|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > March 2008 > is roommate right about the cost of turning heat (gas) on briefly in the morning?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
is roommate right about the cost of turning heat (gas) on briefly in the morning?
|
|
| Zarlot 2007-11-09, 9:25 am |
| This morning it was a little cold, so I turned the heat on while I was
in the shower. This uses natural gas. Our house is not large, maybe
1200 sq feet or so.
Is it true that in terms of actually turning on natural gas, there is
a surge of therms (of perhaps even kw to get it going) that is fairly
costly? This was his point. Also, my point was that it was only for
10 or 15 minutes, so it couldn't be too costly. What's the maximum
that it could cost would you say?
Just curious about how this works...
| |
| Zarlot 2007-11-09, 9:25 am |
| On Nov 9, 9:22 am, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Zarlot wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not get an exact answer by reading the meter before and after?
>
> Yes there will be a far greater cost in running the system from cold for
> 15 mins, compared to running the system for the same period once the
> place is warm.
>
> The worst case would be the heating system running at full rated
> capability for the whole 10 or 15 mins.
>
> eg, if your heating system is rated at 16kW and each kWHr costs 10p -
> then your using the heating for 15 mins will add 40p to the bill, at most.
>
> --
> Sue
I see ... so natural gas does use Kw to get going...never knew that..
| |
| Tim Perry 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
|
"Zarlot" <Zarloth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194619525.178073.19230@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 9:22 am, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
most.[color=darkred]
>
> I see ... so natural gas does use Kw to get going...never knew that..
>
You seem to be interpreting Sues' post in a unique way: Most gas furnace
systems use forced air which requires an electric blower. Others use heated
hot water which use an electric pump. The only "surge to get it going" on a
modern system is a tiny spark to light the flame plus a very brief
electrical "surge" to start the blower.
Personally I'd find a roomate that likes it warmer and split the utility
costs.<g>
| |
| Tim Perry 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| > The comprehension gap is possibly that the OP equates kW to electricity
> and I should maybe have written in terms of therms instead, to avoid
> confusion. However, it is now the year of the FruitBat -
I cant find this on my Chinese calendar
and kWHr is now
> used instead of therms for gas, in the UK at least..
>
> --
>
> Sue
what's next? Gasoline (petrol) sold by the kilowatt-hour?
| |
| charles 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| In article <47348802$0$16474$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Tim Perry <timperry@nospammeadelphia.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I cant find this on my Chinese calendar
> and kWHr is now
[color=darkred]
> what's next? Gasoline (petrol) sold by the kilowatt-hour?
746w = 1 horsepower - so do the sums.
but my gas bill has been charge in kW for many years.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
| |
| Stuart 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| In article <4f3f1ffe1fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Who knows
[color=darkred]
> 746w = 1 horsepower - so do the sums.
> but my gas bill has been charge in kW for many years.
Indeedy
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:49:03 -0800, Zarlot <Zarloth@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This morning it was a little cold, so I turned the heat on while I was
>in the shower. This uses natural gas. Our house is not large, maybe
>1200 sq feet or so.
>
>Is it true that in terms of actually turning on natural gas, there is
>a surge of therms (of perhaps even kw to get it going) that is fairly
>costly? This was his point. Also, my point was that it was only for
>10 or 15 minutes, so it couldn't be too costly. What's the maximum
>that it could cost would you say?
>
>Just curious about how this works...
Your roomie is simply wrong. This is a myth that bringing up a body to
temp once a day costs more than keeping it hot all day. Gas only has 2
states, on and off. The only way this could be true is if you could
keep the house hot all day long by running less than 15 minutes a day.
Another way to look at this is to analyse heat loss to the outside.
The most heat is lost when the difference between inside and outside
is the greatest. If you don't keep the house hot all day (and night)
you are not losing heat all day and night. This is mostly affected by
how well your house is insulated
| |
| Tim Perry 2007-11-09, 1:25 pm |
|
"Palindrome" <me9@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:OQ%Yi.456604$vo5.151130@fe04.news.easynews.com...
> Tim Perry wrote:
> Car engines have been rated in kW instead of bhp, for some time.
>
> --
> Sue
>
Pulls up to the pump in a 200kw SUV and charges a tank of liquid electricity
on his electron express card and complains about the BTU tax.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 3:25 am |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:34:09 GMT, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>ehsjr wrote:
>
>You cannot expect a non-engineer to use the correct words. What the
>roomie is concerned about is the effect on the utility bill of running
>the central heating for a few minutes from cold. He's called it "a
>surge" - an engineer would call it "a few minutes of sustained full power".
Except that a natural gas fired furnace doesn't use more or less power
or gas after it has been "warmed up". They ignite, the heat exchanger
gets hot, and the blower blows the heated air in the house side of the
heat exchanger into the house being heated. The air exiting the furnace
ducts is that same temp within a mere few minutes of turn on as it would
be after running for hours.
>
>There will be a spike in gas consumption.
No, there will not. On is ON, and OFF is OFF. The heat exchanger that
gets heated by the ignited gas flame has ONE SINGLE setting for the flame
height. That setting is factory (or field) optimized, and does not vary
because of some imagined state that the furnace is in.
15 minutes of gas furnace heat is 15 minutes of gas furnace heat, no
matter how you wish to slice it up. The heat exchanger, and the ducts
are "settled in" within a few minutes of start-up, and that happens even
when the furnace is left on all day, as it cycles, by thermostat
completely on, and completely off.
> Without turning the central
>heating on - the gas consumption of the appliance will be effectively
>zero from the previous evening when it went off to the next evening when
>it comes on. Turning it on and off during that period would indeed show
>a "spike" in demand
Bullshit. Not using it is zero consumption. Any kid would know that.
Using it has a specific, set rate of consumption, and it doesn't matter
if it is ten below out or 65 degrees. The furnace doesn't change a thing
about its behavior.
> - as consumption would almost instantly rise (to the
>full power demand) and shortly after fall again (as the heating was
>switched back off).
Are you sure that you know how a gas furnace operates?
> But that is irrelevant - all that the OP and the
>roomie is concerned about is the cost of running the central heating for
>a few minutes from cold, each day.
Even if the system is ON ALL DAY, the furnace starts from "cold" every
time it runs. It is a CYCLIC device! If it was on for 35 minutes
getting the house to the set point, and off for an hour, the ducts have
cooled back to ambient within ten minutes of the thing CYCLING off.
> I've suggested two ways of working
>that out: reading the meter before and after and estimating the worst
>case by taking the product of the kW rating of the boiler and the cost
>of gas per KWHr and the fraction of an hour it is run for.
There is no boiler.
>Engineers must always allow for the mis-use of engineering terms by
>non-engineers and try to understand what they intend... and identify and
>address their real concerns.
It called spelling it out. Consider that as having been what I just
did for you.
[color=darkred]
The "roomie" is right that using it does cost more than not using it,
but 100% wrong in stating that using it at one time of day costs more
than using it at another time of day.
Besides.. gas is cheap.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:37:56 GMT, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>My apologies - I forget that the USA often has strange ways of doing
>things..
Strange? We stopped using steam and radiators five decades ago.
Reason? Efficiency, and operating cost of boilers, maintenance costs,
failure mode prone operation (leaks, etc.). Safety (boilers explode
rather violently).
Who is strange?
| |
| Stuart 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| In article <tdecj3t9hb8hecuqdu0a2ndidrdp3hvfj7@4ax.com>,
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:37:56 GMT, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Strange? We stopped using steam and radiators five decades ago.
> Reason? Efficiency, and operating cost of boilers, maintenance costs,
> failure mode prone operation (leaks, etc.). Safety (boilers explode
> rather violently).
> Who is strange?
When Sue said water she meant water!
Boiler thermostats, not room thermostats, are normally set around 140 deg
F as this gives maximum efficency with little risk if someone touches a
hot pipe or radiator.
Maintainance really comes down to ensuring the burner is working properly
and I cannot see that this cost would be any different between hot air or
hot water systems. We have just had our boiler serviced and it ammounts to
a good clean out, check operation of flame failure and other safety
devices, thermostats and combustion efficency - including checking for
things like CO emmisions
Modern condensing boilers are around 90% efficient.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:58:15 +0100, Stuart <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com>
wrote:
>In article <tdecj3t9hb8hecuqdu0a2ndidrdp3hvfj7@4ax.com>,
> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>When Sue said water she meant water!
So what? Hot water systems are still fed by a STEAM boiler.
>
>Boiler thermostats, not room thermostats, are normally set around 140 deg
>F as this gives maximum efficency with little risk if someone touches a
>hot pipe or radiator.
Irrelevant.
>
>Maintainance really comes down to ensuring the burner is working properly
>and I cannot see that this cost would be any different between hot air or
>hot water systems. We have just had our boiler serviced and it ammounts to
>a good clean out, check operation of flame failure and other safety
>devices, thermostats and combustion efficency - including checking for
>things like CO emmisions
>
>Modern condensing boilers are around 90% efficient.
The efficiency of the boiler has nothing to do with the efficiency of
the distribution system.
A single radiating source in a room heats the air that happens to
convect near it. A ducted hot air heating system adds heated air to a
room, which is much more efficient.
The cost of operation of a forced air heating system is well known to
be far less than that of a hot water based system. Particularly if said
hot water system uses 70 year old radiator technology. There are hot
water systems in use that use much more efficient radiator elements that
span a baseboard, etc.
The point is that a single radiator in a room uses a small amount of IR
energy to heat the air that is in close proximity to the radiator. A
forced air system uses a HUGE amount of IR energy to heat the air passing
over a heat exchanger, which then gets pumped into the rooms already
heated.
It is well known that the forced air systems are more efficient at this
task.
| |
| Stuart 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| In article <lricj3h7rk03anpc6pnk48mhrib0lu2a9o@4ax.com>,
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
> So what? Hot water systems are still fed by a STEAM boiler
Wrong.
I repeat!
Water means water.
Boiler thermostats and safety devices are set so that temperatures NEVER
approach that required to produce steam.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| Stuart 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| In article <lricj3h7rk03anpc6pnk48mhrib0lu2a9o@4ax.com>,
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
> It is well known that the forced air systems are more efficient at this
> task.
Maybe, maybe not but they are considerably noiser and bulkier.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:59:12 +0100, Stuart <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com>
wrote:
>In article <lricj3h7rk03anpc6pnk48mhrib0lu2a9o@4ax.com>,
> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBored@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>
>Wrong.
>I repeat!
>Water means water.
>
>Boiler thermostats and safety devices are set so that temperatures NEVER
>approach that required to produce steam.
Look, Chucko... If the term BOILER is used, then the term STEAM
applies.
If it is merely a HOT WATER system, then the device is NOT a boiler!
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:29:33 GMT, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
>
>By definition, to me, you are strange. The USA is strange.
>
>"Of, relating to, or characteristic of another place or part of the
>world; foreign."
>
>It wasn't intended to infer inferiority or superiority - just
>difference. American English is not the same as British English.
>
>To misuse a quotation, "In the strange world of English, skating on thin
>ice can easily get you into hot water*.."
>
>*But let's not get steamed up about it..
Oh... I don't know... banging your brains out in a centuries old
stone mansion master bedroom sounds like a fun manner of getting steamed
up. ;-] Whether it is cold out or not... Do you smoke after sex... or
is it steam?
| |
|
| In article <lricj3h7rk03anpc6pnk48mhrib0lu2a9o@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:58:15 +0100, Stuart <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
No, we didn't, Dimmie. Steam systems are still around, particularly
in commercial systems. Hot water systems are *quite* common and are
still being installed.
[color=darkred]
>
> So what? Hot water systems are still fed by a STEAM boiler.
How in hell do you manage to be AlwaysWrong, Dimbulb? There isn't
any steam in a hydronic system. They run at about 180F @14PSI.
There had better not be any steam in there.
>
> Irrelevant.
No, it isn't. There is no steam at 140F (actually 180F), Dimbulb.
>
> The efficiency of the boiler has nothing to do with the efficiency of
> the distribution system.
High efficiency is the reason they're still in use, Dimmie. Even
non-condensing units are ~85% efficient.
> A single radiating source in a room heats the air that happens to
> convect near it. A ducted hot air heating system adds heated air to a
> room, which is much more efficient.
No, Dimmie it isn't. ...any more than your 100W light bulb that
doesn't put out as much heat as a 100W heater.
> The cost of operation of a forced air heating system is well known to
> be far less than that of a hot water based system. Particularly if said
> hot water system uses 70 year old radiator technology. There are hot
> water systems in use that use much more efficient radiator elements that
> span a baseboard, etc.
Wrong again, Dimbulb. How _do_ you manage it?
> The point is that a single radiator in a room uses a small amount of IR
> energy to heat the air that is in close proximity to the radiator. A
> forced air system uses a HUGE amount of IR energy to heat the air passing
> over a heat exchanger, which then gets pumped into the rooms already
> heated.
Six one, half dozen of the other. The heat isn't going anywhere,
except into the room.
> It is well known that the forced air systems are more efficient at this
> task.
No, Dimbulb, that isn't "known".
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <mumcj3lefhb5r3mnsev0eqn15etsulrita@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:59:12 +0100, Stuart <SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Look, Chucko... If the term BOILER is used, then the term STEAM
> applies.
Wrong again, Dimbulb.
> If it is merely a HOT WATER system, then the device is NOT a boiler!
The furnace in a hydronic system is called a "boiler", Dimmie, just
like the thing that convects heat is called a "radiator".
--
Keith
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:54:56 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>No, we didn't, Dimmie. Steam systems are still around, particularly
>in commercial systems. Hot water systems are *quite* common and are
>still being installed.
Water based cooling systems, yes. Boiler operated systems... hardly.
What is "quite common" is your inane need to follow around behind my
posts like a little retard. You are as bad as the RoyTard. Sad part is
that you actually have SOME brains.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:54:56 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>No, it isn't. There is no steam at 140F (actually 180F), Dimbulb.
If there is no steam, then it is NOT a boiler, idiot.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:56:27 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>The furnace in a hydronic system is called a "boiler", Dimmie, just
>like the thing that convects heat is called a "radiator".
>
If no steam is being produced, then the device in question is NOT a
boiler.
In your hot water systems, the device is called a hydronic boiler. THAT
is NOT a boiler.
| |
|
| In article <upocj3djbeh803pd2k4hrtcmj2ms1kv9a6@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:54:56 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> Water based cooling systems, yes. Boiler operated systems... hardly.
1) Steam boilers are still used in many large installations.
2) Hydronic furnaces are still called "boilers", even though they
don't boil anything.
> What is "quite common" is your inane need to follow around behind my
> posts like a little retard. You are as bad as the RoyTard. Sad part is
> that you actually have SOME brains.
They only reason for anyone to follow you around is to clean up the
shit you spew, Dimbulb.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <0uocj399g8k38ukor742hlfdq3j97nbng0@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:54:56 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> If there is no steam, then it is NOT a boiler, idiot.
Tell that to the companies that make them.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <r0pcj3diifv44slcs4u114r11i6imvq368@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:56:27 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
> If no steam is being produced, then the device in question is NOT a
> boiler.
The pedantic Dimbulb is at it again, folks. It is *called* a
"boiler", even though it produces no steam, Dimmie. What would you
call it, a dim bulb, Dimbulb?
> In your hot water systems, the device is called a hydronic boiler. THAT
^^^^^^
> is NOT a boiler.
You can't even agree with yourself, AlwaysWrong. You must be a real
piece of work to live around.
--
Keith
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 9:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:17:24 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <upocj3djbeh803pd2k4hrtcmj2ms1kv9a6@4ax.com>,
>RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
>
>1) Steam boilers are still used in many large installations.
No shit. Not nearly as often for building heating functions, however.
More often used in modern times for hot water for kitchens, showers, etc.
>2) Hydronic furnaces are still called "boilers", even though they
>don't boil anything.
No. They are called hydronic boilers. They are not called boilers at
all. They are not called hydronic furnaces either. That is the term for
the entire system.
>
>They only reason for anyone to follow you around is to clean up the
>shit you spew, Dimbulb.
Except that it is you that is full of shit, boy.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 9:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:17:55 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <0uocj399g8k38ukor742hlfdq3j97nbng0@4ax.com>,
>RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
>
>Tell that to the companies that make them.
They make HYDRONIC BOILERS, and that is what they call them. They do
NOT make boilers, and then put them into a hydronic furnace. They are
two different animals. Just like you... not human.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-10, 9:25 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:23:07 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <r0pcj3diifv44slcs4u114r11i6imvq368@4ax.com>,
>RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
>
>The pedantic Dimbulb is at it again, folks. It is *called* a
>"boiler", even though it produces no steam, Dimmie. What would you
>call it, a dim bulb, Dimbulb?
>
> ^^^^^^
>
>You can't even agree with yourself, AlwaysWrong. You must be a real
>piece of work to live around.
What part of "'boiler' is one word, and 'hydronic boiler' is TWO WORDS"
do you not understand, you retarded fuck?
| |
|
| In article <jrpcj3d5md3gm6e4m98hh67s1a4siebt44@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:17:24 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
> No shit. Not nearly as often for building heating functions, however.
> More often used in modern times for hot water for kitchens, showers, etc.
Wrong, as usual, Dimbulb.
>
> No. They are called hydronic boilers. They are not called boilers at
> all. They are not called hydronic furnaces either. That is the term for
> the entire system.
Or "boilers" for short. Wrong again, AlwaysWrong.
>
> Except that it is you that is full of shit, boy.
That's three strikes, Dimmie.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <m0qcj3huvg6l148rubb21q3f1kae5459j2@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:17:55 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
> They make HYDRONIC BOILERS, and that is what they call them
"Hydronic" is an adjective, modifying the word "boiler", Dimbulb.
According to you, if they don't boil (water) they can't be called
"boilers", hydronic or not. Wrong again, AlwaysWrong.
> They do
> NOT make boilers, and then put them into a hydronic furnace. They are
> two different animals. Just like you... not human.
That's three more strikes, Dimbulb. You must stay up all night
thinking of more ways to be wrong.
--
Keith
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-11, 9:25 am |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:47:27 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <m0qcj3huvg6l148rubb21q3f1kae5459j2@4ax.com>,
>RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
>
>"Hydronic" is an adjective, modifying the word "boiler", Dimbulb.
>According to you, if they don't boil (water) they can't be called
>"boilers", hydronic or not. Wrong again, AlwaysWrong.
>
>
>That's three more strikes, Dimbulb. You must stay up all night
>thinking of more ways to be wrong.
What's the matter? Wasn't the plate of shit you had for breakfast this
morning skanky enough for you?
| |
|
| In article <edscj3pl6brhqvudckutg9u4148hl2u9tn@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:23:07 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> What part of "'boiler' is one word, and 'hydronic boiler' is TWO WORDS"
> do you not understand, you retarded fuck?
>
You've just proved me right, Dimmie. It is you who doesn't understand
the English language, Dimbulb. "Hydronic" modifies "boiler".
"Boiler" is one word. That which heats water for space heating
purposes is called a "boiler". That which heats air, for the same
purpose, is called a "furnace". Now, go back to thinking up *new*
ways of being wrong. This one is old.
--
Keith
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-11, 9:25 am |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:55:10 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <edscj3pl6brhqvudckutg9u4148hl2u9tn@4ax.com>,
>RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
>You've just proved me right, Dimmie. It is you who doesn't understand
>the English language, Dimbulb. "Hydronic" modifies "boiler".
No, idiot. A company that makes boilers of different types uses
MONIKERS for them that describe them. It is NOT an adjective when it is
the actual name of the device.
A steam boiler is a boiler.
A superheated steam boiler is a superheated steam boiler.
A supercritical steam generator is a supercritical steam generator.
AND a hydronic boiler is a hot water heater!
A hydronic boiler is a hot water heater that the fucked in the head
engineer felt the name "hot water heater" was to pedestrian for, so he
called it a hydronic boiler, even though it never boils water.
>"Boiler" is one word.
No shit, dumbfuck.
> That which heats water for space heating
>purposes is called a "boiler".
Nope. That which BOILS water for ANY heating purposes is called a
boiler.
> That which heats air, for the same
>purpose, is called a "furnace".
You're an idiot.
> Now, go back to thinking up *new*
>ways of being wrong. This one is old.
You are sad.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-11, 9:25 am |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:37:49 GMT, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>krw wrote:
>
>Interestingly, in English English, a furnace would usually be something
>that is used to heat material to a very high temperature - eg to melt
>metals. The word wouldn't be used for something that merely heated air
>to a few tens of degrees above ambient.
>
>Conversely, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a boiler as, "A
>fuel-burning apparatus for heating water, especially a device providing
>a domestic hot-water supply or serving a central heating system".
>
>If the "boiler" is electrically powered, but doing the same job of
>heating water by a few tens of degrees - it would be called an immersion
> or hot water tank - and not a boiler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furnace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_water_heater
The KiethTard is wrong on every count.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-11, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:18:02 GMT, Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
>I can't comment on the meaning of the words in American English. But
>there are, of course, many words that differ in meaning between America
>and England.
They aren't dictionary references.
>
>People walk on the pavement in the UK.
So do we over here. We also walk on what we refer to as "sidewalks".
> They wear trousers over their
>pants.
So do we, if we are going fishing in deep water.
> Teachers hand over a rubber to their students to use to correct
>their mistakes and not to prevent them..
Though some are still made of rubber, most erasers over here are now of
a different media, at least as far as professionals go.
>This diagram shows a very typical central heating system in the UK:
>
>http://www.diydoctor.org.uk/projects/boilers.htm
Nice illustrations.
>
>"Boilers" -in the sense of a device for deliberately producing boiling
>water - is a term mostly confined to marine engineers.. in the UK.
Likely also where steam is used to turn turbines for electrical power
generation.
>There was actually a very serious accident in the UK recently, when a
>fauly central heating boiler did indeed produce boiling water. The
>diagram shows that a tank in the loft is used to hold feed water for the
>heating system. It also takes the excess as water in the system expands
>as it is heated. In this accident, the boiling water led to a lot of
>expansion and a lot of very hot water going up into the tank. The tank
>was made of plastic (again very typical) and softened - allowing its
>contents of several tens of gallons of water to pour out into the loft,
>through the ceiling and onto the bed of a child sleeping in the room
>below. Very, very sad.
I don't like hearing about sad news like that.
| |
|
| In article <534ej3pjnhvspg0oasfr3v0mu834v5aaf8@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:55:10 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
> No, idiot. A company that makes boilers of different types uses
> MONIKERS for them that describe them. It is NOT an adjective when it is
> the actual name of the device.
>
> A steam boiler is a boiler.
As is a "hydronic boiler", Dimmie.
> A superheated steam boiler is a superheated steam boiler.
>
> A supercritical steam generator is a supercritical steam generator.
>
> AND a hydronic boiler is a hot water heater!
Thay are all "boilers", Dimbulb.
> A hydronic boiler is a hot water heater that the fucked in the head
> engineer felt the name "hot water heater" was to pedestrian for, so he
> called it a hydronic boiler, even though it never boils water.
Who cares, Dimbulb. You've just admitted that it's the accepted
term. Get over it, AlwaysWrong.
>
> No shit, dumbfuck.
You didn't seem to know.
>
> Nope. That which BOILS water for ANY heating purposes is called a
> boiler.
Nope, even you admit the term "hydronic BOILER" is the accepted term
for a unit that heats water for a hydronic heating system (note the
use of the adjective "hydronic" in both uses).
>
> You're an idiot.
You're AlwaysWrong. Who's the idiot, Dimmie?
>
> You are sad.
You're wrong. That's not an opinion.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <i42ej39cv3bl24v97dm6rtgs669aphuer5@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:47:27 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> What's the matter? Wasn't the plate of shit you had for breakfast this
> morning skanky enough for you?
Nope, no breakfast at all, Dimbulb. I don't live with you, though no
one could.
--
Keith
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-11, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:25:24 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>Who cares, Dimbulb. You've just admitted that it's the accepted
>term. Get over it, AlwaysWrong.
>
Yes... accepted term, NOT an adjective modifying a noun, you fucking
retard.
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-11, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:25:24 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>Nope, even you admit the term "hydronic BOILER" is the accepted term
>for a unit that heats water for a hydronic heating system (note the
>use of the adjective "hydronic" in both uses).
It is NOT an adjective when it is used as the moniker for the device.
| |
|
| In article <60cfj39521pgo5spf02boh7bogbl37cbq5@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:25:24 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
> Yes... accepted term, NOT an adjective modifying a noun, you fucking
> retard.
You truly are an idiot, Dimbulb. WTF do you think it is, and adverb
modifying a noun? ...figures.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <a2cfj3heje488g5apafqdh1v6607rn4d5r@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:25:24 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> It is NOT an adjective when it is used as the moniker for the device.
You're an idiot. It certainly isn't a proper noun.
--
Keith
| |
| ChairmanOfTheBored 2007-11-11, 9:25 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:38:54 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <a2cfj3heje488g5apafqdh1v6607rn4d5r@4ax.com>,
>RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
>
>You're an idiot. It certainly isn't a proper noun.
The two words together are a MONIKER, and they BOTH form said MONIKER.
Get a clue, idiot.
| |
|
| In article <g8ffj31pt0dipqqt03fd8nja7pghdu9302@4ax.com>,
RUBored@crackasmile.org says...
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:38:54 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>
> The two words together are a MONIKER, and they BOTH form said MONIKER.
Wrong again.
> Get a clue, idiot.
After you, AlwaysWrong.
--
Keith
| |
|
| OK, you got my burner goin'...
The worrisome flatmate is correct that -- if you take the view of considering
the time the heat is enjoyed (ie, briefly before going to work) -- it is more
costly *per minute of enjoyed benefit* from the fuel used to heat the flat.
But the cost of that fuel used to heat for that 10 minutes isn't any more
costly than that same 10 minutes when they get home in the evening. Except...
Because it is, presumably, colder in the a.m. than in the p.m., it may
require a *little* more fuel to heat the flat to 24o C in the morning, but as
Sue said, it doesn't amount to much more "scratch".
The heat isn't "more costly", but without anyone there to enjoy it after
you've both gone to work, maybe that's what he means by "costly": a few pence
for only a few minutes of warmth, whereas if it was evening, someone might
enjoy that comfort for an hour.
My read is that the flatmate is saying, in essence, "Suck it up, matey. It's
such a small period of time to be cold before getting into your car (which
can be heated with waste heat from the burning of fuel -- basically, "free")
or arriving at work where *they* pay for your comfort".
--
DaveC
me@bogusdomain.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group
|
|
|
|
|