Cold house - inefficient heating?

Dec 30, 2009 92 Replies

dennis@home wibbled on Thursday 07 January 2010 19:30

Alright. I'm sorry. I was talking bollocks. I sketched through some calculations and google and 70C air at 100% humidity has at least one order of magnitude more potential energy relative to a 40C surface (skin at blood temp approximation) compared to dry air at 100C.

I suppose it all comes down to the gas flow rate, losses in the pipe etc as to how bad (or not) it would actually be to stick your fingers down a flue pipe of such a boiler...

That's OK everyone makes mistakes. At least you have enough knowledge to realise, unlike many in this group.

Not if you get run over by a gritting lorry first ...

Good g (no radiators and a room with ice on the inside of the windows ) is my memory of 1963..no electric blankets either..

Judging by our roads we seem to be safe from that ...

As is the chances of stroke and heart attack, since blood clots easier when it's cooler.

One of my only memories if '63 was discovering that the milk had frozen in the bottles on the doorstep, and pushed the foil caps off[1]. Such is progress that this is never a problem today. First sign of a snowflake and all the deliveries get canned. That's if there's even anyone in your street who wants milk delivered these days ...

[1] oh yes, that reminds me. Birds pecking through the foil to get to the "top of the milk". The horror! think of the health implications!

Yeah well, when the milkman kept deciding to leave me "extra" un-ordered pints and arriving after I'd left for work (and I'm no early bird), it was time to cancel.

I now buy that ultra-filtered stuff that lasts very well ...

That, and getting completely engulfed in a 9 foot high snowdrift

Being unable to understand that if he called at 8 am on a sunday morning one more time to get payment

that, and costing twice what it cost from a supermarket

but no steam (latent heat has already been recovered).

Conventional boiler flue contains steam - loads more energy, in addition to being 100C or more hotter.

Or use fully synthetic oil,which will not solidify at those temperatures.

Sounds like the infamous Camry, reliable & popular USA/Canada-side.

Beware semi-synthetic does not need to have much synthetic to be called synthetic. The pour point of many cheap oils is not that good vs -37oC temperatures. Starvation is never good for bearings and V6s often have marginal oil path by #6.

It is case of having to do it.

It also has far higher "sheer". That is the compressibility - it does not part allowing metal to metal contact. Keep the metal surfaces from touching each other and no wear. It also takes a hell of a long time to break down and can be run for 20,000 miles in most cases - as long as the oil filter is changed at the makers frequency. Even quality mineral oils can seriously break down after a few thousand miles.

I know of some Toyotas that have done those mileages and no oil drinking - they were running on fully synthetic from new.

No need just use fully synthetic oil. The days of sump heaters are over - only of use in the Antarctic, maybe. Get the silly oil leaks fixed and run fully synthetic, observe as you go along. The Toyota V6s are unbustable and one of the best V engines ever made, along with the Toyota A series engines.

People think fully synthetics are only good for high performance cars. The small hatch runabout needs it probably more as these are rarely up to fully temperature when running as they do a lot of start stop driving on choke a lot as well. The synthetic oil doesn't break down as easily when the over rich contaminants pass the pistons, so greatly beneficial to these cars.

Join the Discussion

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

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required