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.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/
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.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/
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
No comments:
Post a Comment