Heating on low and constant better?

Fire_Fox

amtrakuk wrote: »

This is a subject that interest me.

Reading these threads i thought I'd throw a suggestion into the ring.

All I can do is relate heating to a human being. To keep your body warm all the time generally people eat on a regular basis, your body storing the food in your stomach to give a steady constant supply of fuel. If your stomach runs out of food you're body starts to cool down, once full with fuel again it takes time to start to warm the core and then the rest of your body.

Based on this I guess this is why we eat on a regular basis and not wait until out stomach is empty .

That makes no sense. We don't need food regularly to keep warm, we have plenty of energy stored in the form of glycogen and fat. We don't eat with the primary aim of keeping warm, heat is actually a waste product of energy production. You heat up after eating as digestion itself burns energy and thus heat is produced.

zarazara

Theres o ne sure way to try this out. set the thermostat at ,say,18 degrees C, turn on heating and leave it on for a year. Then,in 12 months time turn it off and spend a year turning it on and off. Compare results.

Much depends on personal comfort factor I think. My late father, in the 1970's Oil crisis refused to allow the heating to be on much. It was freezing, we sat in the house in cardies and even coats. At weekends when we were all home [ie not at work] he'd put the heating on a bit,especially if people were visiting. So, house warmed up then lost it all by Tue and it freezing til Sat again. reckon that if hed kept the house at a steady temperature it wouldnt have needed huge "burns" on sat morning. The way forward for comfort and economy is a well insulated home, it will retain heat. Personally I leave heating on all the time, with radiator thermostats. The home is comfortable and I havent noticed any great difference in oil bill since I changed from a cold start up situation.

zarazara

Insulation is the key to this.

John_Pierpoint

Fire_Fox wrote: »

That makes no sense. We don't need food regularly to keep warm, we have plenty of energy stored in the form of glycogen and fat. We don't eat with the primary aim of keeping warm, heat is actually a waste product of energy production. You heat up after eating as digestion itself burns energy and thus heat is produced.

Some of us are "blessed" with "brown fat". If we over eat this fat heats up and literally burns off the excess. This can be demonstrated with one of those heat seeking cameras.

On the other side of the coin as we get older our circulation gets slower and less well engineered. The result is extremities that feel the cold.

South facing widows can have a negative U value. They let in and capture more heat in the day than they lose in the night, if not obscured by evergreen foliage. The thermal mass and good insulation of the building can save this heat overnight.
(There are houses built into a south facing mound in the Midlands where the internal temperature almost never falls below 15 degrees C even with the heating turned off.)

Katie-Kat-Kins

Cardew wrote: »

I can only think the confusion arises from the experiments carried out above is that they are comparing having heating on 24/7 with a low temperature set, to heating on a timer with a higher temperature set for the periods the heating is operating.

I think this is the question that is being asked though cardew.

They want to know how to use their heating effectively not just cheaply.

There are some really sophisticated thermostats/timer devices out there now. My dad has one which enables him to keep the central heating on all year round quite efficiently. He has the temperature set low, at about 16C as standard, then the timer is programmed to increase the temperature to 23C first thing in the morning and in the evening.

This means that effectively the heating is off most of the time, but it is turned off using the thermostat rather that the on/off switch. It avoids the house getting horribly cold and damp feeling and avoids the need to do a manual boost if you are in during the day. It also means that the boiler is only having to work to raise the temperature by a smaller amount.

This can be a good way to heat your house that makes use of residual heat especially if the house is well insulated and especially if you have slightly less predictable habits.

He would also leave the central heating on but turned down to say 10C if he went on holiday. Chances are the heating will hardly ever actually need to come on but again it prevents that horrible chilled feeling, reduces damp and prevents pipes from freezing.

It may not be the absolute cheapest way to run their heating but sensible use of a thermostat can enable you to keep your house pleasent relatively cheaply.

Your explanation fails to account for an adjustable thermostat. If you leave your heating on 24/7 on a lower thermostat setting then the boiler will not actually be on 24/7.

Cardew

Every time this subject comes up we go round and round in circles.

Firstly, the 'urban myth' that needs to be dispelled once and for all is that it is cheaper to leave heating on 24/7 - at a set temperature - than timed. It ain't!!!

Once that fact is established, the term 'effective' heating is purely subjective. What you or I might consider an effective heating regime by use of thermostats etc might not be considered effective by somebody else. My son thought it was effective to have the radiators and heating on full and to regulate the temperature by opening the windows if it got too hot - until he got his own place!!!

Katie-Kat-Kins

Cardew wrote: »

Every time this subject comes up we go round and round in circles.

Firstly, the 'urban myth' that needs to be dispelled once and for all is that it is cheaper to leave heating on 24/7 - at a set temperature - than timed. It ain't!!!

Once that fact is established, the term 'effective' heating is purely subjective. What you or I might consider an effective heating regime by use of thermostats etc might not be considered effective by somebody else. My son thought it was effective to have the radiators and heating on full and to regulate the temperature by opening the windows if it got too hot - until he got his own place!!!

The thing is that when using a timer people often use a higher temperature to get the same effect than they would if leaving the heating on all day. You also have to bear in mind that if using a sensibly set thermostat your heating won't actually be on 24/7 and may be working at a lower temperature for only perhaps an hour longer.

When examining what works best for someone it isn't about the pure physics but also about their comfort levels, the level of insulation and a certain amount of psychology too to get the best overall result.

The arguement you are having here is like the one about whether you should do your everyday spending on a cashback credit card or by cash. The logical pure maths answer is that you will save more money/spend more efficiently by using a cashback credit card, but many people on this site will advocate taking a lump sum of cash out on a monday to last the week as being the best money saving method. This is because of the interaction with other forces, mainly in this example human nature.

If someone is more comfortable with the heating on 24/7 and the result compared to timer use when they perform their own experiment shows that the price difference is negligable then for them 24/7 use is probably better, they may have other advantages too like being able to dry their washing indoors without a tumble dryer which they need to factor in. If they can show big savings by having the heating on a timer then they may consider it is worth the trade of being cold.

Anyway I'm off because this thread is just making me envious of all the lucky people with their central heating.............

.....oh to have the luxury of thermostats and timers......... back to the storage heaters thread for me!

zarazara

KatP , thats a brilliant post.