Heating regime and the gas

[ike]

Now that the colder weather is here, we're tending this winter to put the heating on as and when it's needed,

Totally agree this is the most economical way. I do the same. However, I don't have much choice as I don't have central heating. One decent gas fire downstairs, a Baxi wBrazilia on the landing, maximum insulation wherever feasible, and judicious use of doors, keeps most parts of the house at suitable temperature most of the time. Jumpers, toasties, and throws used as necessary.

One advantage is there's always fresh air and so a very low incidence among all of us, of colds and other seasonal ailments :wink: Oh, and the energy bills are way below 'average'. :wink:

Ike

 

[Rich]

As I previously said on MANY occasions, the victorians were NO fools,
A good coal fire in the living room is the healthiest form of heating you can get, a good deal of heat and the highest number of air changes in a room you could ever wish for, the upstairs bedrooms benefit from a nice warm chimney breast passing through.
For my own part, our heating system, at this time of year and under the present conditions, is permanently left on 19 degs, at this setting the boiler is operating under optimum usage, the H/W is programmed for 24/7 usage, this ensures there is no "surge" in heating the water up from cold, but just keep it simmering at 55 degs, there is nothing worse than coming into a cold house, and 19 degs makes sure that we don't.
should things become extremely cold then we have an electric fire in the living room to boost the heat for 10 mins.
Having been in the heating game for the best part of 30 years, I think I am doing the best for my pocket, others may think differently, but I am the one who pays my bills and I see the difference in my methods.

Regards.

Rich.

 

[Losos]

is that the heavyweight house has less insulation than the lightweight one, and yet is clearly more efficient. Thermal mass within the insulated envelope is the key.

I'm interested in what you call a 'heavyweight' house :?:

Our house has 3ft. thick sandstone walls, once the heating has been on for a while I was told that the temperature of the walls does rise, but I've no way of testing that.

I have noticed that when there is a strong wind outside the house seems to be colder, when thereis no external wind it seems warmer

So what is a heavyweight house :?:

 

[MikeG.]

Three foot stone walls would obviously qualify as heavyweight, but it is the external insualtion that is key......and obviously missing from an old stone house.

Rich, a typical chimney loses at least 6 times the amount of heat during the course of a year than any fires within it can replace. They are an enormous waster of energy.

Mike

 

[Rich]

Three foot stone walls would obviously qualify as heavyweight, but it is the external insualtion that is key......and obviously missing from an old stone house.

Rich, a typical chimney loses at least 6 times the amount of heat during the course of a year than any fires within it can replace. They are an enormous waster of energy.

Mike

Put your bed next to the breast when there is no other form of heating in the house and you will get my meaning, that's how it was for me when I was a kid and the ice was on the INSIDE of the windows. :lol:

Rich.

 

[woodbloke]

Mike G wrote:

A typical brick and block cavity wall insulated & double glazed house in the UK is going to be far too lightweight (and poorly insulated) to benefit from the flywheel effect descibed.........but will respond fairly quickly to heat inputs. Therefore, heat it just before you need it to be warm. Anything else is wasted.

Mike - thanks for that. I thought that this might be the way to go about trying to gain some sort of significant cost benefits - Rob

 

[Doug B]

Going back to Martins analogy about leaving the cooker on, it depends on the time between cooking meals. If you were cooking meals every half hour it would pay to leave the cooker on.
With central heating, if i can remember back to collage, the rule of thumb we were given was if the heating wasn`t turned off for at least 7 hours then it wasn`t worth turning off. As the fuel requirement to get it back up to temperature was more than leaving it on.
Though after nearly 30 years, that time scale will have changed due to improvements in insulation, that is if your house is up to the latest specifications

 

[gatesmr2]

Hi

Didn't see this thread until after i posted mine
Mike is right as it depends on what type of house you have as to which is the best way to heat it.

My house is on old 250 plus for the front 1970's for the rest of the main house and 1990's exstention we put on.
Because it has thick brick walls its takes a while to get hot, also we lost the boiler a couple of years ago and yes of course it went in december and the house did not get what you would call cold for a couple of days as it retainded the heat in the walls. Unless it happened i would never have believed it held that much heat for so long.
A new style house heats up quickly but also cools down just as quickly, this is more efficient and should be heated up as and when needed, were as an older style house benefits from a constant low input to maintain a constant temp.


But it depends on personal choice as well.


Martin

 

[devonwoody]

Our problem is that we cannot get our home temperature to drop below 21C even when the boiler is turned off, we have got a cheapo airconditioning system(evaporation) we have to use to stop it rising.
I think its our body temp. that heats our home.