[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Posted by Dee on July 07, 2007 at 06:53:25:
In Reply to: Re: Ergomax or equivalant posted by HeatPro on July 06, 2007 at 18:47:12:
: : : The mixing valve is a passive machine that makes no difference in energy.
: : : The benefit of the mixing valve aside from the temperature safety is that you are mixing cold with the hot, so 2 gallons of 180 hot with 1 gallon of 70 cold makes 3 gallons per minute (180 gallons per hour capability vs 120 gph.) Thus the ability to take a shower AND fill something else.
: : Thank you for your reply. I meant to say has anyone figured out how much energy is wasted in heating your potable water to the same temperature as your boiler water (through the exchanger) and then cooling it back down with a mixing valve and then proportioning it to your overall effiecency. For instance, the potable water is going to "steal" 2000 BTUs from your boiler water and then transfer that to city water via the mixing valve. I just made up the numbers but I hope it makes sense.
: The question is interesting for several reasons:
: 1. the question as framed SEEMS to make sense to you.
: a. I am interested in the thought process that makes it seem to make sense to you. As it makes sense to you, to correct it or to point out where the question goes astray can be insulting, bringing on a barrage of calling someone who replies thoroughly "an omnipotent curmudgeon, possibly manic-depressive, and a know-it-all self-aggrandizing jerk." There is nothing more amusing than someone who answers with precise science to a Dilbert Management assignment (mix unrelated concepts and give it to a committee to give a report). Make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.
: b. The question is a beginning point to learn about energy and matter
: (neither is destroyed) and where energy goes. Also a beginning point to learn the definition of efficiency (a problem exists in that people mix the strict definitions of 'efficiency' and 'effectiveness' to come up with half-way meanings for neither.
: You can start the discussion with why you think energy is lost when you mix hot water with cool water and then make use of the mixed water. I could extent your idea to arrive at a question as to how much hot water is wasted when mixing cold water into hot coffee.
Did not mean to offend. To be truthful some of your answers in the initial reply were confusing but I suspect it is my fault for not wording my question properly. Having suspected that I did not make myself clear I reworded the question not to insult you but to have what I was trying to ask possilby answered.
The question does (Not Seem To But Rather Indeed Does) make sense to me. Additionally you summarized it perfectly in your last paragraph about coffee. This is the question I am asking.
I realize the energy is not wasted as it is transfered to the cold water. It is the expense/cost of doing this that is my question.
55 degree water heated to 125 degrees must surely cost less than 55 degree water heated to 180 degrees and then cooled back down to 125 degrees with the addition of more 55 degree water. The question then is how does this effect your total water "efficency"? or how expensive is this process? I'm not concerned with the extra expense of water since it is cheap. The question is the heating expense itself.
Post a Followup