New Gas Fire should save ££££££

SYNERGY

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm not aware of anyone saying they are unsafe have they?

I personally wouldn't install them with what I know (or rather don't know) about them at the moment - that is just a statement of fact and a confession of my ignorance, and my bias of being worried about breathing the results of combustion, and my bias borne of having a house with a tendancy for damp, so don't wish to put more water into the house air.

The thing is that with Google, we can get any references for whatever stance we wish to take on any subject. A few minutes googling doesn't make anyone an expert on anything. For example, here's a paper from Harvard medical school (which is independent, and not industry sponsored) concluding

Despite these limitations, the existing evidence suggests that there may be a modest effect of exposure to gas appliances on respiratory health. In future research we need to identify the pattern of exposure and the subgroups associated with increased risk.

(Just to pre-empt some replies i think likely, I know the conclusion doesn't state unvented gas appliances are dangerous!, and neither do I want to imply they are (or aren't for that matter - I have no idea).

Googling also throws up sufficient references specifically advising to avoid using unvented appliances where babies and children live, due to the quicker build up of co in their bodies due to their higher metabolism. Again, that is not to say they are dangerous at all, just that it is sometimes prudent to avoid the risk, whatever that risk is.

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/52/suppl_3/58.long

Morning Graham and Richie, a bit late but here we go.

I've read through the 'thorax' paper which, whilst interesting, appears to be inconclusive re respiratory problems, though there is evidence in some cases of an increase in problems.

Ref. Ritchies links, I've read these and have mixed feelings about what is stated in them, they are American after all.

It being a little late and a long day, I'll give some brief observations, I'll elaborate further if you wish in the next couple of days.

Anyway, my impressions as an actual user of over five years.

Below is a simple description, not highly technical that may stray from the point in hand.

Several important things to ponder on:

1) The room size.

2) The ventilation required, both incoming and outgoing.

3) They are supposed to be, according to the manufacturer, supplementary to and not the prime scource of heat for a room.

4) The combustion products are 'cleaned up' by several catalytic converters, these have a finite lifespan, in my case approx. 15 years.

5) Catalytic converters basically produce carbon dioxide and water from carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons.

6) A catalytic converter won't work until it reaches its light off temperature, until then the combustion products are not 'cleaned up', therefore for a short period of time ' uncleaned' combustion products will enter the room.

My experience to date:

They are approx. 99+% efficient, all the energy from the burnt gas enters the room, though some hydrocarbons may not be burnt in the flame in, as these pass through the catalyst they produce heat in the ensuing chemical reaction.

No matter what any manufacturer says they do produce moisture, how this moisture affects the user and the room, depends on several factors, mainly the initial temperature of the room, walls, windows, contents.

They also produce carbon dioxide, most people think that the trigger that makes us breath/take a breath is a lack of oxygen in our system, it is in fact the amount of carbon dioxide that triggers the breath response.

The combined excess moisture, raised temperature, excess carbon dioxide, from one of these fires in an incorrectly ventilated room can produce an uncomfortable stuffy feeling.

If the room has not been previously heated, one of these fires is used on a cold day, then there will be evidence of moisture, to a lesser or greater degree, on cold surfaces, ie window panes etc, this will vanish as the room and contents attain a higher temperature.

If I get chance over the next few days I'll post some more info re gas usage, the room it's in etc.

If used as designed they do as it says on the tin.

uptomyeyeballs

Janauary 2012 will result in 1158 kWh usage, which is slightly lower than 2011 at 1231 kWh. This is probably to be expected in the coldest months of the year. I think my experiment is showing that it gets better results in the marginal months of late Autumn and early Spring when previously i'd have the central heating on but now it's just the fire. Rolling 12 month usage is now down to

Gas : 6,035 kWh
Electricity : 2,397 kWh

HappyMJ

That's about 6% lower than last year. Mine is going to be 10% lower than last year. I think this January was just a little warmer than last year.

uptomyeyeballs

February 2012 was 1102 kWh against 1296 in 2011 (15% less) and this month i've basically been able to turn my central heating off again and just use the fire. Projected figures for March are 390 kWh against 994 kWh in 2011, so will be nearly 61% reduction.

So, gas usage over winter 2011-12, compared to winter 2010-11

Oct -44%
Nov -61%
Dec -40%
Jan -6%
Feb -15%
Mar -61% (estimated)

An average of 38% reduction per month over the winter half of the year.

I've never been cold.

I trust that some on this thread will find these figures interesting, especially ziggyman99 ;-)