A question of efficiency?
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
I think they are same.
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
If you reduice the flow, it takes the tub longer to fill up, so the water already in the tub will have longer to cool before the tub reaches the desired level. I think taking a shower would be better than either of your two options. I take what's referred to as a "Navy shower": 0) wet down, turn off water (I have a showerhead with a valve that controls the flow of water. 1) lather up, turn on water to rinse off Done. I bet I use a little less than a gallon of water to shower. We have an electric water heater, and I don't turn the water up much past room temperature.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
E. Turn the tap on as full as possible to lose less heat in transfer to the pipework. You are working from a false premise:
Benjamin Breeg wrote:
Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long.
The water temperature has no effect on how long it takes to fill the bath: only the volume of the bath does. The water temperature would affect the temperature of the water in the bath once it is filled: if you fill too slowly, the resulting bath may be at room temperature regardless of the water temperature at the boiler. The only way to be sure, is to check your meter, fill the bath to a marked depth, measure the temperature, and then repeat for each different variable. But me, I'm going with "D".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
I remember when I was a kid that my bath toys were an electric toaster and hair-dryer. :-D
I know nothing , I know nothing ... RIP Osama Bin Laden, you were thorn in USA throat , And you will always be ...
Did your mother give you the same advice mine gave me: "If a strange man comes up to you, and offers you sweeties to get in his car, GO"
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
That should be fairly easy. Remember calculus in College? Seems like a related rates problem.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
-
That should be fairly easy. Remember calculus in College? Seems like a related rates problem.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Remember calculus in College?
Err, no. I didn't go to college. Left school at 16 and went straight into general machining where I've been ever since.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
-
Did your mother give you the same advice mine gave me: "If a strange man comes up to you, and offers you sweeties to get in his car, GO"
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
E. Turn the tap on as full as possible to lose less heat in transfer to the pipework. You are working from a false premise:
Benjamin Breeg wrote:
Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long.
The water temperature has no effect on how long it takes to fill the bath: only the volume of the bath does. The water temperature would affect the temperature of the water in the bath once it is filled: if you fill too slowly, the resulting bath may be at room temperature regardless of the water temperature at the boiler. The only way to be sure, is to check your meter, fill the bath to a marked depth, measure the temperature, and then repeat for each different variable. But me, I'm going with "D".
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
OriginalGriff wrote:
The only way to be sure, is to check your meter, fill the bath to a marked depth, measure the temperature, and then repeat for each different variable.
Do you know what, that's a bloody good idea. See, I knew you guys would come up with the goods.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
man up and use cold water.
Watched code never compiles.
-
If you reduice the flow, it takes the tub longer to fill up, so the water already in the tub will have longer to cool before the tub reaches the desired level. I think taking a shower would be better than either of your two options. I take what's referred to as a "Navy shower": 0) wet down, turn off water (I have a showerhead with a valve that controls the flow of water. 1) lather up, turn on water to rinse off Done. I bet I use a little less than a gallon of water to shower. We have an electric water heater, and I don't turn the water up much past room temperature.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I think taking a shower would be bette
I've got four daughters who absolutely must have, without fail, at least 3 baths a week. Bloody teenagers! They can't shower (their words, not mine) because they can't get their hair wet unless they're washing it which they do separately. :doh: :confused:
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
-
man up and use cold water.
Watched code never compiles.
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
What's a bath? :confused:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
I must thank you for making me feel less alone in the world of people wondering about such things. I extended the scope to the heating of my flat (better constant heating to a target temperature all day, or better heating off but for two hours in the day with then full heating ?), which is more or less the same.
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
Z. Use cold water! It's summer anyways.
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
Bah! - You should put a small LHC under the bath tube... - Or using used "fried" oil as gasoline in order to be greener (even you go out from the bath you'll smell funny). - Of course the best option here would be to use the DutchTub[^]. Green people to me... bah! :rolleyes:
[www.tamelectromecanica.com] Robots, CNC and PLC machines for grinding and polishing.
-
So there I was, sitting in the bath contemplating the meaning of life when it occurred to me which is the more efficient? Let me elaborate. In our house, the hot water needs are served by an 'on demand' gas boiler. This boiler has a dial which allows setting the hot water temperature. This temperature adjustment is achieved by altering the volume of gas to the burners. The same temperature adjustment can be achieved by altering the flow of water through the taps. I.e, turn the tap down, the water gets hotter because of the water flow reduction. So, here comes the question: which is more economical and energy efficient to fill a bath? A. Turn the temperature up on the boiler (thus increasing the volume of gas burnt) but more water enters the bath so the boiler doesn't need to be on as long. B. Reduce the water temperature on the boiler (thus reducing the gas flow) and then reduce the flow of water at the tap so the water passes the burner slower and thus heats up more but takes longer to fill the bath and hence the burner is on longer albeit not burning as much gas per given moment in time. C. They are the same. D. Who gives a s**t. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
Sounds very similar to the question of when you should add milk to your tea in order to ensure a hot cup of tea. See Newton's 5/4 Power Cooling Law.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I think taking a shower would be bette
I've got four daughters who absolutely must have, without fail, at least 3 baths a week. Bloody teenagers! They can't shower (their words, not mine) because they can't get their hair wet unless they're washing it which they do separately. :doh: :confused:
I am the Breeg, goo goo g'joob Aici zace un om despre care nu sestie prea mult
Benjamin Breeg wrote:
they can't get their hair wet unless they're washing it which they do separately. :doh: :confused:
That is the exact same excuse my ex-wife used as to why she didn't shower every day. I told her Bullsh!t! Then I talk to beuticians and they said you can get your hair wet (don't they walk in the rain or get in water fights?) even if you don't wash it! It's just an excuse to not shower every day. My daughter follows her mother in this nonsense. I guess at least they take a bath when they don't shower which is NOT what my ex did!
If you know what I mean...and I think you do...
