economy radiator company

Cardew

Just to add that these 'spamming' posts in praise of these overpriced heaters are just an 'own goal' as people who Google will come across these threads and learn some facts about the outrageous claims.

If the firms selling these heaters think that anything I, and others, have stated is untrue they can always complain to MSE.

moneysaverbloke

Cardew wrote: »

Perhaps you would care to produce independant evidence of your theory? Not the masses of advertising blurb on the web that tries to maket their products - independant evidence on Quality of heat?(whatever that is) reduced Lifecycle cost?


There are independant test results published on the electrorad website. Their radiators are the same as a number of others out there.

pwllbwdr

I've yet to see any properly controlled scientific studies which demonstrate that these things provide temperature controlled rooms for a lower price than other electric heaters.

If you need electric heat and want to pay less than standard rate, then as far as I know there are two options:

- Heat pump (thermodynamic efficiency of over 100%)
- Storage heater (cheaper electricity)

I'm having some fan assisted storage heaters installed. I'll report back after they've been in a while. At least there is a rational explanation of the mechanism by which they operate.

moneysaverbloke

pwllbwdr wrote: »

I've yet to see any properly controlled scientific studies which demonstrate that these things provide temperature controlled rooms for a lower price than other electric heaters.

If you need electric heat and want to pay less than standard rate, then as far as I know there are two options:

- Heat pump (thermodynamic efficiency of over 100%)
- Storage heater (cheaper electricity)

I'm having some fan assisted storage heaters installed. I'll report back after they've been in a while. At least there is a rational explanation of the mechanism by which they operate.

From what I've seen - in the past at least, storage heaters are the least effective way to heat electrically because it's near impossible to control them. They have to give off the 7 hours of elecrtrically generated heat whether you want it or not. The other thing is that most suppliers who offer an economy 7 rate will increase the standard KWPH rate, so it's hard to make it worth while.

There is some pretty scientific evidence to back up some of the running cost claims of alternative heating methods from companies who seem to have been labled as a [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] by some people here. It says:


Independant house tests conducted by leading testing laboratory and certification company to UKAS standards


"Five separate tests were conducted over 24 hour periods. (120 hours)

Lounge/Dining 2 periods of 24 hours duration (48 hours)
(Electricity used for 28% of the time the heaters were operating)

Bedroom 3 periods of 24 hours duration (72 hours)
(Electricity used for 23% of the time the heaters were operating)

TOTAL cost for the 120 hours tests - £ 3. 19
Average cost per hour = 2.66pence"

pwllbwdr

Yes, and googling your words shows that they are directly quoted from the Electrorad website.

So, can you point me in the direction of a scientific write-up of the methodology/testing protocol?

Cardew

moneysaverbloke wrote: »

There is some pretty scientific evidence to back up some of the running cost claims of alternative heating methods from companies who seem to have been labled as a [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] by some people here. It says:


Independant house tests conducted by leading testing laboratory and certification company to UKAS standards


"Five separate tests were conducted over 24 hour periods. (120 hours)

Lounge/Dining 2 periods of 24 hours duration (48 hours)
(Electricity used for 28% of the time the heaters were operating)

Bedroom 3 periods of 24 hours duration (72 hours)
(Electricity used for 23% of the time the heaters were operating)

TOTAL cost for the 120 hours tests - £ 3. 19
Average cost per hour = 2.66pence"

Pretty scientific? Please tell me you are joking!

It is absolutely typical of advertising mumbo jumbo designed to impress the technically illiterate and is absolutely meaningless.

What we are saying is if that is the cost of heating a bedroom or lounge, then a £10 heater from Argos would heat it just as cheaply.

Do you not understand that all electrical heating is 100% efficient and all forms of electrical heating give out exactly the same heat for the same running costs?

So yes these electrical heaters, costing £hundreds and £thousands, that claim to have re-invented the laws of physics are a [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]!!!

moonrakerz

moneysaverbloke wrote: »

"Five separate tests were conducted over 24 hour periods. (120 hours)

Lounge/Dining 2 periods of 24 hours duration (48 hours)
(Electricity used for 28% of the time the heaters were operating)

Bedroom 3 periods of 24 hours duration (72 hours)
(Electricity used for 23% of the time the heaters were operating)

TOTAL cost for the 120 hours tests - £ 3. 19
Average cost per hour = 2.66pence"

I did want to make some profound comment on this claim - BUT, I must confess that I am lost for words [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] There, that is as profound as I can be ..........

ashleypride

moneysaverbloke wrote: »

There is some pretty scientific evidence to back up some of the running cost claims of alternative heating methods from companies who seem to have been labled as a [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] by some people here. It says:

pwllbwdr said "properly controlled scientific studies" this is anything but.

grahamc2003

moneysaverbloke wrote: »

From what I've seen - in the past at least, storage heaters are the least effective way to heat electrically because it's near impossible to control them. They have to give off the 7 hours of elecrtrically generated heat whether you want it or not. The other thing is that most suppliers who offer an economy 7 rate will increase the standard KWPH rate, so it's hard to make it worth while.

There is some pretty scientific evidence to back up some of the running cost claims of alternative heating methods from companies who seem to have been labled as a [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] by some people here. It says:


Independant house tests conducted by leading testing laboratory and certification company to UKAS standards


"Five separate tests were conducted over 24 hour periods. (120 hours)

Lounge/Dining 2 periods of 24 hours duration (48 hours)
(Electricity used for 28% of the time the heaters were operating)

Bedroom 3 periods of 24 hours duration (72 hours)
(Electricity used for 23% of the time the heaters were operating)

TOTAL cost for the 120 hours tests - £ 3. 19
Average cost per hour = 2.66pence"

It's quite possible that over 120 hours, the average heating costs worked out at about 2.66p/hour. All you have to do is set the thermostats to 18 degrees, and measure the energy used during 5 hot, midsummer days in the south of england (when normally no one would be using any heating at all).

But the point everyone is trying to make is that if you spend 2.66p per hour for heating (which will only provide a tiny amount of heat, something like 250w, or a quarter of an electric fire - to heat 3 rooms!?) then you can get those 250w from any heating device (or even non-heating devices). e.g. the heating the expensive heaters supply for 2.66p per hour could equally be supplied by 2x100w light bulbs plus 1 50w light bulb.

Of course, if the tests were done during last January, then the cost to maintain even a lowly 18 degrees through these (or any other) electric heaters of day rate electricity, would be more like £7-£8 per day, or 40p-50p per hour, typically, imo.

moneysaverbloke

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Yes, and googling your words shows that they are directly quoted from the Electrorad website.

So, can you point me in the direction of a scientific write-up of the methodology/testing protocol?

Yes, this is from Electrorad - part of their website which does indeed show their testing method -quotes the test conditions and also states that it was conducted by an independant UKAS acccredited testing laboratory.

There is also another - although the test appears to have been carried out in much milder weather conditions to be fair, it's also carried out by a UKAS accredited testing laboratory for another heating company (ecowarmth - sw . com) in their downloads section. They also name the testing firm that they used.

I don't see why an accredited testing house would risk their reputation by helping out a heating company with some lies in a "[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]".

As I have said before, it's very easy to apply the "all electric heating is exactly the same/ lightbulbs and 3 bar heaters are just as effective etc etc" principle, but in practice, I have found that it simply isn't true, and I do speak from many years of real experience. There are far too many variables involved. There are good heaters, and there are poor ones - both may use SIMILAR amounts of power, but they don't both produce the same results. There are also different electric heating methods. Some work in particular environments, others don't.

Wouldn't a manufacturer of these radiators have gone to ground many years ago if it was just a [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]? Some of these have been around for 50 years now. I'm sure some of them are dubious in some respects, but the same could be said for most companies.