Frugal Living: Feb 10, 2008

Sunday, February 10, 2008

25 new messages in 3 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Quick basic advice on a dripping gas 40-gal hot-water heater - 23 messages,
7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e565eaf98e0e70b6?hl=en
* Frugal Way to Avoid Scaling Ladder to Clean Gutters - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a4458969feb6a66c?hl=en
* Executive chair w/armrests that lift up like airplane seat - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f4c614b7fb5ce72b?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Quick basic advice on a dripping gas 40-gal hot-water heater
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e565eaf98e0e70b6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 6:55 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:32:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
Hi Nate and others,
I appreciate the help.
One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.

If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?

Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
efficiency?

The reason I ask is I assumed they cost the same to operate but someone
said the smaller water heater will cost less to operate even if the
efficiency factor is the same.

Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
is the same?

Donna

== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:06 pm
From: "hallerb@aol.com"

> Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
> more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
> is the same?
>
> Donna

no larger heater costs no more to heat the same amount of water.

if you call a real plumbing store AO SMITH sells a 96% efficent
condensing hot water tank but i dont know the cost.........

== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:10 pm
From: "mc"

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:0GPrj.11942$hI1.2983@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:32:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Hi Nate and others,
> I appreciate the help.
> One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.
>
> If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
> efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
>
> Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the
> same
> efficiency?

Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.

== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:13 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:28:11 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:28:11 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
> The only number that really matters to you is the capacity

Hi James,
I don't wish to argue and I certainly appreciate any help but I think
that's bad advice based on what I read.

For example, look here:
http://www.candcheat.com/webapp/GetPage?pid=149

Where it says:
Although many consumers make water heater purchase decisions based only on
the size of the storage tank, the first-hour rating (FHR), provided on the
Energy Guide label, is actually more important. The FHR is a measure of how
much hot water the heater will deliver during a busy hour. The FHR is
required by law to appear on the unit's Energy Guide label. Therefore,
before you buy a water heater, estimate your household's peak-hour demand
and look for a unit with an FHR in that range. And beware that a larger
tank doesn't necessarily mean a higher FHR.

The point is that the volume of the water heater is, apparently,
meaningless from a standpoint of delivering enough hot water to meet our
needs. The volume is merely (apparently) a starting point - just like the
warranty is as meaningless as the volume.

So, it seems, based on my research, that to buy by volume and warranty are
exactly what the manufacturers want you to do to keep you as far away from
meaningful critera as possible.

What's really important, it seems, is the FHR and the EF. The only thing
I'm really confused about is whether two equal efficiency (to simplify the
argument) hot water heaters of two different sizes cost the same or
different amounts.

Do you know?

Donna

== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:16 pm
From: malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)

In article <0GPrj.11942$hI1.2983@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:32:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>Hi Nate and others,
>I appreciate the help.
>One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.
>
>If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
>efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?

Nope.

>Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
>efficiency?

Yup.

>The reason I ask is I assumed they cost the same to operate but someone
>said the smaller water heater will cost less to operate even if the
>efficiency factor is the same.

The smaller heater will be cheaper to run -- but it may not
provide enough hot water when you need it.

But the difference (between 40 and 50 gal) isn't going to be
that great provided the heater has good insulation.

The energy factor tells you how well much of the gas is
converted into hot water. A low rating on a gas heater
means lots of therms (energy) are going up the flue.

>Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
>more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
>is the same?

If your current heater is 40gal and meets your demands, I
see absolutely no reason to upgrade to a 50gal tank.

I'm in Northern CA and a 50 gal tank is just about adequate
for my home -- with 2500 sq ft, two adults and three kids.
We run a little low on hot water if everyone takes a shower
or bath in really quick succession while doing laundry.
It's a very minor problem about once a year. 99% of the
time, 50 gals is just fine.

Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:17 pm
From: Rick Blaine

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>One thing that confuses me to no end is this EFFICIENCY thing.
>
>If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
>efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
>

For the same water use, yes. Efficiency refers to non-electric heaters
(electrics are 100% efficient), and accounts for the heat loss up the vent pipe.
In other words, heat that doesn't heat the water.

>Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
>efficiency?
>

Not to heat the water, but over the lifetime, yes.

>The reason I ask is I assumed they cost the same to operate but someone
>said the smaller water heater will cost less to operate even if the
>efficiency factor is the same.
>

True.

>Can someone who understands this clarify if a larger heater truly costs
>more to operate than a smaller volume heater even if the efficiency factor
>is the same?

Although both units will use the same amount of energy to heat water, the larger
heater has a larger tank, which in turn means it has more surface exposed to the
outside. The greater the surface area, the greater the heat loss when you aren't
using water, which means the larger heater will use more energy to maintain the
hot water.

Now, if you live north of the Mason Dixon line and your water heater is inside
the house, then that isn't a total loss as you heat that escapes goes to warm
your house. It only becomes a problem when you want to run the A/C.

OTOH, if you live south of the Mason Dixon line or your water heater is in the
garage, then yes, you will pay a little more to run a 50 gal heater than a 40
gal. one. Is it significant? Look at the energy tag on the two heaters, but I
suspect the difference is less than $20/year. OTOH, you may find the larger unit
has better insulation, which may compensate.

== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:20 pm
From: Rick Blaine

"mc" <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

>Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.

Sigh. Absolutely true and totally meaningless within the context of this
discussion. Oh wait! This is usenet...

Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_ and
efficiency.

== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:23 pm
From: malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)

In article <HXPrj.11943$hI1.4914@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>What's really important, it seems, is the FHR and the EF.

At the risk of repeating myself... and the insulation.

Think about it. How many hours per day do you actually spend
with the hot water faucets turned on?

The tank is "leaking" heat 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
A well insulated tank will store the energy you used and
paid for. A poorly insulated tank will throw it away.

Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:25 pm
From: Rick Blaine

malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

>>If both a 50 gallon and 40 gallon water heater has the same 59 percent
>>efficiency factor ... do they cost the SAME to heat?
>
>Nope.

Yes they do. Basic physics says that it takes the same amount of energy to heat
the same water, regardless of the container size.

>
>>Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more even if it's the same
>>efficiency?
>
>Yup.

But not because it takes more energy to heat the water, because the heat loss
from the tank is slightly higher.

== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:24 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:10:47 -0500, mc wrote:

>> Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more
>> even if it's the same efficiency factor?
>
> Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.

Are you sure?

Look at what this energy page says about the Efficiency Factor:
http://www.friendlyplumber.com/plumbing101/washer_heater_energy.html

The "energy factor [is the] number of cycles that can be completed w/ one
kilowatt-hour of electricity".

If that's true, then it's independent of the VOLUME of the water heater.

So, if I read that correctly, a 40-gallon water heater with an EF of .58
takes roughly about 2 KWH of power to heat once while a 50-gallon water
heater with the same EF would take EXACTLY the same amount of power to heat
all 50 gallons.

Can someone check my math on that web page and report back if I understand
incorrectly? If we turn off our brains, of course 40 gallons would cost
less to heat than 50 gallons; but if we think, it might not be so.

Can you help me think about this properly?
What does the Efficiency Factor say about costs for two different sized
tanks with the same efficiency factor?

Donna

== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:34 pm
From: "Edwin Pawlowski"

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message
>
> Does anyone know where to find a 40gallon or 50gallon hot water heater
> with
> that efficiency rating at a major chain (sears or home depot or ???).
> http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/
>
> Donna

Why a major chain? They don't give very good service. Try a local plumber
and plumbing supply house for a better deal and usually better units.

== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:38 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:20:35 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
> Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_ and
> efficiency.

Good point ... dead capacity vs active usage!

Darn. I wish I understood this EF thing better, especially given two
identical situations where the *only* difference is the CAPACITY.

Based on what you implied, if I inferred correctly, if the USAGE was
exactly the same for two water heaters with the same EF, then the costs to
operate a 50-gallon water heater would be EXACTLY the same as the costs to
operate a 100-gallon water heater (if the Efficiency Factor were the same
for both).

Did I understand the math (and your point) correctly?

Donna

== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:42 pm
From: "mc"

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:X5Qrj.11945$hI1.9847@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:10:47 -0500, mc wrote:
>
>>> Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more
>>> even if it's the same efficiency factor?
>>
>> Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> Look at what this energy page says about the Efficiency Factor:
> http://www.friendlyplumber.com/plumbing101/washer_heater_energy.html
>
> The "energy factor [is the] number of cycles that can be completed w/ one
> kilowatt-hour of electricity".
>
> If that's true, then it's independent of the VOLUME of the water heater.

Strange. Then it isn't a measure of efficiency.

== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:42 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:23:57 GMT, Malcolm Hoar wrote:

> The tank is "leaking" heat 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
> A well insulated tank will store the energy you used and
> paid for. A poorly insulated tank will throw it away.

Another good point.

Does the Efficiency Factor take this heat leakage into account?
Or is the ONLY way to research the insulation thickness (which doesn't seem
to be on the energy star label).

What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?

Donna

== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:48 pm
From: Rick Blaine

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Good point ... dead capacity vs active usage!
>
>Darn. I wish I understood this EF thing better, especially given two
>identical situations where the *only* difference is the CAPACITY.
>
>Based on what you implied, if I inferred correctly, if the USAGE was
>exactly the same for two water heaters with the same EF, then the costs to
>operate a 50-gallon water heater would be EXACTLY the same as the costs to
>operate a 100-gallon water heater (if the Efficiency Factor were the same
>for both).
>
>Did I understand the math (and your point) correctly?

Not exactly. There are two types of heat use/loss in a water heater: One is the
heat used to heat the water you are actively using. The other is to reheat the
water that's sitting in the tank all day when you aren't using it.

Both tanks will use the same amount of energy to heat the water you are using
directly. If both tanks have the same efficiency and the same insulation, the
smaller tank will lose less energy to the outside air and thus be slightly less
expensive to operate over the course of a year.

The actual difference in cost is probably not that much. Look at the estimated
annual cost of the two heaters on the yellow energy tag. They normalize for all
that. If one say $180 and the other says $200, that's a rough idea of the
difference in operating costs.

== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:49 pm
From: "hr(bob) hofmann@att.net"

On Feb 10, 9:38 pm, "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"
<donna....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:20:35 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
> > Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_ and
> > efficiency.
>
> Good point ... dead capacity vs active usage!
>
> Darn. I wish I understood this EF thing better, especially given two
> identical situations where the *only* difference is the CAPACITY.
>
> Based on what you implied, if I inferred correctly, if the USAGE was
> exactly the same for two water heaters with the same EF, then the costs to
> operate a 50-gallon water heater would be EXACTLY the same as the costs to
> operate a 100-gallon water heater (if the Efficiency Factor were the same
> for both).
>
> Did I understand the math (and your point) correctly?
>
> Donna

Donna:

Get a heater with the same gallons as you currently have, and as high
an efficiency rating as possible, go for at least a 5-year warranty.
Get a unit that is exactly the same outside dimensions so the piping
does not have to be changed and find a reasonably handy neighbor to
put the new tank in. It should take less than 30 minutes to do the
entire switch-out if the old and new tanks are the exact same size.
Compare prices on a cost per year of warranty coverage, I have seen a
lot of heaters that go bad within a year or so of the expiration of
the warranty, so cost per year of coverage is a good comparison
criteria. If you have the room, adding a fibre-glass water heater
cover over the new tank will improve the heat loss and thus raise the
efficiency. Don't obcess(SP?) about this, it isn't worth the time and
effort.

H. R.(Bob) Hofmann

== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:49 pm
From: Rick Blaine

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?

Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to operate
printed there can be compared on different models.

== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:50 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:42:31 -0500, mc wrote:

> "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message news:X5Qrj.11945$hI1.9847@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:10:47 -0500, mc wrote:
>>
>>>> Or does the 50 gallon water heater actually cost more
>>>> even if it's the same efficiency factor?
>>>
>>> Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>>
>> Look at what this energy page says about the Efficiency Factor:
>> http://www.friendlyplumber.com/plumbing101/washer_heater_energy.html
>>
>> The "energy factor [is the] number of cycles that can be completed w/ one
>> kilowatt-hour of electricity".
>>
>> If that's true, then it's independent of the VOLUME of the water heater.
>
> Strange. Then it isn't a measure of efficiency.

I think it was MY MISTAKE to call it an efficiency factor.
It's actually an ENERGY FACTOR.
And, it seems to be independent of the capacity of the tank.
It's dependent on the "cycles".

So, it seems if a 50-gallon water heater has an EF of 0.50, then it takes
two kilowatt hours of power to "cycle" that water heater. Likewise, if a
100-gallon water heater has the same EF, then it takes the same amount of
power to "cycle" that water heater.

Now we have to figure out what a "cycle" is.
I can presume it is to heat up a stated amount of hot water, presumably the
capacity but I don't know that for sure.

If a "cycle" is the capacity, then it would actually cost LESS per gallon
for a 100 gallon water heater than a 50 gallon water heater assuming the
same Energy Factor.

Realistically, all the Home Depot water heaters have a 0.58 or 0.59 EF so
that would indicate, if my assumptions are correct, they the larger ones
(e.g., 50 or 60 gallons capacity) actually costs LESS to operate than the
smaller ones (e.g., 40 gallons capacity) for any given number of gallons
USEAGE.

Can my math possibly hold water?

== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 9:03 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:49:53 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:

>>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?
> Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to operate
> printed there can be compared on different models.

Are you sure?

Isn't the Energy Factor a more pure number than the annual costs?
That is, the energy costs depend, of course, on the price of energy and
volume of water assumed while the Energy Factor should be independent of
those two numbers.

So, it seems to me the EF already takes into account the insulation (and
whatever other factors matter).

Doesn't it?

Donna

== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 9:08 pm
From: Rick Blaine

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>What does the Efficiency Factor say about costs for two different sized
>tanks with the same efficiency factor?

EF allows you to compare different heaters. It takes into account insulation and
other factors. Details here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13000

== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 9:20 pm
From: Rick Blaine

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>>What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water heaters?
>> Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to operate
>> printed there can be compared on different models.
>
>Are you sure?
>

Yes

>Isn't the Energy Factor a more pure number than the annual costs?

Yes.

>That is, the energy costs depend, of course, on the price of energy and
>volume of water assumed while the Energy Factor should be independent of
>those two numbers.
>
>So, it seems to me the EF already takes into account the insulation (and
>whatever other factors matter).
>
>Doesn't it?

Do you care? Consider the case where one heater has poor insulation and a very
efficient burner, and the other has a poor burner and better insulation. Both
have the same EF, both cost the same to operate over a year. Which one do you
buy?

== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 9:43 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:20:41 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
> Consider the case where one heater has poor insulation and a very
> efficient burner, and the other has a poor burner and better insulation. Both
> have the same EF, both cost the same to operate over a year. Which one do you
> buy?

Hi Rick,
I don't wish to argue ... just to understand ... so please bear with me.

I've said a lot that is wrong (e.g., I called the EF an "efficiency"
factor) and at first I was choosing by size and warranty (which is about as
opposite of the true selection process as is possible) ... so I'm learning
from all you guys and trying to truly understand how to properly select a
real water heater out of the real selections and choices truly available
today in my area.

It seems like I'm not the only one confused as some people said to buy a
water heater by CAPACITY (which seems nearly meaningless except for overall
mechanical size reasons) instead of by FHR, for example.

The web site you recommended was better for FHR than those I tried:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12990

As that web site CLEARLY said the FHR is the most important VOLUME number.
"To properly size a storage water heater ... use the water heater's first
hour rating (FHR). The first hour rating is the amount of hot water in
gallons the heater can supply per hour (starting with a tank full of hot
water). It depends on the tank capacity, source of heat (burner or
element), and the size of the burner or element."

So, I now know that the volume (e.g., 40 gallon or 50 gallon is a nearly
meaningless number when the actual FHR is known).

But, I'm still confused about the EF.

That same web site:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13000

Says "the energy factor (EF) indicates a water heater's overall energy
efficiency based on the amount of hot water produced per unit of fuel
consumed over a typical day. This includes ... how efficiently the heat
from the energy source is transferred to the water ... the percentage of
heat loss per hour from the stored water compared to the heat content of
the water ... [and] the loss of heat as the water circulates through a
water heater tank, and/or inlet and outlet pipes."

So, if I understand it correctly, all we need is the EF and the FHR and the
actual size (e.g., 40 gallons, 50 gallons, or 60 gallons) is meaningless
from the standpoint of how much hot water it delivers or how much it costs
to operate.

This seems so counterintuitive that no wonder a lot of people are confused,
even me. But then, like countersteering on a bicycle, sometimes you do turn
left to go right.

At the moment, it seems that the actual capacity of the tank is a nearly
meaningless number (except for dimensional reasons) - as is the warranty -
based on that web page (since both the FHR and ER already take into account
the tanks' size).

Donna

== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 9:49 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:20:41 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:

> Consider the case where one heater has poor insulation and a very
> efficient burner, and the other has a poor burner and better insulation. Both
> have the same EF, both cost the same to operate over a year. Which one do you
> buy?

I thought MORE about what you wrote and you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

The insulation was suggested by someone else (not me). I agree with you,
the thickness of the insulation, in and of itself, is as meaningless as the
volume of the tank, in and of itself.

What seems meaningful isn't the warranty.
It's not the volume of the tank.
It's not the thickness of the insulation.
It's not even the total energy costs (since they make assumptions which
might not be true).

What seems meaningful is the ER and the FHR which take into account ALL
those factors (and more).

So my conclusion (open for discussion) is that what matters is:
- Get the desired FHR needed (e.g., 65 to 75 gallons is fine for me
- Get the desired ER (I wish I could find a .62 instead of .59 ERs)
- Get the right PHYSICAL SIZE (e.g., a 40-gallon tank is 50 inches tall)

Some other factors which _might_ be interesting are:
- Your article said try to get an ELECTRONIC flame igniter
- The Home Depot guy tried to sell me on the maintenance-free ones
(He said they had a fan that stirred up the sediment)
- Some folks recommended "better" valves for cleaning out the sediment

Donna

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Way to Avoid Scaling Ladder to Clean Gutters
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a4458969feb6a66c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 8:53 pm
From: Logan Shaw

mwmiller314@gmail.com wrote:
> In a 2 story residentail dwelling trees often leave their leaves in
> the 2nd story gutters, bringing a lot of us back to the annual joy of
> having to either hire someone or otherwise deal with the stuff that
> collected into the 2nd story gutters of a house. As he-man as I'd
> like to be about scaling ladders and stuff, I can't help but notice
> the ground is way way to easy to hit from a drop from the 2nd story
> level of the house. So the question remains and I've never heard a
> full or very great answer but thought I'd bring it here for once, "Is
> there some way to clear the gutters of a house while avoiding scaling
> to the 2nd story?"

Well, you could always get one of these things:

http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=354

I have no idea at all whether it works as well as advertised. And
it doesn't stop you from having to get on the ladder; it just makes
the process easier (supposedly).

- Logan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Executive chair w/armrests that lift up like airplane seat
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f4c614b7fb5ce72b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 9:15 pm
From: "aesthete8@hotmail.com"

Is there such a thing?

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Make your own website in 5 minutes for free!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/19ab9b81ea46a8cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 2:05 pm
From: lnpworld

http://glycoblug.webs.com/getwebhosting.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Calendar downloads?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/200a513c0b463960?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 2:16 pm
From: Samantha Hill - take out TRASH to reply

You need to ask this on comp:alt.comp.freeware, or else check the web
site maintained for the benefit of the NG at

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org

pc wrote:
>
> Surely, there's got to be a source online for calendar printouts that
> fit a variety of planner cases/holders!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:23 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <uCJrj.25139$1f.12755@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
pc <pc@somewhere.com> wrote:

> Hi group ..
>
> I am looking for free calendars that I can download. I am looking for
> things similar to the Dayminder, Dayrunner options.
>
> I went to a couple of stores recently and they all wanted a minimum of
> 15 dollars. This seems outrageous to me. Especially because none of
> them were exactly what I wanted.
>
> Surely, there's got to be a source online for calendar printouts that
> fit a variety of planner cases/holders!
>
> Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!
>
> ..PC

Spend a few bucks and buy a decent PDA with software that's compatible
with your computer and you'll never want to use a traditional paper
calendar again.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tata to bring Nano to Europe in 4 years
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2e78e0f7bde77e5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 2:20 pm
From: fruitella

they should sell it in north america too.

-------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7298404

Tata to bring Nano to Europe in 4 years

FRANKFURT, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Tata Motors plans to introduce its ultra-
cheap Nano car to the European market in four years' time, the head of
compact car projects at Tata Motors told German magazine Focus.

"We will develop a successor model in four years time, which will meet
the Euro 5 emission regulations and the crash standards in Europe,"
Girish Wagh was quoted as saying by Focus in an advance abstract on
Sunday.

The main target was to reduce the car's fuel consumption to three from
currently five litres per 100 kilometres (62.5 miles), Wagh told the
magazine.

Tata Motors unveiled the $2,500 Nano, the world's cheapest car, in
January and said the new four-seater would roll out later in the year
from its factory in the eastern state of West Bengal. Tata has said it
will initially produce about 250,000 Nanos and expects eventual annual
demand of 1 million units.

Tata has said it would focus on the home market for two to three years
before considering exporting the Nano to countries in Africa, Latin
America and Southeast Asia.

Global car makers, initially sceptical that Tata could produce such a
low-cost car, are now scurrying to make their own versions to meet the
needs of cost-conscious consumers in emerging economies such as China,
India and Russia.

General Motor's Opel unit plans to develop a small car for 8,000 euros
($11,590), the head of Opel, Hans Demant, told Germany's auto, motor
und sport magazine in an advanced copy on Saturday. A decision could
be made next year, he said.

"The Opel citycar is a vehicle for the coming decade," he said. Ford
said in January it would build a small car in India within two years,
and the alliance of Nissan Motor and Renault, which has made a big
success of its no-frills Logan sedan, plans a $3,000 car with Bajaj
Auto.

Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda Motor and Fiat have also said they are
looking at small cars for emerging markets, where strong economic
growth has for the first time made car ownership an option for
millions.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 5:52 pm
From: "2.7182818284590..."

They should start exporting to Europe *now*!

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 2:32 pm
From: mwmiller314@gmail.com

In a 2 story residentail dwelling trees often leave their leaves in
the 2nd story gutters, bringing a lot of us back to the annual joy of
having to either hire someone or otherwise deal with the stuff that
collected into the 2nd story gutters of a house. As he-man as I'd
like to be about scaling ladders and stuff, I can't help but notice
the ground is way way to easy to hit from a drop from the 2nd story
level of the house. So the question remains and I've never heard a
full or very great answer but thought I'd bring it here for once, "Is
there some way to clear the gutters of a house while avoiding scaling
to the 2nd story?" That is other than the obvious solution of moving
to a ranch house.

your helpful feedback appreciated,
Matt

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 2:57 pm
From: Al Bundy

On Feb 10, 5:32 pm, mwmiller...@gmail.com wrote:
> In a 2 story residentail dwelling trees often leave their leaves in
> the 2nd story gutters, bringing a lot of us back to the annual joy of
> having to either hire someone or otherwise deal with the stuff that
> collected into the 2nd story gutters of a house. As he-man as I'd
> like to be about scaling ladders and stuff, I can't help but notice
> the ground is way way to easy to hit from a drop from the 2nd story
> level of the house. So the question remains and I've never heard a
> full or very great answer but thought I'd bring it here for once, "Is
> there some way to clear the gutters of a house while avoiding scaling
> to the 2nd story?" That is other than the obvious solution of moving
> to a ranch house.
>
> your helpful feedback appreciated,
> Matt

Ever look around at your neighbor's homes?
Listen to the radio for a few minutes or watch TV?
Ever walk around the hardware store, Lowe's or Home Depot?
There must be dozens of brand name systems that are more or less
easily installed on the eves to prevent leaves from entering in the
first place. Once it's done, you're done.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: garbage disposer
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5cf783ddaa4f9105?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 3:50 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

well, decided to get a new one; quite a bit more expensive
than the last one we bought, also an insinkerator. much
quieter, tho. easy to install, too.

thanks for all the help.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WillowRaven's spam updates...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bdfd0eb2183e315a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 4:21 pm
From: clams_casino

willowraven.illustration@gmail.com wrote:

>Just wanted to ask people to check out the various updates on my
>website.
>
>Be sure to let me know what ya'll think of the site.
>
>
>
I think your spam is not wanted on this newsgroup.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: reg:life insurance
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0f38aac0da6b991?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 4:23 pm
From: clams_casino

karthik.rajeswari@gmail.com wrote:

>life insurance
>

so posting the same spam three times makes it legit?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is your water usage?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bd562b37685d1e02?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 4:31 pm
From: "Lou"

"val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:089ed88c-4267-48fe-86a7-26fe322558e7@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 1:58 pm, hchick...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I just had a chance to do some comparisons, and I'm stunned how much
> > less water we are using in our manufactured home in Alabama than we
> > were in our old home in south Florida. There are a number of factors
> > involved, including climate, but the variations in useage bear
> > examining.
> >
> > If you want to compare from your own water bills, a hundred cubic feet
> > of water is 750 gallons.
> >
> > In the old home, we had a regular big old top load clothes washer,
> > washed some dishes by hand until the last few months there, had
> > regular showerheads, had the old style toilets that were flushed
> > whenever they were used, watered plants in the winter, had to add
> > water to the pool every few months, and during the summer only,
> > minimally used the roof sprinkler to extend the life of the roof (low
> > flow setting, total of about 40 min of watering a day. Water pressure
> > was about 60 psi.
> >
> > We were hooked to city water and tried to be prudent, but not
> > obsessive about our water use. A low usage month was measured at
> > 33000 gallons, with a couple months over a five year period close to 3
> > times that figure. Looking back, I'm astounded how much water we
> > used, or supposedly used, especially since we had our own irrigation
> > well for watering the lawn, which isn't included in those figures.
> >
> > When we lived in the camper this past summer, our well could only
> > produce 25 gal/day and we used less than 750 gal/mo. The toilet was a
> > camper toilet, which might use a pint of water per flush, showers were
> > limited to about five minutes or less, and we had no clothes washer,
> > dishwasher, pool, or roof sprinkler. We did water plants, but there
> > weren't as many to water.
> >
> > At our new home, we have a high-efficiency clothes washer, dishwasher,
> > 1.6gpf toilets, spa tub, and we shower regularly using a low-flow
> > showerhead (but less than in Florida where we were sweating all the
> > time). Water is at about 45PSI through the regulator. We have an
> > 1100 gal storage cistern, which gets filled about 3 times a month.
> >
> > 3300 gallons compared to 33000 gallons is a tenfold difference with no
> > pain, and the camper use of 750 gallons per month is 1/4 of that
> > amount. The differences are amazing, and I've become convinced that
> > the water saving devices are all they claim to be. Even though our
> > water here is essentially free, I'm tickled, since the septic system
> > will be that much less loaded and the costs of heating water will be
> > reduced.
>
> I get billed for two thousand gallons a month, and about twice a year,
> get billed for three thousand. If away on a trip, it's always 1
> thousand. My water authority assured me that if it's one drop under
> the next thousand, they don't bill for it. Has to be a full thousand
> gallons.
>
> Two person household. No swimming pool, low flow shower heads, two-
> choice toilets, do dishes usually with the lab method. Cars go the car
> wash (not frugal but it's fast and they do a good job). Lawn is
> watered from a separate well source.

I've noticed several replies in this vein, and with all due respect, it's
bogus. The original question was what is your water USAGE, not what is your
water bill. Just because you take your car to the car wash doesn't mean
you're not using water to wash the car (though you're probably using less
than you would at home - my local car wash recycles the water). Just
because you water the lawn using a separate, non-metered well doesn't mean
you're not using water.

So come on, how about trying again? I'm sure your local car wash can give
an estimate on the amount of water they use to wash a car, and the pump on
your well must have a rating.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Domains for $6.95 and Hosting for $3.99
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2de8f2ba9fd7687c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 5:06 pm
From: clams_casino

fractalien wrote:

>Simply put, $6.95 for your .com registrations. Godaddy is currently
>charging $9.99 so here's another resource to help you save money...
>
>
>
>
You use a godaddy.com web site to promote a non godaddy website?

abuse@godaddy.com may not be so amused.

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 4:26 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:58:35 -0600, L D'Bonnie wrote:

> Is it down the basement on a concrete floor with no possibility of
> water damage?

It's in a concrete-floored garage on a wooden pedestal so there's not much
by way of water damage that can occur if the leak were to exascerbate in
the next few days.

> The safe bet is to call a plumber and replace the tank as soon as
> possible. The labor to replace the tank with a similar unit will
> likely be less than that of a tankless.
I've since given up on tankless for the retrofit costs. The labor at Home
Depot seems to be $309 to hook up the new hot water heater and haul away
the old one; plus $55 for earthquake straps; plus $50 for permits; plus
taxes of roughly 9% on the parts and service.

> Bite the bullet and take your lumps, the joys of being a home owner.
Here are the comparisons I can generate so far, based on what Home Depot
says at their Bronx New York Water Heater Servicing Center.

The prices below are installed but sans earthquake straps, permits, &
taxes. Note that the Home Depot water heater servicing center had no
figures for the BTUs (they said they weren't important). They mostly pushed
warranty but I did my comparison by cost per First Hour Rating.

Home Depot Water Heater Servicing Center (877-467-0542)
by price (installed), SKU, FHR, EF, BTU, volume, and warranty:
$608 SG40T12AVH/182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$658 SG50T12AVH/183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$677 SG40T12AVH/182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$718 SG50T12AVH/184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$728 SG40T12AVH/182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
$783 SG50T12AVH/185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)

Here are the best numbers I could find by going to the local Home Depot.
Notice the only way to get the all-important First Hour Rating was to open
each and every box which the floorperson balked at so I don't know that or
the Energy Factor.

Here is what was at the store by price, UPC, FHR, ER, BTU, volume, &
warranty:
$280, 514017, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 3yr
$290, 509501, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 36K, 40gal, 6yr
$350, 519005, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 40gal, 9yr
$350, 431048, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 6yr
$360, 494272, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 6yr
$370, 551821, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 9yr
$380, 569840, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 6yr
$410, 431055, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 9yr
$420, 518411, ??gal FHR, .59EF, 40K, 40gal, 12yr
$420, 494302, 68gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 6yr
$440, 518435, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 12yr

Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?

Donna

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 4:53 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

> Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
> gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
> diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?

It would be nice if there were freeware to do all these calculations for
us! (I'll ask the wonderful folks on the freeware newsgroup if they have
any "special" cost-per-FHR calculators other than standard calculators).

Here is what the choices seem to be by cost per FHR (which seems like the
only reasonable comparison).

Home Depot Water Heater Servicing Center (877-467-0542)
by cost per FHR given the price (installed), price for the heater, SKU,
FHR, EF, BTU, volume, and warranty:

$4.15 $608 $299 182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$4.36 $658 $349 183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$5.11 $677 $368 182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$5.11 $718 $409 184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$6.16 $728 $419 182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
$4.51 $783 $374 185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)

Given the cost per FHR for the Home Depot hot water heaters above, it seems
like the best bet, economically and maintenance wise, is the $5.11 per
first hour rating 72-gallon FHR 40-gallon $368 dollar ($677 + $55
earthquake straps + $50 permit fee + ~$50 local taxes) GE
SG40T12AVH/182-786 hot water heater.

Do you agree?
That is, does this cost per FHR comparison seem logical to you?

It would be nice if there were freeware to do these calculations for us so
I'm including the freeware team on this (they helped me years ago with a
freeware garage-door torsion-spring calculator which was utterly fantastic
- maybe they have similar freeware calculators for home water heater
replacement comparisons!).

Donna

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 6:22 pm
From: malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)

In article <VTNrj.4859$uE.2492@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Home Depot Water Heater Servicing Center (877-467-0542)
>by cost per FHR given the price (installed), price for the heater, SKU,
>FHR, EF, BTU, volume, and warranty:
>
>$4.15 $608 $299 182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
>$4.36 $658 $349 183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
>$5.11 $677 $368 182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
>$5.11 $718 $409 184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
>$6.16 $728 $419 182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
>$4.51 $783 $374 185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
>
>Given the cost per FHR for the Home Depot hot water heaters above, it seems
>like the best bet, economically and maintenance wise, is the $5.11 per
>first hour rating 72-gallon FHR 40-gallon $368 dollar ($677 + $55
>earthquake straps + $50 permit fee + ~$50 local taxes) GE
>SG40T12AVH/182-786 hot water heater.
>
>Do you agree?
>That is, does this cost per FHR comparison seem logical to you?

It's a useful tool but not the whole story, especially in
what I gather will be a low usage situation. That would
steer me to a small capacity heater and one with the very
best insulation I could find. A longer warranty is good
provided you're not paying an unreasonable premium for it.

In a low usage situation I would try and establish the
R-values of the insulation in each product before making
a final decision.

Also take into account the "quality" of your local water.
If harsh, and you want a long life, consider a heater with
a stainless steel tank (although there's a significant
price premium).

Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 6:26 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)

In article <TuNrj.4853$uE.1057@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>Here is what was at the store by price, UPC, FHR, ER, BTU, volume, &
>warranty:
[ ... ]
>$350, 519005, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 40gal, 9yr
[ ... ]
>$370, 551821, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 9yr
[ ... ]

>Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
>gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
>diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?

The two above should equal or exceed the FHR of your existing heater.
That's mainly a function of BTUs, so the second of the two above will
be slightly better; of course, it'll burn a bit more gas. If that's a
concern, go with the first.

Gary

--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

We live in amazing times, when one person can invent both the Internet
and global warming, then get awarded a "peace prize".

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 6:36 pm
From: Susan Bugher

Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator wrote:

>>Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
>>gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
>>diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?

> It would be nice if there were freeware to do all these calculations for
> us! (I'll ask the wonderful folks on the freeware newsgroup if they have
> any "special" cost-per-FHR calculators other than standard calculators).

Nope.

Susan

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:17 pm
From: "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:26:24 -0000, Gary Heston wrote:
> That's mainly a function of BTUs, so the second of the two above will
> be slightly better; of course, it'll burn a bit more gas. If that's a
> concern, go with the first.

I'm still looking up ways to make a smart decision.
One thing I've noticed is that the efficiency factors I've been quoted from
Home Depot stink (basically 58 to 59 percent).

I called PG&E and they pointed me to a $30 rebate but only for residential
gas water heaters of an EF of 62% or greater.
http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/gas_electric_storage/

Does anyone know where to find a 40gallon or 50gallon hot water heater with
that efficiency rating at a major chain (sears or home depot or ???).
http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/

Donna

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:28 pm
From: "James Sweet"

>
> Here is what was at the store by price, UPC, FHR, ER, BTU, volume, &
> warranty:
> $280, 514017, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 3yr
> $290, 509501, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 36K, 40gal, 6yr
> $350, 519005, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 40gal, 9yr
> $350, 431048, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 6yr
> $360, 494272, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 6yr
> $370, 551821, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 9yr
> $380, 569840, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 6yr
> $410, 431055, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 9yr
> $420, 518411, ??gal FHR, .59EF, 40K, 40gal, 12yr
> $420, 494302, 68gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 6yr
> $440, 518435, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 12yr
>
> Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
> gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
> diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?
>

The only number that really matters to you is the capacity, get one close to
the original capacity and assuming you were happy with the performance
before, you should be with the new one. I recently replaced the water heater
in my mom's house with the last one on the list there, it was 20 bucks more
for double the warranty, seems like a no brainer. Can't advise much on the
labor cost as I've always done all that stuff myself.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:29 pm
From: "James Sweet"

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" <donna.ohl@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:r7Prj.9814$Ch6.4124@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:26:24 -0000, Gary Heston wrote:
>> That's mainly a function of BTUs, so the second of the two above will
>> be slightly better; of course, it'll burn a bit more gas. If that's a
>> concern, go with the first.
>
> I'm still looking up ways to make a smart decision.
> One thing I've noticed is that the efficiency factors I've been quoted
> from
> Home Depot stink (basically 58 to 59 percent).
>
> I called PG&E and they pointed me to a $30 rebate but only for residential
> gas water heaters of an EF of 62% or greater.
> http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/gas_electric_storage/
>
> Does anyone know where to find a 40gallon or 50gallon hot water heater
> with
> that efficiency rating at a major chain (sears or home depot or ???).
> http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/
>
> Donna

Call around and ask, there's only a few different companies that make these
things, others just stick their name on them. As far as I know, the
efficiency of gas water heaters doesn't vary much from one to the next
unless you go tankless.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:30 pm
From: "HeyBub"

Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator wrote:
> I've since given up on tankless for the retrofit costs. The labor at
> Home Depot seems to be $309 to hook up the new hot water heater and
> haul away the old one; plus $55 for earthquake straps; plus $50 for
> permits; plus taxes of roughly 9% on the parts and service.

Earthquake straps? In the Bronx? What a rip-off. I haven't been able to find
an earthquake in that area larger than a 2.6 (roughly equivalent to closing
a drawer). You have to get to 4.0 before there's any damage that's even
noticable. (The WTC collapse registered 2.3.)

$50 permit? Call city hall and see if a permit is required.

As for charging you to haul the old one off, forget it. Just put the defunct
heater on the curb and the urban faries will scoop it up during the night
(they sell them to scrap metal places or make hinges for the doors on their
little Leprechaun houses, I forget which.).

>
>> Bite the bullet and take your lumps, the joys of being a home owner.
> Here are the comparisons I can generate so far, based on what Home
> Depot says at their Bronx New York Water Heater Servicing Center.
>
> The prices below are installed but sans earthquake straps, permits, &
> taxes. Note that the Home Depot water heater servicing center had no
> figures for the BTUs (they said they weren't important). They mostly
> pushed warranty but I did my comparison by cost per First Hour Rating.
>
> Home Depot Water Heater Servicing Center (877-467-0542)
> by price (installed), SKU, FHR, EF, BTU, volume, and warranty:
> $608 SG40T12AVH/182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain
> 2x/year) $658 SG50T12AVH/183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal
> 6-yr(drain 2x/year) $677 SG40T12AVH/182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU
> 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning) $718 SG50T12AVH/184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF
> ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning) $728 SG40T12AVH/182-953 68galFHR
> 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning) $783 SG50T12AVH/185-191
> 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
>
> Here are the best numbers I could find by going to the local Home
> Depot. Notice the only way to get the all-important First Hour Rating
> was to open each and every box which the floorperson balked at so I
> don't know that or the Energy Factor.
>
> Here is what was at the store by price, UPC, FHR, ER, BTU, volume, &
> warranty:
> $280, 514017, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 3yr
> $290, 509501, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 36K, 40gal, 6yr
> $350, 519005, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 40gal, 9yr
> $350, 431048, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 6yr
> $360, 494272, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 6yr
> $370, 551821, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 40gal, 9yr
> $380, 569840, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 34K, 40gal, 6yr
> $410, 431055, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 38K, 50gal, 9yr
> $420, 518411, ??gal FHR, .59EF, 40K, 40gal, 12yr
> $420, 494302, 68gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 6yr
> $440, 518435, ??gal FHR, .??EF, 40K, 50gal, 12yr
>
> Do any of these choices seem most reasonable to replace my existing 65
> gallon First Hour Rating, ??EF, 40 gallon, 35,000 BTU 50" tall by 18"
> diameter gas-fired shelf-mounted earthquake-strapped hot water heater?
>
> Donna

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:32 pm
From: Nate Nagel

Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:26:24 -0000, Gary Heston wrote:
>
>>That's mainly a function of BTUs, so the second of the two above will
>>be slightly better; of course, it'll burn a bit more gas. If that's a
>>concern, go with the first.
>
>
> I'm still looking up ways to make a smart decision.
> One thing I've noticed is that the efficiency factors I've been quoted from
> Home Depot stink (basically 58 to 59 percent).
>
> I called PG&E and they pointed me to a $30 rebate but only for residential
> gas water heaters of an EF of 62% or greater.
> http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/gas_electric_storage/
>
> Does anyone know where to find a 40gallon or 50gallon hot water heater with
> that efficiency rating at a major chain (sears or home depot or ???).
> http://www.pge.com/res/rebates/
>
> Donna

Rheem should have a few models that qualify, and they're a pretty common
brand. Also see if any State or Craftmaster models meet your needs;
AFAICT those three make up the vast majority of the water heater market;
many other brands are just relabels of those three. There's another one
that you can't buy direct (only sold to pros) but I can't recall the
name now.

BTW, you're getting all obsessive compulsive about this. I like you :)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you want to supplement your income? Let me show you how...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e717c27ba2d0ff9b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:16 pm
From: Money Maker

Hi, I can't promise you that you will make $250,000. In fact I can
almost promise you that you won't. However, I did the mail version of
this by mailing out 200 letters at a cost of $174.00.

I didn't receive the $815,000 return like the letter said, but I did
receive over $7,000.00. That's reality... how much you get back always
depends on how many people participate in the program. I don't know
about you, but I think a $174 investment that nets over $7,000 is
worth the time. (yes I have sent out more letters because not
everyone has a computer)

Times have changed and this is the same concept, only it uses the
internet. Advantage... you can reach thousands with a couple clicks of
your mouse. Your investment is only $6.00 not $174.00. Some of you
think this is a scheme. I say to you that a scheme is only a scheme
when you can identify who benefits from the action and the action is
illegal.

This is legal and who benefits from a measly 6 bucks? Where is the
bad man in all of this. This is a simple legal method to share the
wealth. It's all about numbers... If you place this message in front of
enough people, you will make money... simple math. Look at the losers
that post notes saying this won't work Did they try it? If they did...
did they follow the procedure exactly?

Don't tell your friends about this until you have thousands of dollars
in your account. They just don't get simple math. Sometimes when
it's too good to be true... it is true. Friends... it's 6 bucks and 30
minutes of your time. Look at the bright side... once you have a
paypal account set up you can use it all over the internet. WIN,
WIN.

I look forward to reading your success stories online. Good luck and
remember that this only works when everyone does the right thing. Pay
the 6 bucks forward and reap the benefits.

Here is the message as it was posted. I have sent my 6 bucks... now
it's your turn. Djmailer2008@yhahoo.com

$Make $250,000 in Weeks, as seen on Oprah and 20/20$$ $

THIS REALLY CAN MAKE YOU EASY MONEY!! IT WORKS!!! BUT YOU HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE LETTER FOR IT TO WORK!!!! THIS IS NOT A PYRAMID SCAM!!

I came across an article similar to this that said you could make
thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of
$6.00!
...here's how!

You have most likely seen or heard about this project on TV programs
such as 20/20 and Oprah or you may have read about it in the Wall
Street Journal. This program is by no means new. It has been in
existence in many
forms for at least a decade.

In the early days, it required a lot more time and effort, as well as
an investment of a few hundred dollars. However, thanks to PayPal and
the Internet, the investment is now virtually ZERO!

I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it:
Make Money with your PayPal account as shown on Oprah!

"A little while back, I was browsing through news groups and came
across an article similar to this that said you could make thousands
of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of $6.00!

So I thought, "Yeah right, this must be a scam", but like most of us,
I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said that you send only
$1.00 to each of the 6 email addresses stated in this article.
You then place your name and address at the bottom of the list at the
# 6th position and email it to your friends as well as post this
message (with your email address in the list) to at least 200
newsgroups.

No catch that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a few
people first, I
thought about trying it. I figured "what have I got to lose except
$6.00, right?"
So I invested the measly $6.00

Well GUESS WHAT!!

Within days, I started getting money coming into my Pay Pal account!
I was shocked!
I figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in.
In my first week, I made about $25.00, which means that 25 people
joined the group after they saw my posted messages.

By the end of the second week I had made a total of over $1000.00!
In the third week I had over $10,000.00 and it's still growing.
This is now my fourth week and I have made a total of just over
$42,000.00 and it's still coming in rapidly.

It's certainly worth $6.00, and the few minutes it took to join
PayPal.

Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, why it works.
Also, make sure you print a copy of this article NOW, so you can get
the information off of it, as you need it.
I promise you that if you follow the directions EXACTLY, that you
will
start making more money than you thought possible by doing something
so easy!

SUGGESTION:
Read this entire message carefully!
Follow the simple directions and watch the money come in, it's that
easy! It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00.

IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not
illegal; and it is virtually no risk-it really works! If all of the
following instructions are adhered to, you will receive extraordinary
dividends.

It follows the same regulations as the "mailed chainletters, which
according to the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161) is indeed legal!
If
you have any doubts, please refer to Title 18 Sec. 1302 & 1241 of the
United States Postal laws.

AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE:
Follow these directions EXACTLY, and $20,000 or more can be yours in
4
to 6 weeks.

This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity
of the participants.

In this business your product is not solid and tangible, it's a
service.
You are in the business of developing Mailing Lists.

However, the money made from the mailing lists is secondary to the
income, which is made from people like you and me asking to be
included in that list.

Here are the 4 easy steps to success:

STEP 1:
Take a few minutes to join PayPal: paypal.com
When creating your PayPal account make sure you use the same Email
address as your user name in the list below so people can send money
to your account.

STEP 2
Once you have a PayPal account running. Send $1.00 dollar donation
from your PayPal account to THE FIRST e-mail address on the list
along
with a note saying "Please add me to your list". Then use PayPal to
post $1 to EACH of the additional 5 Email Addresses below with the
same note.
What you are doing is creating a service.
This is absolutely legal! You are requesting a legitimate service and
you are paying for it!
Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried about
the legal aspects of it all. But I looked around and did some
homework
and found it was perfectly legal.
Here are the 6 individual Email addresses that you have to send $1 to
through PayPal for this to work properly and for you to receive
money.
(If you don't send the money and decide to post the message with your
name in it anyway, PayPal will instantly pick this up and terminate
your account, immediately, besides the other penalties!! If you did
this you could get into serious trouble because it is fraud. (So
follow the instructions and post the $6 and you will make lots of
money with no hassles.)
Now send $1 to each of these following email addresses through your
PayPal account and pay $1 to each the following 6 email addresses.
These email addresses are PayPal IDs or usernames.

Note: If these email addresses are encrypted, place your curser on
the ... and click to open. Type in the funny symbol and your ready to
go.

1.) jocelyntirado @yahoo.com
2.) joelat22 @hotmail.com
3.) stitchqueen13 @hotmail.com
4.) emoe123 @gmail.com
5.) jamestucker2008 @hotmail.com
6.) djmailer2008 @yahoo.com

STEP 3
Now,... after paying $1.00 to each of the email placements above,
take
the #1 Email Address off the list, move the other Email Addresses up
(6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc.) and add Your Email Address as number
6 on the list.

STEP 4
Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as close to
the original as possible.
Now, post your amended article to at least 200 newsgroups (there are
thousands of groups).
And email your message to as many people you can. Remember, the more
you post and email the more money you make! This is perfectly legal!

PLEASE REMEMBER
This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity
of the participants and by their carefully adhering to the
directions.
You are simply paying into a money making chain of participants and
if
the chain is broken you are screwing someone else out of their fair
share.
So, as each person who joins the family and the directions are
followed, six members will be reimbursed for their participation as a
List Developer with one dollar each.
You then insert your Email Address into the list and it will move up
geometrically.
So that when your name reaches the #1 position you will have
potentially received thousands of dollars into your account!!!
What an opportunity for only a total of $6.00!!
$1 for each of the first six people listed above

HOW TO POST TO NEWS GROUPS:
Use Netscape or Internet Explorer and try searching for various
newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions.)
Log on any search engine like yahoo.com, google.com, altavista.com,
excite.com, etc., then search with the subject ''millionaire message
board'' or ''money making message board'' or ''employment message
board'' or ''money making discussions'' or ''money making forum'' or
''business message board'' etc.
You will find thousands and thousands of message boards.
Click on them one by one and you will find the option 'post a new
message'. Then Post this article as a 'new message' by highlighting
the text of this letter and selecting copy then paste from the edit
menu.
Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that everyone sees as
they scroll through the list of postings in a particular group, click
the post message button.
You're done with your first one! It only takes about 60 seconds to
complete postings on message boards after you catch on.
REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL
MAKE!!

BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200!
That is it!!
You will begin receiving money in your account from around the world
within days!
JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.
Now the WHY part out of 200 postings:
Say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example).
So then I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter.
Each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200
postings, each with my name at # 5 and only 5 persons respond to each
of the original 5, this is an additional $25.00 for me.
Now those 24 each make 200 minimum posts with my name at #4 and only
5
replies each.
This brings in an additional $125.00.
Those 125 persons turn around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name
at
#3 and receive 5 replies each, I will make an additional $625.00.
Ok, now here is the FUN part, each of those 625 people post a MINIMUM
of 200 letters with my name at #2 and they receive 5 replies each.
That just made me $3,125.00!!!
Those 3125 persons will all deliver this message to 200 newsgroups
with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200 react, I will
receive an additional $15,625.00!!
With an investment of only $6.00!!
A - M - A - Z - I - N - G - !!
When your name is no longer on the list, you just take the latest
posting in the newsgroups, and send out another $6.00 to Email
Addresses using PayPal on the list, putting your name at number 6
again.
And start posting again.
Remember what goes around comes around, if you don't make the initial
$6 investment you won't receive any of the benefit.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:17 pm
From: Money Maker

Hi, I can't promise you that you will make $250,000. In fact I can
almost promise you that you won't. However, I did the mail version of
this by mailing out 200 letters at a cost of $174.00.

I look forward to reading your success stories online. Good luck and
remember that this only works when everyone does the right thing. Pay
the 6 bucks forward and reap the benefits.

Here is the message as it was posted. I have sent my 6 bucks... now
it's your turn. Djmailer2008@yhahoo.com

$Make $250,000 in Weeks, as seen on Oprah and 20/20$$ $

THIS REALLY CAN MAKE YOU EASY MONEY!! IT WORKS!!! BUT YOU HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE LETTER FOR IT TO WORK!!!! THIS IS NOT A PYRAMID SCAM!!

I came across an article similar to this that said you could make
thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of
$6.00!
...here's how!

In the early days, it required a lot more time and effort, as well as
an investment of a few hundred dollars. However, thanks to PayPal and
the Internet, the investment is now virtually ZERO!

I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it:
Make Money with your PayPal account as shown on Oprah!

No catch that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a few
people first, I
thought about trying it. I figured "what have I got to lose except
$6.00, right?"
So I invested the measly $6.00

Well GUESS WHAT!!

It's certainly worth $6.00, and the few minutes it took to join
PayPal.

SUGGESTION:
Read this entire message carefully!
Follow the simple directions and watch the money come in, it's that
easy! It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00.

AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE:
Follow these directions EXACTLY, and $20,000 or more can be yours in
4
to 6 weeks.

This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity
of the participants.

In this business your product is not solid and tangible, it's a
service.
You are in the business of developing Mailing Lists.

However, the money made from the mailing lists is secondary to the
income, which is made from people like you and me asking to be
included in that list.

Here are the 4 easy steps to success:

Note: If these email addresses are encrypted, place your curser on
the ... and click to open. Type in the funny symbol and your ready to
go.

1.) jocelyntirado @yahoo.com
2.) joelat22 @hotmail.com
3.) stitchqueen13 @hotmail.com
4.) emoe123 @gmail.com
5.) jamestucker2008 @hotmail.com
6.) djmailer2008 @yahoo.com

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 10 2008 7:17 pm
From: Money Maker

Hi, I can't promise you that you will make $250,000. In fact I can
almost promise you that you won't. However, I did the mail version of
this by mailing out 200 letters at a cost of $174.00.

I look forward to reading your success stories online. Good luck and
remember that this only works when everyone does the right thing. Pay
the 6 bucks forward and reap the benefits.

Here is the message as it was posted. I have sent my 6 bucks... now
it's your turn. Djmailer2008@yhahoo.com

$Make $250,000 in Weeks, as seen on Oprah and 20/20$$ $

THIS REALLY CAN MAKE YOU EASY MONEY!! IT WORKS!!! BUT YOU HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE LETTER FOR IT TO WORK!!!! THIS IS NOT A PYRAMID SCAM!!

I came across an article similar to this that said you could make
thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of
$6.00!
...here's how!

In the early days, it required a lot more time and effort, as well as
an investment of a few hundred dollars. However, thanks to PayPal and
the Internet, the investment is now virtually ZERO!

I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it:
Make Money with your PayPal account as shown on Oprah!

No catch that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a few
people first, I
thought about trying it. I figured "what have I got to lose except
$6.00, right?"
So I invested the measly $6.00

Well GUESS WHAT!!

It's certainly worth $6.00, and the few minutes it took to join
PayPal.

SUGGESTION:
Read this entire message carefully!
Follow the simple directions and watch the money come in, it's that
easy! It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00.

AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE:
Follow these directions EXACTLY, and $20,000 or more can be yours in
4
to 6 weeks.

This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity
of the participants.

In this business your product is not solid and tangible, it's a
service.
You are in the business of developing Mailing Lists.

However, the money made from the mailing lists is secondary to the
income, which is made from people like you and me asking to be
included in that list.

Here are the 4 easy steps to success:

Note: If these email addresses are encrypted, place your curser on
the ... and click to open. Type in the funny symbol and your ready to
go.

1.) jocelyntirado @yahoo.com
2.) joelat22 @hotmail.com
3.) stitchqueen13 @hotmail.com
4.) emoe123 @gmail.com
5.) jamestucker2008 @hotmail.com
6.) djmailer2008 @yahoo.com

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Sunday, February 10, 2008

25 new messages in 3 topics - digest

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest