Anybody heard of Infranomics

Cardew

George_Bray wrote: »

Anyway, I bought it to use in a bathroom, positioned about 30-40cm away from where I'm standing. The bathroom is only about 10C but I'm perfectly warm because of the infrared heat directed at my skin.

So perhaps there is some validity in the claims mentioned in the original post, but only if you sit close enough to the heater.

In all the MSE threads on Halogen/infrared heaters, their use in the situation you describe has been mentioned - see post#11 in this thread.

They are particularly useful for sitting at a bench in an unheated garage, and years ago before CH was common, people would have them in an unheated bathroom.

However this is very different from the whole house central heating Infranomics suggest - with their heaters in the hall and on the landing as well as all other rooms.

Our criticism is not only is the huge cost of these heaters, but the implication that they somehow produce more heat, for the same running costs, than other electrical heaters.

George_Bray

Cardew wrote: »

In all the MSE threads on Halogen/infrared heaters, their use in the situation you describe has been mentioned - see post#11 in this thread.

However this is very different from the whole house central heating Infranomics suggest - with their heaters in the hall and on the landing as well as all other rooms.

Our criticism is not only is the huge cost of these heaters, but the implication that they somehow produce more heat, for the same running costs, than other electrical heaters.

I don't visit this forum enough to be aware of every mention of heaters. In post #11 it's said that "years ago before CH was common, people would have them in an unheated bathroom."
They are still available, for example from here:
http://www.qvsdirect.com/1.8KW-Infrared-Bathroom-Heater-pr-22185.html
Mounted near the ceiling, they will be safer than my unit, but to radiate enough heat over the greater difference, it's drawing a whopping 1800w on the top setting, I doubt if the 600w setting would be warm enough, whereas my Lidl heater is only 300w.

I agree the infrared heaters only work when you're close enough to feel the radiant warmth. Any unit on the landing or in the hall, or similar locations, would offer no advantage over a radiator and may actually be less efficient.

jwdale80

Yes, I think that If you would like the health benefits of FIR, an FIR sauna would be most effective (porbably not efficient but ya wud'nt care). My 2kw panel heats my living room of 10ft by 15ft well- provided the panel beam can reach objects, such as a floor, wall or furniture which then emit heat themselves. The heat is good, and it is drawing less than 2kw most of the time.
With regard to the cost of these panels, I found that a chinese company called JH heaters make them fairly cheap. I was once quoted £150 for both the heater and a hard wired stat. Only problem is that they look very 'industrial', and would burn to the touch, so would deffinatley have to go to ceiling.
With regard to FIR heater efficiency I have trolled through German reviews, and after a lot of 'google translate', all I got was the same old debate- some say 'yea', some say 'nae'. I read of two university studies whose results both contradict each other, and both supposedly have limitations- according to certain reviewers.
University of Kaiserslautern alledgedly showed that FIR heating was 70% cheaper, but a reviewer stated that this was comparing it to a very old gas boiler. The other university of Lucerne showe this (with google translate):
"In summary, one can say that conventional systems based on the system boundary space (net) have an almost identical or marginally greater energy than infrared radiation heating. Based on the system limit house (energy) is a conventional water heating system with a heat pump including auxiliary energy such as a 60% lower power requirement than an IR radiation heater (found on google search here: Neue Studie beweist: Infrarotheizungen sind ineffiziente Stromfresser!
Veröffentlicht am März 10, 2011 von energiepass)
One reviewer suggested that this study used the IR at unfavourably high temperatures.
Anyway, i'm getting tired of this debate, i will just wait and see what 'Scotstarvit cottage' might show, as it is currently trialling IR heating.:wall:

Richie-from-the-Boro

Hello again jwdale80,

Yes I REM your contribution before on 'Scotstarvit cottage'

- if you, like the National Trust could spend £6k on pre-insulation
- before you spend £6k on an infranomic system
- then yes you would benefit
- a leaky building will lose heat regardless of heat type
- a well insulated building will retain heat regardless of heat type
- Germany & Japan have, and have had, uber insulation regs for years

My points then and now is that (1) a draughty and poorly insulated dwelling will lose heat no matter what heating type is used. (2) Conversely a coal / wood / coke / gas / electricity / ground source / tea-light candles or any other form of heating will also achieve close to the 45% claimed if the building is uber insulated.

There's nothing magical about infranomic's other than its stunning delivery design, aka, if you want your fire to look like a mirror / art design / photograph then infranomic's is the way to go. How the 'efficiency' figurers as a result of the 'Scotstarvit cottage' experimental freebie relate to the real world was then, and remains still a concern [cost benefit analysis] to me.

jwdale80

Conversely a coal / wood / coke / gas / electricity / ground source / tea-light candles or any other form of heating will also achieve close to the 45%

I know what your saying Richie, but would it be reasonable to say that most modern houses built today are very well insulated, and therefore by comparing the heating bill with infranomic at Scotstarvit, with a similarly sized modern house with Gas, one could get a rough idea if they are efficient to run?
Another thought I've had (assuming that they aren't any more efficient), is that one could get a 'reasonable' heating bill due to the following factors, assuming that electric is 3 times more expensive than Gas:
- There is no water heating with IR heating
-All the panels are timed, and therefore can be set for the minimal amount of time per room.
Arguably, a water radiator system, I suppose could have timer valves on all the radiators- though would this idea not cause excessive strain on the pump?

fishybusiness

Worth a read.....

Scotstarvit Cottage

www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/refurb-case-study-7.pdf

Richie-from-the-Boro

HiYa fishybusiness,

Yes we read it ages ago, the ~U~ value tests are under way this winter and will be published next year, my points then when we first debated it were that :

- any building in the UK tested to death
- limitlessly funded on a freebie
- done by proper 'craftsmen' to these standards
- with subsequent recalls and 'tuned' adjustments
- would almost certainly have the same outcome for any householder

And there we have it, it won't be will it ?. Your average Joe Bloggs is never going to have access to the above, not only the £6000,00 cost of the free system but the yet undeclared £10-20,000 or whatever up front insulation gains made to the dwelling, paid for by the 'trust' before the Infra heating was installed into its now 'uber' efficient 'zones' heating. Its an interesting experiment motivated no doubt by the panel makers to promote their product in the UK, to increase sales, and greedily accepted by the trust [NOTE01 : - I would greedily accept] we will see this year if .. .. and only if all figures are released and reasonable cost-benefit comparisons with other existing proven heating systems can be made.

The theory behind radiant heating is that thermal comfort can be achieved at lower ambient air temperatures where occupants are subject to radiant heat. Occupants feel warmer and more comfortable physiologically, in the same way that one feels pleasantly warm when sitting in front of an open fire even in a cool room, or when sitting in a sheltered spot on a sunny day, even if the air temperature is cool. The heat delivered by radiant heating panels is much gentler that heat from a fire or from the sun, but nevertheless it quickly warms up the fabric of the room, and the people within in, before the heat is taken up by the air. This is a more efficient way of heating, as the occupants are heated first, and the air temperature rises more gradually, with the hope being that thermal comfort can be achieved at a lower air temperature, such as 17 or 18 C instead of the typical 18-22 C range normal for habitable living spaces.

Air leakage reduced by close to 50% to 10.7 m3h-1m-2 @50Pa, which compares to the maximum air leakage of10 m3h-1m-2 @50Pa

Attic, old insulation removed, perlite wall insulation poured in, then re-insulated with 270 mm flexible hemp batts between and across joists (Fig. 5). This was boarded over with loft boarding to allow a storage space and access to the other roof spaces.

Ceilings, the opportunity was taken to repair the ceilings using existing lath and traditional haired lime plaster, the ceilings were then finished with clay paint.

Rooflight and lightwell, was a cold spot as the lightwell was un-insulated and the rooflight was single-glazed, the lightwell was upgraded by fixing 18 mm wood fibreboard around the lightshaft, and replacing the single-glazed units in the existing rooflight with double-glazed units.

Windows. timber sash and case windows were simply rubbed down and repainted, areas of decayed timber or missing putty were repaired. The windows were then fitted with proprietary secondary glazing, consisting of a strong polycarbonate sheet fixed to the window frame with a magnetic strip. Advantages - cheap, at around £100 a square metre, easy to install, seasonal. Disadvantages, when it is not in use it requires storage space, can be unwieldy to lift off or replace and it can become scratched and soiled over time. In addition, there were a number of incidents where the glazing was unexpectedly ‘blown’ off by air pressure changes, which was potentially hazardous. To resolve this issue, additional fixings had to be made to secure the glazing to the
window frame.

Floors, floored throughout with a timber suspended floor. The decision was taken to insulate under the timber floor with hemp-fibre batts.

External walls, the most challenging element of the project. The insulation material chosen was perlite, free-flowing, and therefore well suited to giving a full fill to the spaces behind the wall linings. The perlite was poured in between all the uprights until a full fill was achieved and no more could be inserted. More difficult areas to be insulated were the window reveals and the sections underneath the windows. For the lower walls, part of the timber sill was removed to allow the insulation materials to be poured in, and then replaced in a fairly straight forward process.

NOTE02 : - then you pay for water heating !

fishybusiness

And there we have it, it won't be will it ?. Your average Joe Bloggs is never going to have access to the above, not only the £6000,00 cost of the free system but the yet undeclared £10-20,000 or whatever up front insulation gains made to the dwelling, paid for by the 'trust' before the Infra heating was installed into its now 'uber' efficient 'zones' heating. Its an interesting experiment motivated no doubt by the panel makers to promote their product in the UK, to increase sales, and greedily accepted by the trust [NOTE01 : - I would greedily accept] we will see this year if .. .. and only if all figures are released and reasonable cost-benefit comparisons with other existing proven heating systems can be made.

Yup, it will be interesting.

Also interesting is this

with the hope being that thermal comfort can be achieved at a lower air temperature, such as 17 or 18 C instead of the typical 18-22 C range normal for habitable living spaces.

Mine needed controlling to 21 or 22 C air temperature to make sure the room was a) warm enough and b) to ensure the panel was actually switched on to gain the warming effect.

Controlled down at 18 C our room was ok, but not cosy warm, and there was no sunshine effect.

It was always an interesting compromise that I was controlling on air temperature rather than my skin temperature

Richie-from-the-Boro

fishybusiness wrote: »

Yup, it will be interesting.

Also interesting is this



Mine needed controlling to 21 or 22 C air temperature to make sure the room was a) warm enough and b) to ensure the panel was actually switched on to gain the warming effect.

Controlled down at 18 C our room was ok, but not cosy warm, and there was no sunshine effect.

It was always an interesting compromise that I was controlling on air temperature rather than my skin temperature

I had problems with it from the first time I read it, my physiology and anatomy live in my skin, my earthly body lives in the air. Sustained living periods in an air temp of 18°C particularly for sedentary AP's is a dangerously low figure for most types of current, effective, and reasonably comparatively cheap heating systems. For Infra-rays however again the need to be close to, and facing the source of heat seems to be a ridiculous, and socially unworkable imposed pre-requirement.

I always read "hope" and "more comfortable physiologically" as yet more poison dribbled from the snake~oil~bottle. The other great German product salesman was Goebbels who said :

- “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” - Joseph Goebbels

- “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” - Joseph Goebbels, Die Tagebücher. Geschichte & Vermarktung

fishybusiness

Hi,

I own two 600W panels and am perhaps a bit of a lone voice on these forums, and have come in for much criticism.

Suffice to say that I have owned them for about a year and find them ok, and totally different to conventional forms of heating, with different pitfalls and upsides.

Any empirical evidence you have would be gratefully received, the evidence of a place for infrared panels as a total heating solution is thin on the ground......