No, there was nothing said about it at all. Very seldom was anything said about engineering blunders. That may be part of the reason that back in
1972 when I started there were 2500 workers, 500 supervisors and office workers and a bout 100 construction people there. Now there is less than 500 people total at the plant. The other reason it the product is now being made in Mexico Turkey and maybe other countries.Man, I don't got no privacy, no mo! You're right.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
Well, of course. It was special. Direct vent, too, probably.
What a total crock of ignorant shot
Indeed, that's implicit
Surely you can support that claim with evidence.
Feel free to provide the evidence
Only if you go with prejudice and unfounded beliefs I'll leave you to it.
I would suspect there is a lot more to this story. Like Ford only sells whatever part he's looking for as part of an ASSEMBLY. I have seen that happen on occasion. People want to buy what should be a $10 piece of something, but it's only available as a whole unit that cost $100.
But, sorry, I don't buy that a part to repair whatever was wrong with his 5 year old truck was not available from Ford period.
I replace my tank type water heater around every 8 years, or so at MY CONVENIENCE, before it leaks. On a nice warm sunny day.....
Replacing a tank before failure saves lots of hassles. My last tank did start seeping a bit at 8 years exactly. Fortunately it was nice weather.
Then you know nothing about power generation and the notion of "demand". Look it up. Why do you think there are blackouts/brownouts in big cities in 100 deg weather?
You're arguing against a stawman. Let's assume for a moment that everyone used tankless. Why would you ever assume that it's all going to be ELECTRIC? For the vast majority of the population, nat gas is available and cheaper and due to the energy reqts, a far better solution. It's like arguing that IF everyone used electric heat, there would be a problem.....
You're arguing against a stawman. Let's assume for a moment that everyone used tankless. Why would you ever assume that it's all going to be ELECTRIC? For the vast majority of the population, nat gas is available and cheaper and due to the energy reqts, a far better solution. It's like arguing that IF everyone used electric heat, there would be a problem..... =====================================================
No, I was arguing against someone apparently unfamiliar with demand. And what makes you think demand applies only to electricity? Nat gas is not supplied at infinite cfm, just like electricity is not supplied with infinite amps. Which is not to say that the problem would be as severe, or mebbe more severe.... I don't think either of us are fluent in the fluid dynamics/transport of low-pressure gases.
And yeah, IF everyone were to use electric, there would be a problem. Ditto gas. The cfm cited somewhere in this thread for tankless gas, 160,000 btu iirc, is about 3x what my effing furnace draws, for a 5,000 sq ft hovel. So some j****ff, in a 2 BR house, who wants 2 hour showers, is going to run
160,000 btu gas?? Absurd, when you think about it. It's like shooting yourself out of a sprung cannon to get up to the 12th floor, instead of climbing the steps or taking an elevator.And, as I pointed out elsewhere, "on demand" has no bearing on "instantaneous", which, if I have virtually plumbed this correctly, is only possible with tanked hw and recirc pumps.
effingEurope is not nec the vanguard for common sense. Canada is.
Oh, unless you install a point-of-use tankless, right at the sink. But an electric tankless, even for a s***ty little mini-sink in a guest bathroom, draws 4,500 W.... !!! AND just delivers luke-warm water!!!!! And much more difficult to install for, say, a shower.
Sheeeit, just let the water run a bit.
They've been in use for at least 100 years over here.
It's been posted MANY times before - and you can look it up for yourself
You can waste your money on a tankless. I won't.
Your choice, and mine. to make.
Pay no mind to hissy li'l Attila. I suspect he gets the s*it slapped out of him so often, he can no longer think straight.
Asking for evidence that a tankless system does not require more maintenance than tanked is like asking for proof that a fuel dragster doesn't get more engine overhauls than a commuter car. Or proof that perpetual motion machines don't work. People like this simply don't understand mechanics or physics -- which makes their short-tempered snippiness all the more laughable.
In the mega-facilities of my mega-employer, they have point-tankless all over the place. They all suck, half of them seem not to work at all. Altho you CAN hear a relay click.... LOL AND they are relatively new!!! And the water -- in a s***ty li'l low-flo mini-sink -- is lukewarm. AND it draws 4 kW.....!!!! Holy s*it....
And of course you miss the point.
It's your scenario that is a total crock of s*it About the ONLY place where people who be all electric is Quebec. But they are a net EXPORTER of electricity BECAUSE they have so much hydro-electric power generation capacity. So your scenario would actually fail there For the rest of the real world, since the odds of everyone producing hot water with electricity is BOGUS, so are your silly conclusions
Any idiot can come up with such extreme scenarios But only idiots spend their time arguing such absolutes.
# # You're arguing against a stawman.
That was my point. It's a STUPID strawman
No need to even argue the rest.
Yah ! The place where a province nearly completely relying on electricity to even heat their houses, ended up freezing when the towers bringing in the power collapsed in an ice storm
Actually you missed with your alleged point But then, considering it was a strawman, that's no surprise.
Not an absolute, buzzhead. A viability test. Tankless, as a default scenario (like our tanked is now), is simply not viable. It could be, with the right infrastructure, but the Q then is, SHOULD it be.... Answer: proly not. Oh, sorry, another strawman.... yeah, I know, too much for you.....
low pressure natural gas is actually high pressure from the source, saves having to use LARGE transmission lines.....
When I was a kid a natural gas main transmission line in crafton pa caused a mmulti block explosion and some people died. The line ran near our home. I used to spend my time watching the workers replace the line, they would chase us away when X raying the welds
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D
We've all heard about electric companies having issues with meeting demand on those very few days of the year, almost always in summer heat, when peak load is extreme. I've never heard of a gas utility having trouble meeting demand, of a "gas brownout".
So, in one sentence you claim that you are not fluent in the issue and in the next you again claim such a problem would exist. Which is it? And gas is distributed at higher pressure through the system.
My furnace is 120K btus. My old one was 150K btus. Also, the new one is two stage, so it frequently is firing at only about
80K. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has replaced an old inefficient furnace with a high efficiency one. No reason I see to believe that tankless water heaters are going to bring the gas system to it's knees. And if that was a real problem, I think by now you'd hear the gas companies discouraging customers from installing them.Which of course has nothing to do with anything I said.
Has Europe or Asia, where tankless is a large installed base had problems meeting gas demand?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required