.

All of this is very nice for armchair philosophizing, Dan, but you have to
know the actual *values* involved in the practical problem to know whether
they're significant issues, in terms of your monthly heating bill. DOE has
done the work, and I've shown what their actual experiments show. The
savings are quite small in a typical house unless you leave the furnace off,
or the temperature set low, for a long enough period for the STABILIZED
temperature to be maintained for a significant portion of the total cycle.

Thermal mass works against you, by extending the ramping-down and -up
portions of the cycle. Likewise, insulation.

I don't know what intervals the OP was thinking of (he didn't say),
but I drop my setpoint for the 10 hours I'm gone to work, and for the
8 hours I'm asleep (well, not as much sleep nowadays, but, you know).
I've done no studies to measure my savings, but even 10% would be
great. If a large proportion of the population believes that they can
save half of their energy bill by occasionally dropping their
setpoint, well, that says a lot about our citizenry.

Joe

On Nov 1, 10:17*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
...
* * * * Right now, I think it is set for 120F. *Hot enough for most
purposes. *OTOH, the last place (where I rented) was set much higher.
That was useful for getting the grease off plates.
-
pyotr filipivich

Mine's about 110F, the non-adjustable setting on the quick recovery
upper thermostat. If I need hotter water for greasy pots I heat a
teakettle.

At less than 115F or so there is a postulated chance of bacterial
growth. I think the chance is nearly zero for chlorinated water and
copper pipes, maybe a possibility with well water and plastic. A few
times a year and before major storms I turn on the lower electric
element at its max setting to sterilize the tank and give me 3 - 4
days of hot water if we lose power.

jsw

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:31:30 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Oct 29, 8:22 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]
As Pete C. points out there are some heating systems that change
efficiency depending on the demand. Heat pumps are one case.

Approximately 8% of homes.

Really?

If you missed the link I gave in an earlier message, this is where that
number comes from. There are something like 400,000 units sold per year, but
only around half of those are residential. So the percentage now could be
between 9% and 10% of homes:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/rec.../alltables.pdf


I'm not going to contradict you, since I've never seen any data, and
heat pumps are probably not very effective in areas where winters stay
pretty cold, but here in the sort-of-south (SC Appalachians), heat
pumps are installed in nearly every house that is worth more than
about 80 grand. My old 10 SEER unit works fine down to about 38F. If
8% is correct, then I'd say that a lot of people in the more temperate
regions are missing out on a fair amount of savings, especially now
that NG is about the same cost as electricity per BTU, oil is higher
and LPG is outrageous.

Another
case is modulating furnaces. These will be less efficient at higher
loads. But the common furnace located in a non heated area, will be
somewhat more efficient as the furnace will run for a longer time
before shutting off and loosing heat to the unheated area.

All of this is very nice for armchair philosophizing, Dan, but you have to
know the actual *values* involved in the practical problem to know whether
they're significant issues, in terms of your monthly heating bill. DOE has
done the work, and I've shown what their actual experiments show. The
savings are quite small in a typical house unless you leave the furnace
off,
or the temperature set low, for a long enough period for the STABILIZED
temperature to be maintained for a significant portion of the total cycle.

Thermal mass works against you, by extending the ramping-down and -up
portions of the cycle. Likewise, insulation.

I don't know what intervals the OP was thinking of (he didn't say),
but I drop my setpoint for the 10 hours I'm gone to work, and for the
8 hours I'm asleep (well, not as much sleep nowadays, but, you know).
I've done no studies to measure my savings, but even 10% would be
great. If a large proportion of the population believes that they can
save half of their energy bill by occasionally dropping their
setpoint, well, that says a lot about our citizenry.

Joe

Gunner Asch wrote:

In my house..the ex is the one that likes it cold..I like it warm, but
not hot.

She considers anything above 50 to be tropical. Who else has a large
ceiling fan, and a 20" fan at the foot of the bed, and a 20" fan to her
right..all blowing on High nearly all year long?

We have a very large King sized bed..and she puts extra blankets on my
side of the bed. Even the dogs cuddle up with me in mid winter..on the
left..sheltered by me from the freaking fans.


Get a zoned waterbed and connect her side to one of those 'drink
chillers' used in restaurants.

Use two, if you want to take it down to the 40 degree range. ;-)


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:45:40 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:

In my house..the ex is the one that likes it cold..I like it warm, but
not hot.

She considers anything above 50 to be tropical. Who else has a large
ceiling fan, and a 20" fan at the foot of the bed, and a 20" fan to her
right..all blowing on High nearly all year long?

We have a very large King sized bed..and she puts extra blankets on my
side of the bed. Even the dogs cuddle up with me in mid winter..on the
left..sheltered by me from the freaking fans.


Get a zoned waterbed and connect her side to one of those 'drink
chillers' used in restaurants.

Use two, if you want to take it down to the 40 degree range. ;-)


I LIKE it!!

I think Ive got a spindle chiller in storage....Hummmmm.....

Thanks!!

Gunner

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766