A question of efficiency?
-
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
-
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 have a similar problem with brewing tea, only to have it chilled to a very cold temperature so I can enjoy it. I'll post the problem shortly.
Craigslist Troll: litaly@comcast.net "I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
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
-
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
Skinny dip at the nearest lake or, preferably, hot spring (true story: a guy actually got full on naked and used body wash to clean off in front of me and a friend at a hot spring).
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Skinny dip at the nearest lake or, preferably, hot spring (true story: a guy actually got full on naked and used body wash to clean off in front of me and a friend at a hot spring).
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
And you stayed around to watch? :omg:
-
And you stayed around to watch? :omg:
Nope, I stayed to soak and avert my eyes.
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Skinny dip at the nearest lake or, preferably, hot spring (true story: a guy actually got full on naked and used body wash to clean off in front of me and a friend at a hot spring).
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Euros are as casual about nudity/etc as Americans are about violence; those of us on both sides of the Atlantic are idiots for trying to think we can make the other go away by pretending it doesn't exist. :rolleyes:
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Me: *punches naked dude in the face* Naked Dude: Why'd you do that!? Me: I'm a violent American, you casually nude European! Yep, I can see how that would happen. :rolleyes:
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Me: *punches naked dude in the face* Naked Dude: Why'd you do that!? Me: I'm a violent American, you casually nude European! Yep, I can see how that would happen. :rolleyes:
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
You'd better hope they decide it's cheaper to fine you his medical bills and deport you than to put you on trial because that defense would go over like a lead balloon. PS For some reason I never got a reply notice for this post....
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
You'd better hope they decide it's cheaper to fine you his medical bills and deport you than to put you on trial because that defense would go over like a lead balloon. PS For some reason I never got a reply notice for this post....
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
deport you
They would deport me from the US to the US? :confused:
Dan Neely wrote:
For some reason I never got a reply notice for this post
Did you uncheck "Send me an e-mail if someone replies to this message" on your post?
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
Dan Neely wrote:
deport you
They would deport me from the US to the US? :confused:
Dan Neely wrote:
For some reason I never got a reply notice for this post
Did you uncheck "Send me an e-mail if someone replies to this message" on your post?
[
S<T>::f(U) // Out of line.
](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8yk3t00s(v=vs.71).aspx)
-
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
Bathe with a hot friend. Two birds... yeah, two birds. :thumbsup:
-
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
I think option E is the least efficient of all... E. Keep refilling bath to marked level varying parameters, ...
-
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