Central Heating On 24/7

captainhindsight_2

Andy_WSM wrote: »

Dear Captaindimwit.

Yes, I know an awful lot more about passive houses (Passivhaus) than you could ever appreciate. Even they need an element of heating. Whether that be the people in them, animals or the effects of day to day energy consumption within the house. Leave a Passivhaus empty and guess what happens? The good OLD laws of physics play havoc with the heat escaping from the building and it cools down!

How about you put your money where your mouth is? If you are so certain that people can leave their heating on 24/7 (subject to variations & conditions), why don't you guarantee to cover any shortfall on their bills, rather than trying to convince everyone that you are right with your fantasy science?

Please enlighten me how much do you know? Have you watched an episode of grand designs, or are you an architect and draw pretty pictures for a living.. lol.

The thing is you are assuming homes are left empty and are allowed to drop to a close to 0 figure before the heating is turned back on.

You clearly have no grasp of how insulation works, heat recovery ventilation works, solar gain works, and all of the other technologies/methods out their to maintain heat etc etc etc etc.

Andy_WSM

captainhindsight wrote: »

Please enlighten me how much do you know? Have you watched an episode of grand designs, or are you an architect and draw pretty pictures for a living.. lol.

The thing is you are assuming homes are left empty and are allowed to drop to a close to 0 figure before the heating is turned back on.

You clearly have no grasp of how insulation works, heat recovery ventilation works, solar gain works, and all of the other technologies/methods out their to maintain heat etc etc etc etc.

I'll let you keep guessing my line of expertise for years.

The only assumption I am making is that the laws of physics remain unchallenegd by the modern scientific community and still apply today, as they did yesterday or 50 years ago.

You are making assumptions which are absurd. Why would a house cool to 0C if left empty? Right now it's 7C outside, so even if I opened all the windows and vacated the premises tonight it couldn't fall to 0C. A passivhaus by design won't drop much (if any) below 15C in this part of the world, regardless of the outside temperature even if no additional heating is applied (yeah, pretty pictures and everything).

All I ask, for the sake of everyone else on the forum is that if you maintain you are right and that the laws of physics are indeed wrong that you back it up with evidence.

Also worth saying that while captainsowrong has thrown Passivhaus design into the mix, I seriously doubt anyone on this forum asking whether they should leave heating on 24/7 are talking about their Passivhaus as they don't have central heating, rather heat recovery and maybe an exhaust air heat pump.

sellars01

I'm no expert but two years ago I switched from on/off heating to low setting 24/7. My gas bill fell despite prices rising, I was paying £50 a month DD with no rebate before, since switching year 1 I received a rebate of £90 in March, year 2 my DD payments have fallen to £35 a month. However, I only have one radiator on in the whole house in my living room, I have open stairs to upstairs and this seems to keep the whole house warm. I do have a small house which probably helps, not so sure it would work in all homes.

captainhindsight_2

Andy_WSM wrote: »

I'll let you keep guessing my line of expertise for years.

The only assumption I am making is that the laws of physics remain unchallenegd by the modern scientific community and still apply today, as they did yesterday or 50 years ago.

You are making assumptions which are absurd. Why would a house cool to 0C if left empty? Right now it's 7C outside, so even if I opened all the windows and vacated the premises tonight it couldn't fall to 0C. A passivhaus by design won't drop much (if any) below 15C in this part of the world, regardless of the outside temperature even if no additional heating is applied (yeah, pretty pictures and everything).

All I ask, for the sake of everyone else on the forum is that if you maintain you are right and that the laws of physics are indeed wrong that you back it up with evidence.

Also worth saying that while captainsowrong has thrown Passivhaus design into the mix, I seriously doubt anyone on this forum asking whether they should leave heating on 24/7 are talking about their Passivhaus as they don't have central heating, rather heat recovery and maybe an exhaust air heat pump.

What ever it is, must be very low skilled!

I have at no point questioned the laws of physics.

It doesn't matter what type of house most on MSE have, you are blindly saying that it is cheaper for all properties because of heat loss. no mater how small that heat loss is.

It is just rubbish! I am saying you can not blindly say that is the case for 100% of properties because it is not true!

Andy_WSM

*yawn*

Play with someone else. I'm bored of this now.

captainhindsight_2

Andy_WSM wrote: »

*yawn*

Play with someone else. I'm bored of this now.

lol. admitted defeat, there is no shame in being wrong. You just have to learn from you mistakes!

:money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money::money:

Cardew

captainhindsight wrote: »

It really worries me that you use exaggerated examples, to justify your out of touch ill informed views.

On average, most houses would be unoccupied for around 6-10 hours a day so examples of months and years is just stupid.

In a well insulated house with huge thermal stores, using low temperature flow and re turn heating systems with underfloor heating and heat recovery ventilation systems. It is most efficient to maintain a temperature rather than allowing the property to become cold. First because it won't cool down much in the 6-10 hours it is empty anyway. If it was left long enough to become cold it would take an age to get to a comfortable temperature which is not practical.

You clearly do not understand how modern construction works, you build a huge thermal store (big thick walls and floors in case you didn't know) which are warmed up and then release heat gradually through out the day and night, the aim is to keep these thermal stores warm and the thermal store is the heat emitter not the underfloor heating as if you allow them to cool it would take an age to reheat and actually get the house warm. But if you maintain it, and use the building as a home so someone is there living in it (just incase you didn't know what a home was) It is much cheaper to maintain the temperature rather than allow fluctuations in temperature.

What you are saying may be true of high temperature heating systems, in houses with no thermal stores but not true of all houses.

You really should be embarrassed by that post.


I am confident you won't be!

captainhindsight_2

Cardew wrote: »

You really should be embarrassed by that post.


I am confident you won't be!

Why.....???????

matelodave

I'd have to agree with Cardew, it's daft statement that couldn't possibly relate to at least 75% if not more of the present housing stock.
I've seen a few posts from the captain that I'd agree with but this one is just plain stupid.

captainhindsight_2

why??????????