Surviving high heating oil prices
Bill
For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two families
into one house. Then each pays half.
Might want to start making friends with that mother-in-law...
Dave
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d1dc7...@mid.individual.net...
> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
>
> For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two families
> into one house. Then each pays half.
How would that help? You'd still need the other house heated to at least
55F. So you might be saving about 20%, but what's the point?
That is, unless you are going to shut off the water in the other
ouse. -Dave
Bill
>
> "Bill" wrote in message
>> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
>>
>> For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two families
>> into one house. Then each pays half.
>
> How would that help? You'd still need the other house heated to at least
> 55F. So you might be saving about 20%, but what's the point?
>
> That is, unless you are going to shut off the water in the other
>
Yes, turn off the water in the other house and "winterize" it.
Winterizing a house...
http://www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/winterizefireman.htm
h
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:g4fvng$b8m$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6d1dc7...@mid.individual.net...
>> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
>>
>> For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two families
>> into one house. Then each pays half.
>
> How would that help? You'd still need the other house heated to at least
> 55F. So you might be saving about 20%, but what's the point?
>
Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
GregS
My brother started using electric last year. I know the electric prices will also be going up shortly.
At least electric enables you to heat the area its needed.
greg
Dave
>>
>
> Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
Anybody who doesn't want to freeze to death. You are aware that you can die
of exposure at 55F, right? -Dave
GregS
hard for older folks. If I'm home watching TV after dinner, its got to be at least 73.
I go camping outside in the 40's. It's usually in the summer on those extra cold nights when you least expect it.
I have plenty of trees in the back yard. i do plan on putting the wood/coal stove back
in the garage. I do have an extra stove brick chimney attached to the house but
its in a poor location. Someday I will have to connect up a stove.
greg
Ann
Another thing to consider for an unheated house is ventilation. I know
people who decided to save money by turning off the heat while they
were away during the winter. They did fine protecting both the supply
and drainage lines, but closed he house up tight. They came back to a very
musty house, including inside the outer walls.
clams_casino
h is the same guy who claims he hasn't seen a doctor in 30 years because
they don't know anything. He also believes there is no difference in
taste between Frozen vs. fresh food & believers a 350 cholesterol count
is no problem.
He's either the newest roll to the group or the dumbest poster yet
(beating even Rod).
clams_casino
67 during the day & 62 at night are our preferred winter settings
It was 68 this morning & thought I was going to die during my early
morning walk.
Up to 80 right now & hate the thought of going outside later today.
Our current summer settings are 73 at night & 75 during the day.
How does anyone stand 90? 80 is bad enough.
GregS
I started to sweat just thinking about it. I just hate hunidity. If I'm working 70 is too hot
with high humidity. I built my deck last summer and ther were many 95 days.
I remember the day it hit 117 in Barstow and I went 20 feet from the house to the car
and just made it.
greg
Rod Speed
> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
Anyone with a clue stopped using oil for house heating LONG ago, fool.
> For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two families into one house. Then each pays half.
Makes much more sense to just hang yourself instead.
> Might want to start making friends with that mother-in-law...
Makes much more sense to just hang yourself instead.
Dont make a mess of the carpet.
Brad Naylor
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
>
> Anybody who doesn't want to freeze to death. You are aware that you can
> die of exposure at 55F, right? -Dave
Generations of Eskimos make you wonder about that.
Jeff
> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
>
> For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two families
> into one house. Then each pays half.
Since you will have half as much space, why not just live in half the
space you have now? Close off and don't heat rooms that aren't
essential. Block off unneeded windows, even a good window is a thermal
disaster.
The best way to save is insulating, weatherizing and only heating
what is needed.
I'm not too worried myself. I was a third solar last year and I
should be a third or so more this winter. Fusion power at it's best!
Jeff
h
"Brad Naylor" <brad_...@live.com> wrote in message
news:kgQak.6218$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
And those of us who live in upstate NY. You absolutely cannot die of
exposure inside your house at 55F unless you're naked and soaking wet, and I
doubt even that would kill you. You'd just wish you were dead.
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
I've read that an adult male, resting and nude, can die of exposure at 80F.
It isn't only a matter of temperature - the amount of clothing and activity,
among other things, play a big role as well.
h
"Lou" <lpo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9LUak.173$qW.22@trndny03...
hot or too cold and put on or take off clothing. I wake up when I'm too warm
or too cold and adjust the blankets accordingly. The last winter power
outage we had was 3 days long, and it was well below 50F inside the entire
time, even with a fire. We were all just fine.
Rod Speed
> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
> news:g4g76q$lf1$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
>>
>> Anybody who doesn't want to freeze to death. You are aware that you
>> can die of exposure at 55F, right? -Dave
> I've read that an adult male, resting and nude, can die of exposure at 80F.
You need to be more selective about the mindless shit you read.
> It isn't only a matter of temperature - the amount of clothing
> and activity, among other things, play a big role as well.
Yes, but no naked person can die of exposure at 80F when resting inside a house.
Marsha
> 67 during the day & 62 at night are our preferred winter settings
>
> It was 68 this morning & thought I was going to die during my early
> morning walk.
> Up to 80 right now & hate the thought of going outside later today.
>
> Our current summer settings are 73 at night & 75 during the day.
>
> How does anyone stand 90? 80 is bad enough.
64 in the winter, day and night. I'd rather put on sweatpants and
sweatshirt than pay the higher gas bill. Summer - 77. Just enough to
keep the humidity out and it's quite comfortable.
Marsha/Ohio
Marsha
> I've read that an adult male, resting and nude, can die of exposure at 80F.
> It isn't only a matter of temperature - the amount of clothing and activity,
> among other things, play a big role as well.
>
Which is why nursing homes keep the temp so freaking high.
Marsha/Ohio
James
> "Brad Naylor" <brad_nay...@live.com> wrote in message
I've been skiing in a T shirt (no coat) in late March at about 35 F.
I've also stood outside for about 6 hours in 40 below, well dressed
for the weather.
Much depends on wind, humidity, whether you are damp from sweat or
entry into water, the amount of sunlight etc.
The most dangerous conditions are when people experience a rapid drop,
ie go from sweating heavily to a below 50F, which can happen at
nightfall in the desert. If a cold wind chills someone who is sweaty
and cold, it can greatily speed up the process of heat loss.
James
Bob F
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
>
> Anybody who doesn't want to freeze to death. You are aware that you can die
> of exposure at 55F, right? -Dave
Or you can wear a sweater and be fine.
Bob F
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:wgOak.6927$3q7....@newsfe15.lga...
> He's either the newest roll to the group or the dumbest poster yet (beating
> even Rod).
Not a chance!
Bob F
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:g4h704$c0j$3...@news.datemas.de...
They have a problem with adult males, resting and nude, dieing?
JonquilJan
h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message news:g4g11j$9ld$1...@aioe.org...
I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age (69) and
disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had it at
a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat. My
very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other than
building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank walls)
can't do much more.
JonquilJan
Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying
>
>
Stan Brown
>
> I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter.
My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to at
least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no more
than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high 30%s and low
40%s.)
I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor told me
it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the same setting
24/7.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
krw
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:47:20 -0400 from JonquilJan <war...@imcnet.net>:
> > h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message news:g4g11j$9ld$1...@aioe.org...
> > > Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
> >
> > I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter.
>
> My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to at
> least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no more
> than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high 30%s and low
> 40%s.)
I could believe that, though I thought most plants grew better when
warmer (humidity, for sure).
> I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor told me
> it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the same setting
> 24/7.
...but that part is simply nonsense.
--
Keith
WDS
> In article <MPG.22d71cf7ddc8ba7298b...@news.individual.net>,
> the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm says...
> > I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor told me
> > it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the same setting
> > 24/7.
>
> ...but that part is simply nonsense.
Yeah, no kidding. WTF is it with contractors and that? The guys who
put in my furnace (a force air, very high efficiency) said the same
thing about it. I just nodded my head and wrote them off for future
business.
h
"WDS" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:7b593881-8165-49e1...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 5:47 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> In article <MPG.22d71cf7ddc8ba7298b...@news.individual.net>,
> the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm says...
> > I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor told me
> > it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the same setting
> > 24/7.
>
> ...but that part is simply nonsense.
So...how come those same guys will sell and install set-back thermostats?
Yeah, right. I only heat the rooms I'm in (zoned heat). If I'm in it, I set
it to 55F, if I'm not, it's off (50F or less).
Lou
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.22d71cf7d...@news.individual.net...
> Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:47:20 -0400 from JonquilJan <war...@imcnet.net>:
> > h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message
news:g4g11j$9ld$1...@aioe.org...
> > > Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
> >
> > I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter.
>
> My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to at
> least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no more
> than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high 30%s and low
> 40%s.)
>
> I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor told me
> it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the same setting
> 24/7.
>
least in the past, some offices/public buildings left the lights on 24/7
because lamps tend to last/longer if they're not cycled on and off. At
least for a while, there was also a tendency toward "group relamping" -
changing all the bulbs in an area at the same time, even if they still
worked, because that was cheaper than having someone from maintenance come
over to change lamps one by one as they bit the dust.
In this context, "efficient" might mean less heat lost up the chimney, less
unburned fuel passing through a cold furnace at startup in the morning. But
it might be possible that by turning the temperature down at night and while
the house is empty during the day results in lower overall costs because
you're heating less of the time, even though those few hours in the
morning/evening might have the furnace operating at less than peak
efficiency.
Rod Speed
> JonquilJan <war...@imcnet.net> wrote
>> h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote
>>> Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
>> I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter.
> My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to at least
> 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no more than 55%,
> though in winter it seems to hover in the high 30%s and low 40%s.)
> I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor told me
> it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the same setting 24/7.
Then he's a fuckwit that doesnt have a fucking clue.
Rod Speed
Or the fool doesnt have a clue.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
Boy, do you need to learn reading comprehension.
1- I'm FEMALE
1- I had a 350 cholesterol count when I was eating what the doctor
suggested. It dropped into the 160s once I started eating only what
was on the "don't eat" list. THAT'S why I stopped seeing doctors -
they obviously don't know what they're talking about.
PLONK
William Souden
Rod has been off his meds today. We already have seen the paper bag
bot and the erudite "fuckwit". Can the flushing bot be far behind?
William Souden
sales fool/racetrack bum
clams_casino
Ron Peterson
> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
Convert to natural gas. It's cheaper, cleaner, and the utility can't
cut you off.
--
Ron
Nicik Name
>
> into one house. Then each pays half.
>
>
>
Nicik Name
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
>
> die of exposure at 55F, right? -Dave
>
Stan Brown
>
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22d71cf7d...@news.individual.net...
> > at least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no
> > more than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high
> > 30%s and low 40%s.)
> >
> > I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor
> > told me it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the
> > same setting 24/7.
The contractor wasn't trying to sell me anything, by the way. He was
the teacher of a home-maintenance class offered by a local non-profit
group.
> I wonder what the definition of "most efficiently" is.
> In this context, "efficient" might mean less heat lost up the
> chimney, less unburned fuel passing through a cold furnace at
> startup in the morning.
My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
It may also be significant that my furnace heats hot water used for
washing -- the thing in the basement that looks like a water heater
is actually just a holding tank. Maybe if I had hot water heat but a
separate water heater, the efficiency would go another way.
> But it might be possible that by turning the temperature down at
> night and while the house is empty during the day results in lower
> overall costs because you're heating less of the time, even though
> those few hours in the morning/evening might have the furnace
> operating at less than peak efficiency.
I'll ask my furnace maintenance guy about this and see what he says.
Of course if I could use less energy I'd be happy about that.
Rod Speed
> Lou <lpo...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to
>>> at least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no
>>> more than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high
>>> 30%s and low 40%s.)
>>> I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor
>>> told me it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the
>>> same setting 24/7.
> The contractor wasn't trying to sell me anything, by the way. He was the
> teacher of a home-maintenance class offered by a local non-profit group.
Then he's a fool that doesnt have a clue.
>> I wonder what the definition of "most efficiently" is.
>> In this context, "efficient" might mean less heat lost up the
>> chimney, less unburned fuel passing through a cold furnace at
>> startup in the morning.
> My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
> the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
> it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
> and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
Thats just plain wrong.
> My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
> forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
And that is just plain wrong too.
> It may also be significant that my furnace heats hot water used for washing
Nope.
> -- the thing in the basement that looks like a water heater is
> actually just a holding tank. Maybe if I had hot water heat but
> a separate water heater, the efficiency would go another way.
Nope.
>> But it might be possible that by turning the temperature down at
>> night and while the house is empty during the day results in lower
>> overall costs because you're heating less of the time, even though
>> those few hours in the morning/evening might have the furnace
>> operating at less than peak efficiency.
> I'll ask my furnace maintenance guy about this and see what he says.
Waste of time, he clearly doesnt have a clue.
William Souden
Whatever you say, welfare boy.
krw
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:35:01 GMT from Lou <lpo...@verizon.net>:
> >
> > "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.22d71cf7d...@news.individual.net...
> > > My mold consultant told me it was necessary to heat the house to
> > > at least 65 to prevent the growth of mold. (Humidity should be no
> > > more than 55%, though in winter it seems to hover in the high
> > > 30%s and low 40%s.)
> > >
> > > I have baseboard hot-water heat, and both he and a contractor
> > > told me it operates most efficiently if the thermostat keeps the
> > > same setting 24/7.
>
> The contractor wasn't trying to sell me anything, by the way. He was
> the teacher of a home-maintenance class offered by a local non-profit
> group.
That may be, but he's clearly clueless about heat transfer. There
is a lot of such misinformation around. I can believe such things
with other forms of heat, not because the science changes, rather
the psychology. Some heat, for instance, has a very long recovery
time. If this isn't taken into account for people will tend to
change the thermostat too often and "chase" the ideal temperature,
wasting a lot of energy. Baseboard hot-water isn't such a system.
> > I wonder what the definition of "most efficiently" is.
>
> > In this context, "efficient" might mean less heat lost up the
> > chimney, less unburned fuel passing through a cold furnace at
> > startup in the morning.
>
> My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
> the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
> it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
> and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
Clearly wrong. The heat needed is proportional to the difference
(indoor to outdoor) in temperature. Less heat is needed for any
hours where you can lower that differential. Baseboard hot-water
recovers relatively fast so there isn't a huge lag so heat isn't
wasted "hunting". A setback thermostat can easily deal with this
sort of heat (simply lead the set times by a half hour or so).
> My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
> forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
The same "excess energy" comes back out of the water as went in.
That "excess energy" is still heating the house, even when
throttling back. If you dumped the heat outside, maybe but it isn't
a lot of water in any case.
> It may also be significant that my furnace heats hot water used for
> washing -- the thing in the basement that looks like a water heater
> is actually just a holding tank. Maybe if I had hot water heat but a
> separate water heater, the efficiency would go another way.
Nope. Same deal. The water in the furnace is hot all the time
anyway (in yours, even in the summer). The only water that can "go
cold" is in the pipes to the baseboard radiatiors; not a lot of
water. As I said, that heat isn't lost anyway.
> > But it might be possible that by turning the temperature down at
> > night and while the house is empty during the day results in lower
> > overall costs because you're heating less of the time, even though
> > those few hours in the morning/evening might have the furnace
> > operating at less than peak efficiency.
>
> I'll ask my furnace maintenance guy about this and see what he says.
> Of course if I could use less energy I'd be happy about that.
Don't worry about it at all. Just use a setback thermostat and be
comfortable. What wastes energy is the "hunting" (over
temperature). For every 1F you set the thermostat back you may save
about 3% in your heat bill. If you can set back ten degrees for
twelve hours that's a 15% savings that will *NOT* be wasted by
heating the water in the pipes later.
--
Keith
Stan Brown
<rod.sp...@gmail.com>:
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote
> > My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
> > forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
>
> And that is just plain wrong too.
Now I know you're a loony. Some of your other statements IU don't
have the expertise to evaluate, but there is no doubt that the
specific heat of air is much lower than that of water.
*plonk*
Sambo
>>> My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
>>> the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
>>> it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
>>> and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
>> Thats just plain wrong.
>>> My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
>>> forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
>> And that is just plain wrong too.
> Now I know you're a loony.
This is from the stupid clown thats so stupid it cant even work out for itself
that the industry wouldnt be flogging set back thermostats if they didnt work.
> Some of your other statements IU don't have the expertise to evaluate,
None of them, actually, nothing viable between the ears to do any evaluation of anything at all, ever.
> but there is no doubt that the specific heat of air is much lower than that of water.
The specific heat is completely irrelevant to the FACT that you dont use
more fuel with a setback with either air or water based heating systems.
> *plonk*
Fat lot of good that will do you, you stupid plonker.
JonquilJan
a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre 1850)
which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
insulation )
thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely closed
off) and using heavy drapes/curtain/blankets to enclose the living room and
adjacent bedroom - which would be the only rooms with open registers - other
than the bathroom - and supplementing with a kerosene heater (which I have
had for 25 years). But considering that the rooms would be closed/curtained
off - with reduced air flow - thinking also one of the oil filled electric
heater might be safer. If power goes (which it can) would open the curtains
and use the kero heater. Last winter I had the thermostat at 64. I am
disabled - 69 - and having increasing problems with mobility and keeping
warm.
Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
be much, much more costly this next heating season.
Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.
Tim Smith
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
> the water in the hating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
> it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
> and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
>
> My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
> forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it at
that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and heat it
back to the desired temperature at time 2.
Here's how to see that. You need to know two facts of physics first.
(1) Imagine the object surrounded by something that can measure the
heat energy entering or exiting the object. You'll find that when heat
energy leaves the object, the temperature goes down. When heat energy
enters, the temperature goes up. You'll also find that there is a
conservation law at work here. If the temperature is at a given
temperature, and a given amount of heat energy leaves, then to get the
object back to the original temperature, you have to put that amount of
heat energy back.
Basically, the temperature of the object is the integral of the heat
flow over time.
The important point here is that the temperature just depends on the net
change in heat energy of the object.
(2) The rate the object loses heat to its surroundings goes up as the
temperature difference goes up. If the ambient temperature is, say, 50,
and the object is 70, it will lose more heat energy per second than it
would if the object temperature were 60.
Putting these two together, let's do a thought experiment. We have two
objects, both at, say, 70. The ambient temperature is 50.
Object 1 we keep at a constant 70. Object 2 we allow to cool, until
just before we need to use it again, and then we heat it back to 70.
For object 1, it is at a constant 20 above ambient, so is losing heat at
a constant rate. So, the total energy lost is the amount it loses per
second at 70 times the number of seconds between time 1 and time 2.
That's how much total energy our furnace has to put into the object to
keep it at a constant 70 from time 1 to time 2.
For object 2, it starts out at 20 above ambient, so in the first second
it loses about as much energy as the first object. But we are letting
it cool, so it gets colder. That slows the rate of heat loss slightly.
In the second second, it loses slightly less energy than the first
object. The advantage grows as time goes on. Finally, time 2
approaches, and we have to use the furnace to heat the object. The
amount of heat we have to supply is exactly the amount it has lost since
time 1, which is LESS than object 1 has lost.
So, strictly from the viewpoint of energy required to have an object at,
say, 70 at time 1 and at time 2, with an ambient temperature of 50, much
less energy is required to let the object cool between time 1 and 2 and
then heat it back to 70 at time 2, than just keeping it at a constant 70.
However, it is possible that there could be other considerations in
practice. If you had some kind of furnace that takes a while to reach
full efficiency after startup, that could change things, depending on
how much time is between time 1 and time 2.
--
--Tim Smith
Rod Speed
Yes, particularly with heat pump systems that are stupid enough
to turn on their aux electrical resistance heating when the outside
coils ice up when you try to pump too much heat when coming
back off the setback temp to the higher operating temp in the morning.
> If you had some kind of furnace that takes a while to reach full
> efficiency after startup, that could change things, depending on
> how much time is between time 1 and time 2.
There arent any where that makes as much difference
as the heat you saved with the setback temp.
Stan Brown
> This is from the stupid clown thats so stupid it cant even work out
> for itself that the industry wouldnt be flogging set back
> thermostats if they didnt work.
Right, because American business never sells us anything we don't
need.
Stan Brown
potato.com>:
> In article <MPG.22d7fc27b...@news.individual.net>,
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
> > and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
> >
> > My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
> > forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
>
> In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
> temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it at
> that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and heat it
> back to the desired temperature at time 2.
Yes, that makes perfect sense -- basic thermodynamics.
The problem, and the difference between physics and engineering :-)
is that no device is not 100% efficient. What I don't know is how
that affects things.
I also wonder about effects on the house structure of letting the
indoor temperature fluctuate 10 or 15 degrees twice a day. And I
wonder about mold too -- maybe I misremembered what my mold guy said
and it's just that he said to keep the temp above 65 to prevent mold
formation -- though presumably that's more of an issue in spring and
fall since winter humidity is too low for mold.
It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
"yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
because ..."
Sambo
> Sambo <sa...@sambo.com> wrote
>> This is from the stupid clown thats so stupid it cant even work out for itself
>> that the industry wouldnt be flogging set back thermostats if they didnt work.
> Right, because American business never sells us anything we don't need.
Presumably you actually are that stupid.
Sambo
> Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:17:02 -0700 from Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-
> potato.com>:
>> In article <MPG.22d7fc27b...@news.individual.net>,
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
>>> the water in the heating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
>>> it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
>>> and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
>>> forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
>>
>> In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
>> temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it
>> at that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and
>> heat it back to the desired temperature at time 2.
> [snip logical explanation]
>
> Yes, that makes perfect sense -- basic thermodynamics.
> The problem, and the difference between physics and engineering :-)
> is that no device is not 100% efficient.
Doesnt need to be.
> What I don't know is how that affects things.
It should be obvious to anyone with a clue. The efficiency needs to be
worse by more than the setback saves to not be worth a setback, stupid.
> I also wonder about effects on the house structure of letting
> the indoor temperature fluctuate 10 or 15 degrees twice a day.
Its irrelevant to the reduced loss of heat with the lower setback temp.
> And I wonder about mold too -- maybe I misremembered what my mold guy said
That individual is completely irrelevant.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to check the basics on mold and temperature using google.
> and it's just that he said to keep the temp above 65 to prevent mold formation
Mindlessly silly.
> -- though presumably that's more of an issue in spring
> and fall since winter humidity is too low for mold.
Gets sillier by the minute.
> It's not a simple question.
Yes it is and even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the whole question
of setback has been discussed endlessly for more than a century or more now.
> The answer could well turn out to be, "yes, setting back the
> temperature uses less energy, but it's worse because ..."
Nope. If that was true, you wouldnt see so many authoritative
sources recommending the use of setback thermostats if you
care about the cost of running a heating system.
Lou
"JonquilJan" <war...@imcnet.net> wrote in message
news:486ee098$0$75566$38ce...@news.westelcom.com...
One of the things I find useful is an electric throw. This is essentially a
small electric blanket you put over your lap and down to the floor when
you're sitting down. They generally have three or four settings - off, low,
medium, and high. Using one, you can have the room quite cool and still be
comfortable, and they don't use much electricity.
These things were pretty popular a decade or two ago, though I haven't seen
one for sale for quite a while. On the other hand, I have mine and haven't
had to look. I suppose you could use a regular electric blanket the same
way.
Another item that was popular during the energy crisis days of the 70's was
a lightweight quilt with a few strategically placed buttons/snaps that
allowed you to wear it sort of like a serape with a hood. Didn't use any
electricity.
Basically, look for ways to warm you instead of the house.
Bill
> wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air
> with
> a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre
> 1850)
> which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
> walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
> insulation )
>
> thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely
> closed
>
Insulate the 2nd level from the first level.
I did this by tearing out my 1st level ceiling and adding insulation, then
replacing the ceiling.
You can do this on the cheap by just laying insulation on the 2nd level
floor. Or cheaper would be to get many boxes filled with those packing
peanuts and placing them on the 2nd level floor.
Jeff
>>> "Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6d1dc7...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
>>>>
>>>> For those who can't pay, one way to survive this is to move two
> families
>>>> into one house. Then each pays half.
> least
>>> 55F. So you might be saving about 20%, but what's the point?
>>>
>> Who heats their house to more than 55F-60F now?
>
> disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had it at
> a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat. My
> very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other than
> building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank walls)
> can't do much more.
Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
since I did my 1920 home.
Jeff
Gary Heston
JonquilJan <war...@imcnet.net> wrote:
>wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air with
>a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre 1850)
>which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
>walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
>insulation )
>thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely closed
>off) and using heavy drapes/curtain/blankets to enclose the living room and
>adjacent bedroom
I suppose you could carpet the walls; a layer of Tyvek HomeWrap under it would
cut down on air infiltration and not cause moisture buildup.
> - which would be the only rooms with open registers - other
>than the bathroom - and supplementing with a kerosene heater (which I have
>had for 25 years). But considering that the rooms would be closed/curtained
>off - with reduced air flow - thinking also one of the oil filled electric
>heater might be safer. If power goes (which it can) would open the curtains
>and use the kero heater. Last winter I had the thermostat at 64. I am
>disabled - 69 - and having increasing problems with mobility and keeping
>warm.
Have you considered radiant floor heat, something like these:
http://www.suntouch.com/underfloor/
http://www.heatizon.com/products/radiant-floor-heating/retrofit
http://www.warmzone.com/retrofit-radiant-heat.asp
These are a few results from searching for "radiant floor heat retrofit
electric"; there are many more options.
Radiant floor heating keeps your feet warm, a major comfort factor in
cold weather.
>Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
>heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
>raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
>be much, much more costly this next heating season.
>Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.
Cover your windows with clear shrink film; caulk around door and window
frames (if you're not already doing so).
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"a member or members of Osama bin Ladens' Al Qaeda network, posing as
computer programmers, were able to gain employment at Microsoft..."
claim made by Mohammed Afroze Abdul Razzak to police in India, 12/01.
Gary Heston
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>JonquilJan wrote:
[ ... ]
>> I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age (69) and
>> disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had it at
>> a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat. My
>> very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other than
>> building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank walls)
>> can't do much more.
>Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
>this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
>since I did my 1920 home.
You can't put insulation into "thick plank walls", they're solid wood.
Now, if you want to go build the stud walls on the inside of the planks,
as Jan indicated would be necessary, then install insulation and drywall,
at your expense, I suspect Jan would be glad to hear from you.
WDS
> Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
> heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
> raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
> be much, much more costly this next heating season.
Wow. $4k is about 2.5 years of propane for my house. I guess the
double walls and special windows pay off!
Can you get one of those thermal cameras to see where heat is
escaping? Check on air infiltration, that's always a problem with
older houses.
George
clams_casino
Could be a source of heat, for a few hours.
BeaForoni
spewed:
>
> Then he's a fool that doesnt have a clue.
>
More commie nonsense
> Thats just plain wrong.
>
Again you don't know what you are taking about.
>
> And that is just plain wrong too.
>
Nothing but a bare face lie
> Nope.
>
Yep
.
>
> Nope.
Yep
.
>
> Waste of time, he clearly doesnt have a clue.
You are a bald faced PIG liar.
Gowd, this is so much fun! And I even feel smarter. How about everyone
else; do I seem smart?
krw
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:17:02 -0700 from Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-
> potato.com>:
> > In article <MPG.22d7fc27b...@news.individual.net>,
> > Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > My understanding is that the furnace uses less fuel overall to keep
> > > the water in the heating pipes at a constant temperature than to let
> > > it cool down by 10 or 15 degrees in the day time (when I'm at work)
> > > and the night (when I'm in bed) and then reheat it.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that this is true for hot-water heat but not for
> > > forced-air, since it takes much less energy to heat air than water.
> >
> > In general, if you have something that you need to be above ambient
> > temperature at time 1 and at time 2, it takes more energy to keep it at
> > that temperature than it does to let it cool after time 1, and heat it
> > back to the desired temperature at time 2.
> [snip logical explanation]
>
> Yes, that makes perfect sense -- basic thermodynamics.
>
> The problem, and the difference between physics and engineering :-)
> is that no device is not 100% efficient. What I don't know is how
> that affects things.
"Efficency" of the mass doesn't matter. The heat used is
proportional to the difference in temperature between inside and
outside only. Any energy you put into latent heat will come back
later. Though as Stan points out that a longer running fire would
likely be more efficient.
> I also wonder about effects on the house structure of letting the
> indoor temperature fluctuate 10 or 15 degrees twice a day. And I
> wonder about mold too -- maybe I misremembered what my mold guy said
> and it's just that he said to keep the temp above 65 to prevent mold
> formation -- though presumably that's more of an issue in spring and
> fall since winter humidity is too low for mold.
As long as you don't get condensation mold shouldn't be an issue.
The issue here would be the minimum temperature not the difference.
However, there are things in the house that might not like the
constant temperature and humidity variation. IOW, there may be
other reasons to not go wild here.
> It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
> "yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
> because ..."
Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
isn't cutting it. ;-)
--
Keith
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I hate to say it, but it might be time to consider a move to a house
that is more efficient. Sometimes there is only so much you can do.
If you have decreased mobility, can't deal with wood or coal, and have
essentially cordoned off the second floor, sounds like you might be a
prime candidate for such an extreme measure, and possibly even a move
south. I've been reading a bunch of stuff recently about solar
fluctuations, and I anticipate this winter to be *at least* as cold as
the last one.
In a Vermont forum, I mentioned early this year that there would be a
possibility of a lot of people trying to move south come November, due
to increased heating costs. I can vouch that north Alabama is a lot
warmer than northern New York state, has lower taxes, and has some
great people, like Gary.
Another option that you might consider if you are in a college area,
is to take on a boarder for the winter months, with the understanding
that they get the upstairs, and the rent is the cost of heating the
house.
If I was living back north, and had to stay in a house like that, and
had seriously limited resources, I would seriously consider building a
room within a room, where I would spend most of my time while at home.
A few rolls of insulation, some studs, some sheetrock and/or plastic,
and an electric heater and light and tv, comfy chair and bed. Let the
rest of the house drop into the 40s, scoot to the kitchen to cook, but
otherwise live in the heated small space. It would be cabin fever
time, but at least it would be survivable.
Ron Peterson
> Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.
Convert to natural gas if you can.
Have you put in energy efficient windows?
--
Ron
h
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:255f3a46-dfe1-4ec6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm in upstate NY and natural gas is not an option (no gas lines here).
Propane would be the only alternative, and it's not that much less than oil,
especially once you factor in dumping a fairly new oil burning and
buying/installing the propane unit.
My house is slightly older than the OPs (about 1815), and we used about
$2,500 worth of oil last year for a 2000 sq ft house. Of course, I don't
heat much past 55F. We've insulated all we can and have brand new (2006)
sheathing, clapboards, windows, etc., and frankly, my very old house is much
better built and secure than any new econbox being built around here. Moving
to a "new" structure is not only not an option, it's not even smart. The OP
shouldn't even think about moving just yet.
JonquilJan
Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:255f3a46-dfe1-4ec6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 9:42 pm, "JonquilJan" <war...@imcnet.net> wrote:
> >Suggestions - ideas. I live in northern New York state.
>Convert to natural gas if you can.
Not available.
>Have you put in energy efficient windows?
Don't have the funds for that. Use heavy drapes/blankets/old quilts.
JonquilJan
--
Ron
JonquilJan
> If I was living back north, and had to stay in a house like that, and
> had seriously limited resources, I would seriously consider building a
> room within a room, where I would spend most of my time while at home.
> A few rolls of insulation, some studs, some sheetrock and/or plastic,
> and an electric heater and light and tv, comfy chair and bed. Let the
> rest of the house drop into the 40s, scoot to the kitchen to cook, but
> otherwise live in the heated small space. It would be cabin fever
> time, but at least it would be survivable.
>
Interesting point. I am considering something along that line with the
curtains and drapes. Big problem is heating the bathroom (and pipes) very
old house has weird setup. And not too thoughful additions (before my
purchase). As for cabin fever - been there - every winter when the weather
gets bad/icy and/or the car gets 'sick' and spends time at the mechanics (5
times last winter)
My snip took out mention of a college student/boarder. College is 15 miles
and is a local community college. Besides I have a lot of 'stuff' on the
second floor. Perhaps not important to others - but it's 'my' stuff.
JonquilJan a stubborn old lady.
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>and frankly, my very old house is much
>better built and secure than any new econbox being built around here. Moving
>to a "new" structure is not only not an option, it's not even smart. The OP
>shouldn't even think about moving just yet.
I used to think that way. I also like DOS. Shit changes.
Gary Heston
JonquilJan <war...@imcnet.net> wrote:
[room within a room]
>Interesting point. I am considering something along that line with the
>curtains and drapes. Big problem is heating the bathroom (and pipes) very
>old house has weird setup. And not too thoughful additions (before my
>purchase).
The plumbing can be helped with electric heat tapes (on the drains as well;
a ex-coworker had hers freeze in her apartment), and insulation where it's
possible.
> As for cabin fever - been there - every winter when the weather
>gets bad/icy and/or the car gets 'sick' and spends time at the mechanics (5
>times last winter)
Yes, the Internet isn't everything...
>My snip took out mention of a college student/boarder. College is 15 miles
>and is a local community college. Besides I have a lot of 'stuff' on the
>second floor. Perhaps not important to others - but it's 'my' stuff.
And you value your space. Reasonable.
>JonquilJan a stubborn old lady.
Which means you'll be around for quite a while longer. :-)
WDS
> In a Vermont forum, I mentioned early this year that there would be a
> possibility of a lot of people trying to move south come November, due
> to increased heating costs. I can vouch that north Alabama is a lot
> warmer than northern New York state, has lower taxes, and has some
> great people, like Gary.
You can actually end up WORSE by doing that. A few years ago I worked
with some guys from southern California. They were complaining about
their heating bills and asked what mine (in Minnesota) was. When I
told them they didn't believe me because theirs were running 2x to 4x
mine. And that was in my old house which wasn't all that well
insulated. It had been a "cold" (for CA) winter and their houses
basically weren't insulated.
Stan Brown
> > "yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
> > because ..."
>
> Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
> isn't cutting it. ;-)
Just a reminder -- despite Sambo/Rod Speed's posturing, I'm not
trying to persuade anyone of anything. Like others here I'm hoping to
learn.
Sambo
> Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:33:10 -0400 from krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz>:
>> In article <MPG.22d91b5db...@news.individual.net>,
>> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>>> It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
>>> "yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
>>> because ..."
>>
>> Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
>> isn't cutting it. ;-)
>
> Just a reminder -- despite Sambo/Rod Speed's posturing, I'm not trying
> to persuade anyone of anything. Like others here I'm hoping to learn.
But the ear to ear dog shit prevents that from happening.
krw
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> Sat, 5 Jul 2008 19:33:10 -0400 from krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz>:
> > In article <MPG.22d91b5db...@news.individual.net>,
> > the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> > > It's not a simple question. The answer could well turn out to be,
> > > "yes, setting back the temperature uses less energy, but it's worse
> > > because ..."
> >
> > Ok, find the "..." and we'll listen. So far, the cost argument
> > isn't cutting it. ;-)
>
> Just a reminder -- despite Sambo/Rod Speed's posturing, I'm not
> trying to persuade anyone of anything. Like others here I'm hoping to
> learn.
Understood. Ronnie is an ass.
--
Keith
Bill
>
> Big problem is heating the bathroom (and pipes) very
> old house has weird setup. And not too thoughful additions (before my
> purchase). As for cabin fever - been there - every winter when the
> weather
> gets bad/icy and/or the car gets 'sick' and spends time at the mechanics
> (5
> times last winter)
>
Why don't you contact the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and
Washington Post. Let them know about your situation.
George
I would say more likely 5 minutes but since the hotspot created by the
burning foam will insure ignition of the rest of the house it may be a
few hours...
aemeijers
doesn't want to (or have the cash to) move, she should investigate any
local senior assistance programs for home repairs. Many areas have
programs where volunteers will assist in making plastic interior storms
for the old leaky windows, caulking any visible gaps, sealing and
insulating ducts that go through unheated spaces, sealing foundation
leaks, etc, etc. Discount electric space heaters are usually part of the
deal as well. Blankets and quilts hung on walls or over windows for
insulation are a BAD idea. (Ask your fire department why.)
--
aem sends....
Jeff
> In article <xNWdnUjHecDLFvLV...@earthlink.com>,
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> JonquilJan wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age (69) and
>>> disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had it at
>>> a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat. My
>>> very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other than
>>> building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank walls)
>>> can't do much more.
>
>> Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
>> this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
>> since I did my 1920 home.
>
> You can't put insulation into "thick plank walls", they're solid wood.
You may be right, but I read this differently than you do. I can't say
that I've seen a house of that era that had vertical plank walls that
was completely solid. Building styles vary depending on access to
materials but I would be surprised if her walls were solid.
Jeff
h
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:_PGdnR-dc-u5PuzV...@earthlink.com...
> Gary Heston wrote:
>> In article <xNWdnUjHecDLFvLV...@earthlink.com>,
>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>> JonquilJan wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>>> I do. Have the thermostat set at 64 - this past winter. With age
>>>> (69) and
>>>> disability/mobility problems increasing - just can't take the 58 I had
>>>> it at
>>>> a few years ago. I do layer clothing and frequently wear a knit hat.
>>>> My
>>>> very old home (pre 1850) has been insulated as much as possible - other
>>>> than
>>>> building a stud wall on the inside of the walls (vertical thick plank
>>>> walls)
>>>> can't do much more.
>>
>>> Is there any insulation in the walls? There's a variety of ways to do
>>> this, the cheapest by far is blown in cellulose. I'm a huge fan of that
>>> since I did my 1920 home.
>>
>> You can't put insulation into "thick plank walls", they're solid wood.
>
> You may be right, but I read this differently than you do. I can't say
> that I've seen a house of that era that had vertical plank walls that was
> completely solid. Building styles vary depending on access to materials
> but I would be surprised if her walls were solid.
>
I would. I'd expect they're just like mine (1815 or so). I've got 4x4 studs
12-15" apart, with brick and mortar filling the entire space in between.
Over that is shiplap, then clapboards. Not exactly possible to blow anything
in.
George
Solid plank walls are not all that unusual in old homes. The better ones
had double planking run at diagonals for strength and were commonly
called "double boarded".
GregS
>On Jul 2, 8:15=A0am, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
>
>cut you off.
>
Some people can't get gas except propane. Geothermal heat pump is the way
to go. I wish I had one. If I had more info I might have tried to install one myself.
I had oil for one season. That cost me about $1000 for the winter. I save a little
since I had a gas line installed and use natural gas. New line, furnace, air, hot water
heater for about $5500. My electric is cheap. Just wish I had the geopump.
Man that oil furnace used to pump out 160 degree heat from the vents, or what ever
the overtemp setting was. Two of the cold air returns were blocked by rugs when I moved
in. I also insreased fan speed. That oil furnace was 55 years old and still working. Could
burn type I or II fuel.
greg
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
> wondering about heating this next winter...
How about solar heat from a commercial plastic film greenhouse perpendicular
to the east or west side of the house on the south side? For $1K and 3 days
labor you can have a 14'x96' solar hot air collector...
Nick
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>I suppose you could carpet the walls; a layer of Tyvek HomeWrap under it would
>cut down on air infiltration and not cause moisture buildup.
I think carpet would only add R1 at best, and it seems to me the vapor barrier
should be on the warm side. One might glue 2x6 studs on 2' centers on-edge to
the walls with a can of foam and put 6" R19 fiberglass insulation between them
and staple poly film or foil or nail thin foil-polyiso foamboard over that.
Nick
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>Any energy you put into latent heat will come back later.
Latent heat, as in evaporation?
>As long as you don't get condensation mold shouldn't be an issue.
To avoid mold, keep the RH below 60%.
Nick
GregS
>wondering about heating this next winter. right now, I have forced air with
>a propane furnace. Furnace new this past season. Very old house (pre 1850)
>which has been insulated as much as possible (vertical very thick plank
>walls - would have to build stud wall on the inside to put in more
>insulation )
>
>thinking of closing off more than I have already (2nd floor entirely closed
>adjacent bedroom - which would be the only rooms with open registers - other
>than the bathroom - and supplementing with a kerosene heater (which I have
>had for 25 years). But considering that the rooms would be closed/curtained
>off - with reduced air flow - thinking also one of the oil filled electric
>heater might be safer. If power goes (which it can) would open the curtains
>and use the kero heater. Last winter I had the thermostat at 64. I am
>disabled - 69 - and having increasing problems with mobility and keeping
>warm.
>
>Pay about $4000 a year for propane - heat and cooking only. Hot water
>heater is electric - new at the same time as the furnace - and has only
>raised my electric bill about $10 a month - so far. I expect propane will
>be much, much more costly this next heating season.
>
>
>
>Learn something new every day
>As long as you are learning, you are living
>When you stop learning, you start dying
As far as heat loss, if you can't do it your self, hire someone that can give
your homes heat loss with thermal imaging and drafting, etc.
Insulating is something I basically constantly do, every year figuring out
what to do next. You didn't mention whats on the outside, wood, shingle, siding, brick ?
greg
GregS
Forgot to ask if you have a basement.
Yes, electric can be cheaper than kerosene by a mile.
I think the oil filled ones are safest. Fans and radiant heaters have more fire problems.
>
>greg
krw
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu says...
> krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> >Any energy you put into latent heat will come back later.
>
> Latent heat, as in evaporation?
With out without a phase change (though there wouldn't be one in a
hydronic system). As long as it's a closed system the heat comes
back.
> >As long as you don't get condensation mold shouldn't be an issue.
>
> To avoid mold, keep the RH below 60%.
You have to avoid anything in the room below the dew point too.
Windows and frames often "sweat".
--
Keith
krw
zekf...@zekfrivolous.com says...
> In article <f2bf0bee-a033-4e12...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 2, 8:15=A0am, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> It seems heating oil prices for next winter are going through the roof!
> >
> >Convert to natural gas. It's cheaper, cleaner, and the utility can't
> >cut you off.
> >
>
> Some people can't get gas except propane. Geothermal heat pump is the way
> to go. I wish I had one. If I had more info I might have tried to install one myself.
Rather pricey installation costs though. Unless you have something
bigger than a shovel, it's a tough DIY. ;-)
> I had oil for one season. That cost me about $1000 for the winter. I save a little
> since I had a gas line installed and use natural gas. New line, furnace, air, hot water
> heater for about $5500. My electric is cheap. Just wish I had the geopump.
In Vermont we used to go through about 225 gallons every three
weeks. We switched to natural gas about ten years ago even though
oil was a bit cheaper at the time. It cost me $25 plus $12/month for
a new burner. The gas company even ripped up the yard and replanted
the next spring.
Even though I have electric heat now (NE Ohio), electric heat would
have killed me then. My heating plan is to move further South. ;-)
> Man that oil furnace used to pump out 160 degree heat from the vents, or what ever
> the overtemp setting was. Two of the cold air returns were blocked by rugs when I moved
> in. I also insreased fan speed. That oil furnace was 55 years old and still working. Could
> burn type I or II fuel.
Can't they all? Type-1 is kerosene, which is simply more highly
refined #2 fuel oil.
--
Keith
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>nicks...@ece.villanova.edu says...
>> >Any energy you put into latent heat will come back later.
>>
>> Latent heat, as in evaporation?
>
>With out without a phase change (though there wouldn't be one in a
Latent heat requires a phase change.
>> >As long as you don't get condensation mold shouldn't be an issue.
>>
>> To avoid mold, keep the RH below 60%.
>
>You have to avoid anything in the room below the dew point too.
>Windows and frames often "sweat".
At 100 vs 60% RH.
Nick
Stan Brown
> >
> >You have to avoid anything in the room below the dew point too.
> >Windows and frames often "sweat".
>
> At 100 vs 60% RH.
The RH in my home was 35-45% all last winter, but window frames
sweated almost every morning. I don't understand it, either: they're
double-paned. But the inner panes were cold to the touch.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
><nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote:
>> krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> >nicks...@ece.villanova.edu says...
>> >> To avoid mold, keep the RH below 60%.
>> >
>> >You have to avoid anything in the room below the dew point too.
>> >Windows and frames often "sweat".
>>
>> At 100 vs 60% RH.
>
>The RH in my home was 35-45% all last winter, but window frames
The RH of the room air near the windows was 100%.
Nick
JonquilJan
> >
> > You may be right, but I read this differently than you do. I can't say
> > that I've seen a house of that era that had vertical plank walls that
was
> > completely solid. Building styles vary depending on access to materials
> > but I would be surprised if her walls were solid.
> >
>
> I would. I'd expect they're just like mine (1815 or so). I've got 4x4
studs
> 12-15" apart, with brick and mortar filling the entire space in between.
> Over that is shiplap, then clapboards. Not exactly possible to blow
anything
> in.
>
>
Mine are solid planks. They are almost 3 inches thick. Can still see the
corner posts in two downstairs rooms - probably from the original 2 room
cabin. There was one home about half a mile from me - where it was tried to
insulate. Once they took off the outer shell, there was a frame of very
large hand hewn (could see the ax marks) beans - filled in with bricks and
mortar between. The house was eventually torn down.
JonquilJan
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:g4ti26$h...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
South side of the house (and a lot of the east and west sides as well) are
heavily shaded. and the solar output in this area is not enough to keep the
small solar garden lamps going. and I don't have $1K or enough to pay for 3
days labor even so.
And natural gas not available. Either propane (which is what I have now)
oil (neighbor) or electric.
Still considering that oil filled heater.
JonquilJan
>
> Forgot to ask if you have a basement.
>
> Yes, electric can be cheaper than kerosene by a mile.
> I think the oil filled ones are safest. Fans and radiant heaters have more
fire problems.
>
> >
> >greg
Half basement - actually about a third basement. Stone walls. room for
furnace, hot water heater and lots of canning jars - some of them full. Can
walk out of the basement on the level - and land drops away another 15+ feet
within 6 feet of the back of the house. (Live on a ridge.)
GregS
I don't think so. Kerosene is thinner. I forgot the explanation on the pump why it could use both fuels.
When I moved in the house the two tanks were half full. I only added and extra 150 gallons for
the rest of the winter. Sure glad to get rid of the stink and noise. Like a jet engine starting
up rumbling the house. And, I crossed my fingers all winter wondering if that 55 year old thing would keep running.
For years my brother would buy oil in the summer when it was cheaper. Now he has some for back up, and just uses electric.
About 4500 watts for the whole house. Says its cheaper.
greg
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>There was one home about half a mile from me - where it was tried to
>insulate. Once they took off the outer shell, there was a frame of very
>large hand hewn (could see the ax marks) beans - filled in with bricks and
>mortar between.
Are you trying to make my day? :-) Chickpea
h
<hchi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33i974tg8ojk98l0l...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:50:07 -0400, "JonquilJan" <war...@imcnet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>There was one home about half a mile from me - where it was tried to
>>insulate. Once they took off the outer shell, there was a frame of very
>>large hand hewn (could see the ax marks) beans - filled in with bricks
>>and
>>mortar between.
>
before I bought the place thought the joists weren't real wood because they
were "misshapen and just way too big" (his words). When I pointed out that
the house was nearly 200 years old, he then assumed that the wood would be
rotten. He was extremely surprised that everything in the house was just
fine. He commented that the house was "better built than anything they're
making now". Well, yeah, since my house was built to last, not to current
"code". 24" on center. Are they crazy? Everything in my house is 12-15" on
center, and 4x4, not 2x4. Hardwood floors over diagonally laid tongue and
groove subfloor over wide plank pine. An elephant could jump up and down on
my floors and you'd never feel it. I would never live in a "new" house.
Jeff
>>> You may be right, but I read this differently than you do. I can't say
>>> that I've seen a house of that era that had vertical plank walls that
> was
>>> completely solid. Building styles vary depending on access to materials
>>> but I would be surprised if her walls were solid.
>>>
>> I would. I'd expect they're just like mine (1815 or so). I've got 4x4
> studs
>> 12-15" apart, with brick and mortar filling the entire space in between.
>> Over that is shiplap, then clapboards. Not exactly possible to blow
> anything
>> in.
>>
>>
>
> Mine are solid planks. They are almost 3 inches thick. Can still see the
> corner posts in two downstairs rooms - probably from the original 2 room
> cabin. There was one home about half a mile from me - where it was tried to
> insulate. Once they took off the outer shell, there was a frame of very
> large hand hewn (could see the ax marks) beans - filled in with bricks and
> mortar between.
It would appear that filling in the wall cavities with bricks and mortar
was common. Now that is a very sold sound proof wall.
There's very little where I live that is that old (Sherman took care of
that!) The little I see of that age are mostly rural homes that the park
service has saved. A very different type of construction and rarely with
any interior finish.
It's always interesting to learn something new!
Jeff
JonquilJan
Why not!! <grin>
Surprising what this old area has.
JonquilJan
h <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message news:g52fmu$u9q$1...@aioe.org...
The bigest bean in the 'garage' addition is 24 " square - and the ax marks
are on it - and it is wooden pegged as well. But the house itself was
apparently one for farm hands originally. Have seen a picture from 1903 -
hause basically the same - except 'garage' doors were on the north side
instead of the east side. Looking in the area later - could see where they
were originally framed.
krw
says...
I would bet that a "properly built" house today will use a lot less
heat than yours. 2x6s 24" on center construction is certainly
better than 2x4s on 16" centers, and even somewhat better than 2x6s
16" on center. Wood is a pretty poor insulator.
--
Keith