Gas on constantly or on and off...?

SuzieSue

closed wrote: »

Do you need the heating on while you sleep, while you are out?

More expensive than timed.

Yes, actually I do, I have the heating on at 14 degrees when I am asleep and 16 degrees throughout the day (unless I am out for more than 8 hours during the day when I will keep it at 14 degrees until I get in). My gas and electricity bill combined are £36 or £38 per month (I can't remember which).

SuzieSue

Cardew wrote: »

There is simply no point in re-stating the obvious.

The Nobel prize for physics awaits proof that the laws of physics generations of scientists have relied upon for years were wrong all along.

Seems like it might have been won;)

At least Closed has accepted that there are situations when 24/7 makes sense - something you won't do.

SuzieSue

closed wrote: »

Instead of messing around with the thermostat, just use the timer.

Your bill, if it actual covers the cost of the usage is probably so low, because you have the stat set so low, not because you have it on 24/7.

But as aelitaman showed below, 274/7 can be cheaper in certain circumstances (sorry, can't get rid of the bold)

SuzieSue

closed wrote: »

I haven't, there is no situation where it makes sense, financially.

Yes, you said If you go out for an hour, the difference in cost is negligible,
and therefore by definition, there will be a time when it will be it will be more advantaageous, the laws of physics show that (although some people use these selectively to prove their point only).

Cardew

SuzieSue wrote: »

At least Closed has accepted that there are situations when 24/7 makes sense - something you won't do.

Did you understand what he wrote?

Do you not understand that turning down the thermostat, turns off the boiler?

Only on an internet forum do we get people so determined to save face at the expense of giving others unsound advice.

SuzieSue

Cardew wrote: »

Did you understand what he wrote?

Do you not understand that turning down the thermostat, turns off the boiler?

Only on an internet forum do we get people so determined to save face at the expense of giving others unsound advice.

So your advice about turning off the heating for an hour if you go out after being in for 23 hours is sound? All I have said is that the OP should try it for a week and see what happens as everyone's circumstances are different. I don't think that is unsound.

SuzieSue

closed wrote: »

With all due respect to aelitaman, and yourself, the findings of individual posters are anecdotal rather then scientific, and could be explained by different environmental conditions during the test period.

Yes, of course that needs to be taken in to account (and could also have worked the other way), but it does not make sense to dismiss 24/7 out of hand, that is all I am saying, although for most (not all) people it will be more expensive.

Cardew

SuzieSue wrote: »

But as aelitaman showed below, 274/7 can be cheaper in certain circumstances (sorry, can't get rid of the bold)

My goodness! you really clutching at straws.

What he has given is a set of circumstances where he used less gas and it is perfectly understandable that might happen.

To demonstrate the point:

I am pretty sure that I could use less energy heating my house constantly to 25C in July by having the heating on 24/7, than by heating it 5 hours a day to 20C in January.

To carry out any controlled experiment, you need to exactly replicate the conditions.

Outside temperature/wind/humidity exactly the same on both days.

Temperature of inside of house/walls etc exactly the same both days, amount of water used exactly the same, doors opened for exactly the same time etc.

One thing is sure, given identical conditions there is no way that 7 hours heating to xC will cost less that 24 hours heating to xC.

SuzieSue

Cardew wrote: »

My goodness! you really clutching at straws.



One thing is sure, given identical conditions there is no way that 7 hours heating to xC will cost less that 24 hours heating to xC.

Ok, but who says it should be 7 hours, why not 1 hour or 23 hours? That is my point - it depends on the individual circumstances.

SuzieSue

SuzieSue wrote: »

Ok, but who says it should be 7 hours, why not 1 hour or 23 hours? That is my point - it depends on the individual circumstances.

And there will come a point, when 24/7 makes more sense and is cheaper, and whether that is 1 hour, 7 hours or 23 hours depends mainly on the level of insualation in the house and the inside and outside temperatures.