Heating on low and constant better?

espresso

Cardew wrote: »

espresso/djohn2002Uk

I am now totally confused!

Is my quote in post #79 supposed to be Times New Roman? - cos it ain't for me!!

To clarify! Your complete post #79(including the quote from my post #63) displays the same font as everone else ie. Verdana 2 point.

I have looked back through all 80+ posts on this thread and they all are Verdana 2 point and not a single word in Times New Roman size 3! including my posts.

This is typed on my UK laptop albeit I am in the 'Land of the Free' at the moment.

I have just checked my USA desktop(which I rarely use except for some US work I carry out - can't get on with the US keyboard!!) and the display for all 80+ posts is exactly as this laptop - i.e all in Verdana point 2.

All I can say is they are certainly posted in Verdana 2!!

Ain't computers strange!

Cardew

Your last posts #83 & #84 are displayed in verdana as normal, however your post #63 displays like this cropped, (so as not to mess up the forum display width) screenshot:



Anyway, you can now see what we see on some of your posts of late. I had assumed that you must be posting from a PDA/mobile etc. on the move. The only thing that I can think of, is to try giving your system a clean with ccleaner to see if that helps.

Cardew

espresso,
To save diverting this thread any more I will DM you and djohn but your entire post above(#86) is normal size(including post#63).

roses

How low is low to set the thermostat on constant all day long? 10'C? 15'C? 20'C?

Cardew

TITEASCRAMP wrote: »

Of course you were saving money by switching it off.
I hope you dont think that I said different.

Just to labour the point, and I am genuinely not trying to be facetious.

It seems you accept that I will save money by switching heating and HW off for several days.

However you don't accept(as I understand it) that switching them off for 8 hours at night, or if you are out for a few hours during the day, will save money.

Can you not see the contradiction?

If you can't see this point(and those who share your theory) you must conclude that you only begin to save money when the heating is off for between 8 hours and several days?

TITEASCRAMP

Cardew wrote: »

Just to labour the point, and I am genuinely not trying to be facetious.

It seems you accept that I will save money by switching heating and HW off for several days.

However you don't accept(as I understand it) that switching them off for 8 hours at night, or if you are out for a few hours during the day, will save money.

Can you not see the contradiction?

If you can't see this point(and those who share your theory) you must conclude that you only begin to save money when the heating is off for between 8 hours and several days?

I never said i was saving money not once.
I dont work. Last year the house was cold all day. I had the heating on for an hr in the morn and a couple of hours in the evening.
I was freezing all day.
I have tried leaving it on lower and it is lower than when it was only coming on for an hour.
Leaving it on lower for me and my system is working out about the same as timered. Granted when it was timered it was on higher because it was freezing.
If its costing me £28 per month DD for 24/7 i am happy with that.
I believe that turning it off for an hr when i go shopping wont make any difference to cost but what it will do is make it unpleasant for my return.

If it not costing anymore for 24/7 comfort then why wouldnt i do it.
Wouldnt you rather be more comfortable than freezing all day if the cost was roughly the same?

djohn2002uk

espresso wrote: »

Cardew

Your last posts #83 & #84 are displayed in verdana as normal, however your post #63 displays like this cropped, (so as not to mess up the forum display width) screenshot:



Anyway, you can now see what we see on some of your posts of late. I had assumed that you must be posting from a PDA/mobile etc. on the move. The only thing that I can think of, is to try giving your system a clean with ccleaner to see if that helps.

This gets more and more confusing.
1. You have messed up the forum display width on my PC.
2. Your copy of post 63 is a mixture of Verdana and Times New Roman as Cardews was, but is all 1point.

Cardew

TITEASCRAMP wrote: »

ILeaving it on lower for me and my system is working out about the same as timered. Granted when it was timered it was on higher because it was freezing.

After 90 posts we have the answer:T

That is what I specifically asked/commented on in posts #7 and #13.

Post #7

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.

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.

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.

Despite those posts and those of djohn2002, this is the first time you have ever mentioned that when you had it on a timer, you set it to a higher temperature.

TITEASCRAMP

Cardew wrote: »

ever mentioned that when you had it on a timer, you set it to a higher temperature.

I dont have a room thermosat. So i am only guessing at temperatures

I probably had the trvs on bout 2-3 were at the moment on 24/7 they are on 1-2. Its only a small change. Im not sure what the cost difference is.

But i would guess at the moment its about 22deg at least in here.
It is surely more beneficial to live in comfort though is it not for the same cost?

Cardew

TITEASCRAMP wrote: »

I dont have a room thermosat. So i am only guessing at temperatures

I probably had the trvs on bout 2-3 were at the moment on 24/7 they are on 1-2. Its only a small change. Im not sure what the cost difference is.

But i would guess at the moment its about 22deg at least in here.
It is surely more beneficial to live in comfort though is it not for the same cost?

TITEASCRAMP
How you, or anyone else, choose to run your heating is obviously your business and nobody is making any criticism of you or anyone else.

However this is a money saving site and from time to time this urban myth that it is cheaper,or as cheap, to leave CH(AT THE SAME TEMPERATURE), and Hot Water on 24/7(with a HW Tank). From what I see MancBrel still sticks to that line!

The point several of us were making, to others reading this forum for advice on how to save money, is that it most definately is not cheaper.

Nothing until now from the 'leave it on constantly' brigade's posts in this thread indicated you were demanding a higher temperature when on timed heating; despite the question being raised. So it was quite reasonable for anyone to assume that your 'experiments' were conducted using the same set temperature.

Also comments such as "it depends on the type of condensing heater" and "Heating up a house that has been allowed to chill uses the same amount of gas than constantly topping up with very short spurts of heating." are both irrelevant and totally incorrect.

Obviously if you turn down the temperature and have it low 24/7 it can be as cheap. It depends of course how low you set it for the 24/7(regardless of TRV's or room thermostat) Taking it to the extreme if you set the temperature to 10C you will save a stack of money!!

TITEASCRAMP

I have listen to both your points. Tonight I will turn the heating off when i go to bed. I will let you know how much difference it has made.

I think I am getting good value for money at the moment. £28 for 24/7 sounds fine ot me.
But i will try turning it off at night.