Central Heating - Expert Assistance Required

Sep 27, 2005 72 Replies

Nice to see you may have learnt something and of course feel the need to pass it on. But considering you have claimed in the past to have a physics degree, it's a bit late to finally understand the basics?

After all, this was explained more than adequately in an O level applied dynamics course. The effort of a 'standard' horse to raise a known weight via a frictionless block and tackle in a given time.

It's been the way of measuring electricity usage for many a year. And can be related to the usage of any energy. It only confuses those of feeble minds. If any measure uses the same time (one hour, say) it can be disregarded for working out costs as it's a constant.

That you seem to imply you've suddenly re-invented the wheel - or just discovered how it works - surprises no one.

We're more used to you quoting maker's figures without a clue about how they're derived. Filling a bath, for example, without saying how big that bath is, or the final temperature, or the starting point of the cold water.

So it's nice to see you've at last discovered basic principles.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Thought you claimed to have some form of physics degree?

And it's not so long ago you were quoting maker's efficiencies for boilers that didn't reflect their running costs?

Hint. The energy input to a boiler is less than the energy output from it because some of it doesn't get into the water.

I did claim that? I did? Such is the view of senility.

You are obviously very confused then.

I have re-invented the wheel? I will have to patent it.

You are?

Crystal Palace swimming pool.

Cold water starts at the tap. Then it goes in the bath.

I know all about and everything about life and the universe and everything therein. And the answer is not 42.

I'm sure others will have chapter and verse. In your former incarnations as IMM or Adam. Personally, I can't be bothered to keep tracks on a s*it like you.

NO!!! Power = Energy *divided by* time!

Energy = Power x Time [which is why 1 kw x 1 Hr and *not* 1 kw / 1 Hr is a measure of energy]

Any spent on you clearly was! The taxpayers got good value for money out of me though.

Look at the units and it should be clear. Work is expressed in Jules, and rate of doing work (i.e. power in Watts) is Jules *per* second. Therfore power must be given by:

Work

------ = power time

and not work * power

This is also why your electricity is metered in kWhrs and not kW/hrs

energy

-------- * time = energy time

(i.e. the time units cancel leaving only energy and no concept of time or power)

You can't be sure as you are confused. and inverted.

I assume that the "Jules" being referenced is of the Holland ilk?

No wonder that the "Jule" is such a small amount of energy...

... like its cousin, the joule :-)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Tis ok, now Mary has gone we need someone to make sure the spelling standards don't drop too far.

Along with the water and gas, the electricity supply to his council flat was disconnected some time ago. True but sad (yet safer for everyone)

Back to the counter Dribble and sell more copper.

Such confusion in the man who leaves his boiler unserviced for 18 years.

If no-one bothered, this newsgroup would be a lot better, IMO, but no - there's all this willy-waving that fills it up with rubbish. Dr. D. is the "angus" of uk.d-i-y.

You buy water by the kW-hr. I suppose you do in airy-fairy land.

Oi! Stop messing about with the name of our local celebrity. Probably the only significant person from Sale (and not, as some text books put it, from Salford

- that's where his father had his brewery).

And this electric caber tosser pervo likes to waver his wily.

Who is "angus" Angus Mecoatup?

Despite trying my best to understand what you mean Chris, I can't. Perhaps you'd provide clue? Who is 'angus'?

Have a look in u.c.e. Angus is a poster who seems to delight in controversy for controversy's sake. Various people attempt to "argue" with him, to get him to recognise that he's spouting rubbish. He may well realise it, but it does not stop him, or his "opponents" from pointlessly arguing in circles. I cannot remember when a serious discussion took place on that NG, 'though the four or five posters will have it that they're being perfectly rational, and that there's a possibility that they might "win" an argument, and that what they are spouting is not *utter pants*, and has not spoiled a perfectly good NG which is now absolutely useless, since any subject is now so twisted by the protagonists to further their own ends that it becomes almost instantly corrupt. One or two of these ppl. are supposedly educated, too! The same happens with Dribbel, or whoever, here - ppl. think they can "win" an argument, stop him spouting stuff of the most ridiculous sort, and that they're somehow winning an argument, and that maybe someone other than them actually thinks their willy-waving is interesting. It ain't. The trouble is that they're so close to it that they cannot see. I just wish the whole lot would take a FF.

Cue attempts to justify such behaviour.

Does your newsreader not have a facility to ignore threads that are no longer of interest to you?

Look at the bright side, the vast majority of threads are dribble discussion free!

Yes, but these sheets of stuff still drift into other threads, and using some sort of kill mechanism is a cop-out WRT the purist approach. It's curing the symptoms.

Their prescence is possibly balanced by the extremes of mutual dribbling. One can but hope for sense, I suppose.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required