Heating on low and constant better?

TITEASCRAMP

albertross wrote: »

The kettle experiment takes 10 minutes, it won't evaporate, and even if it did, it is irrelevant to the principle it is intended to prove. Which (hopefully for the last time until next year) is, that it uses more energy to maintain water (or buildings, or anything) at a constant temperature, than to heat it from room temperature when you need it. The water, the kettle, the boiler, is irrelevant, this is to demonstrate the energy required to maintain the building temp however it is provided.

I think I was about 14 when I did the theory at school, not sure if it is in the science syllabus now, but there are plenty of resources on the web covering thermodynamics, rate of cooling, energy require to raise temp, and maintain temp. And if you don't believe in science, believe British gas.

I do understand your point. I am not at work though as i said before. I have done it both ways it roughly the same for
1 hr morning and 2 hrs evening
constant low

TITEASCRAMP

albertross wrote: »

If it works for you then stick with it, it sounds like you have an efficient system, and are in the house all day, so even if you turned off at night, the difference wont be massive. I have done the same test with a conventional boiler, and found different results. But as I said, it is impossible to do a scientific evaluation, because it is not a controlled environment, you can never compare like with like, especially over a short period, the weather varies too much.

It may be interesting for you to look at your unit usage over the next few days compared to mine. Maybe it would be better to change system if there is a bit difference.
how big is you house mine is a 3 bed

djohn2002uk

TITEASCRAMP wrote: »

I am doing this as an experiment at the moment the heating has been on low now for 4 days. I'm doing a week like this then a week come on early morning and early evening.
I will let you know next week.

I am surprised that after so many posts that no-one, and Cardew in particular has not picked up on the word LOW.
It's common sense that leaving heating on for longer costs more. No more, no less than pure common sense.
BUT, TITEASCRAMP is not making a true comparison because she is turning the heating down.
So, what temperature was she originally running at? Shall we assume it was a temperature that was comfortable to be in the house in each room. That would ideally be different temperatures in the lounge where you are inactive to other rooms where you may be more active. Maybe 20-22C in the lounge and 16-18C in the hall and dining room for example.
If these were set as a nice comfortable temperature for the times when needed then surely turning the temperature down is no longer comfortable and will never ever be so even if left on 24/7.
So, the whole experiment is total farce because you are not comparing like with like.
I could save myself even more than TITEASCRAMP and leave my heating on 24/7, how?, by turning it down lower than she does. But alas I like to be comfortable when relaxing and so set my timer for twice a day and switch it to once when needed but never 24 hrs a day.
Oh, and at the time she posted that she was in a tee shirt with her heating on low, I was too with my heating off!

TITEASCRAMP

All do what you want, im happy with the way mine is running.
Obviously i have a very efficient boiler, onersized rads, well insulated house.
And im nice and warm and only using 8 units a day in winter and 1 unit in summer.

betterlatethannever

I don't want to stray away from the OP's original question, but, along similar lines, is it 'money saving' to turn off rads in unused rooms? or is the draught produced around the door of the room making the rest of the place colder, therefore making the heating work harder? am i saving money by doing this?
Thanks

jamesd

Shoey1610, it depends on your heating system. If your system has a pump that only comes on when needed instead of all the time than there's some small electricity saving from having it turn on and off many times during the day. If you have a more fancy system with automatic pump controls then you'd just leave the system on all the time and let it manage itself.

If you have it on during the day you're a bit less likely to feel cold so you may find it practical to set any thermostat to a lower temperature and that could save you money.

Your comfort is the key factor. If you're at home and find you need the heating, turn it on.

My own system has no room thermostats and a simple all on or all off control so I have it turning on and off at varying intervals throughout the day and night to regulate the temperature while running the pump no longer than necessary. It's far from an ideal system but a landlord seldom has an interest in reducing the bills of the tenants.

betterlatethannever, yes, turn them off if your system has bypass valves that make it possible to turn them off without blocking the flow to the others. The draught from the door is minimal compared to the cost of keeping the room warm unnecessarily. Draught excluders and sealing kits can be used on internal doors as well as external and that would reduce the draught.

tomstickland

is it 'money saving' to turn off rads in unused rooms?

Yes it will be.

Say you have a radiator in an unused room and another radiator in the hall.
If you turn off the rad in the room then the rad in the hall will have to work a bit harder, but it'll still do less extra work than the turned off rad used to do.

Cardew

djohn2002uk wrote: »

I am surprised that after so many posts that no-one, and Cardew in particular has not picked up on the word LOW.
It's common sense that leaving heating on for longer costs more. No more, no less than pure common sense.
BUT, TITEASCRAMP is not making a true comparison because she is turning the heating down.
So, what temperature was she originally running at? Shall we assume it was a temperature that was comfortable to be in the house in each room. That would ideally be different temperatures in the lounge where you are inactive to other rooms where you may be more active. Maybe 20-22C in the lounge and 16-18C in the hall and dining room for example.
If these were set as a nice comfortable temperature for the times when needed then surely turning the temperature down is no longer comfortable and will never ever be so even if left on 24/7.
So, the whole experiment is total farce because you are not comparing like with like.
I could save myself even more than TITEASCRAMP and leave my heating on 24/7, how?, by turning it down lower than she does. But alas I like to be comfortable when relaxing and so set my timer for twice a day and switch it to once when needed but never 24 hrs a day.
Oh, and at the time she posted that she was in a tee shirt with her heating on low, I was too with my heating off!

But I most certainly did pick up on it:

From Post #7 I asked just that question:

I am not clear what you are actually saying; particularly the 'low all day'

Now if you are saying leaving it at, say, 20C all day(24/7) is as cheap as having it set to 20C for timed periods; then that simply is not correct as it defies the law of physics. See

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....html?t=564426

However depending on the insulation in the property it could be cheaper to have it set to, say, 16C for 24/7 rather than timed periods at 20C. But then 16C is not a comfortable temperature for most people in the evenings.

From Post #13

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.

However I, and everyone else, are apparently wrong! as from the responses they are saying that it is cheaper leaving it on constantly with the temperature set at xxC than timed with the temperature set at xxC.!!!

All to do with super efficient condensing boilers and all that irrelevant nonsense - and it is just that - nonsense! It doesn't matter how your heat is produced. Any form of electrical heating is 100% efficient(higher than any gas boiler) and would you believe it - the laws of thermodynamics apply to that form of heating as well.

As you say it is pure plain common sense that it can't work as they say and yet the flat earth society strike again cos they have carried out experiments under carefully controlled conditions and have proved all that theory cannot stand up; viz

But hey, some people don't like real world fact getting in the way.

TITEASCRAMP

I never said it was cheaper. I said it was about the same. Plus i am benefiting.

I dont know what temperature my house is but its now 7.45 and its as warm as it was at lunch time yesturday when i had a t-shirt on. I am quite soft so it must be about 22-23deg. Maybe when i was only having it on for an hour it was on higher coz the house was freezing and i wanted it to warm up quicker.

This way isnt cheaper but the house is much more pleasant.
My bills arnt that big £28 per month DD for it to be on 24/7. I can live with that.
Sorry if i have upset anyone

espresso

TITEASCRAMP wrote: »

And im nice and warm and only using 8 units a day in winter and 1 unit in summer.

:rotfl:

Hang on a minute, winter? You may be using 8 cu M per day now but it is not winter, in fact it's not even cold yet! Wait until it's -5 outside al day long.