Save at least 20% of central heating fuel

Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ... short thermal comfort. Insulation, wood energy, heat pumps but also electricity, gas or oil, VMC ... Help in choosing and implementation, problem solving, optimization, tips and tricks ...
BobFuck
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 04/10/12, 16:12
x 2

by BobFuck » 26/11/12, 20:59

The translation of the German study is difficult to digest. On the other hand that of the Turks gives reason to Alfa.

So the question is: what's going on in the pipes? If the product has the advertised effect, the manufacturer must know the reason and be able to explain it ...
0 x
roy1361
x 17

by roy1361 » 26/11/12, 21:32

BobFuck wrote:The translation of the German study is difficult to digest. On the other hand that of the Turks ...


It's funny, but this miracle solution is tested (manufactured ??) in the same place (Ankara) as pellet boilers which are so debated and which turn out to be in no way ..... miraculous ...

A report ??
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3

by Alain G » 27/11/12, 07:37

Alfa-x


It's a shame you misrepresented the product!


Nothing in studies demonstrates the heat transfer advantage except that it rises in temperature faster than water!


I partially deal with the steam boilers at the factory and I know how important it is to have flues in good condition for performance and durability and your product should promote that side instead.

Nothing in your study link proves that the water used is deoxygenated which would help the calorie transfer performance vs your product.

Although I believe that your liquid can improve the yield, you did not present it in the right aspect to convince some skeptics who doubt by ignorance!
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

by Obamot » 27/11/12, 08:11

Alfa-x wrote:
Obamot wrote:
Alfa-x wrote:Do not believe me but do not doubt our customers who testify ...
Mmmmh, [...] paralogism!
We know that if we change to a condensing boiler from another of the previous generation, the savings are of the order of 10% ...

20% on the overall, so should not exaggerate too much ...
This is what I say to all of my Obamot contacts ... inject the product rather than buying a new boiler ... Budget 5x to 10x lower for greater savings.


There it becomes downright dishonesty to make me say what I did not want to say!

- since indeed, depending on your arguments, I advise against the use of your product - after the fact (or if the construction is already a few decades old) - for several reasons (including the detachment of limestone or deposits of oxidation if we balance the product in an old installation, and this clogs the entire installation, I would not do it, absolutely would not take such a type of risk, since nothing indicates that it is significant to use it, on the other hand, who would pay for the "coloateral damage"? Not your guarantee);
- and in particular by the fact that it is not only the heating circuit that must be protected from limestone, but the entire installation by electronic means (including hot or cold sanitary water) therefore there is no no reason to put it since we are already doing it upstream;
- by the fact that it is therefore of no use except a preventive action against possible corrosion, provided that it has been done from the start (during the construction of the building);
- by the fact that your product is not exceptional, it is just an antifreeze, and there any one should do the trick. Possibly useful in unheated houses in winter .... And whose frost could explode a radiator if a window is left open! Like in the mountains.
- and finally that your alleged guarantee would not cover anything in the event of damage ...

So like Alain G, you are not adopting the right angle of attack compared to the actual specifications of the product.

We have nothing against you, but you would gain in honesty, either by saying it as it is, or by taking into account what you are told in this forum, or there are experienced people ...

All I can advise is to put an electronic anti-lime system AT THE ENTRY of the water supply to the building ... this will give a considerably higher value to the property in the event of resale , given the level of maintenance of the heating circuit ... This is often a neglected point, on the other hand I doubt that we can restore that later, if we did not take such measures from the start ( bis repetita: it can't be done with your product anyway.)
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

by Did67 » 27/11/12, 09:36

Good...

One of the certifications from one of the universities troubles me, even if no precise protocol is indicated ... (the one which certifies energy savings, which also talks about comparing two identical apartments). I'm not hiding it.

However, I do not give enough credit to a study to make me doubt the principles of thermodynamics. There have been, in the past, confirmed doubtful studies: Lysenko, "memory of water" to justify homeopathy by Benvenisto, I do not know which "doctor" who injected cultures of I do not know what to cure cancers ...

For me, there is a boiler (or resistance). That consumes X kwh and in "transmits" Y to a liquid (in a heating system, like the one in question here). Y / X x 100, this is the boiler efficiency.

There could, because of the different temperatures, be a very slight difference (2 or 3% would not shock me; beyond that, I admit doubting) ...

The "coolant" liquid, unless it is radioactive, only goes Transportation calories, from point A (the boiler) to point B (radiators or more broadly, emitters - this can be a heated wall, a heated floor, etc.). He can't create any !

There are line losses, which depend on the length and insulation of the circuit, and which increase with temperature.

The same quantity of heat can be transferred with a high flow rate of a liquid with a low specific heat, or with a lower flow of a liquid with a higher specific heat.

It is confirmed, as expected, that the liquid has a lower specific heat than water (water is one of the liquids with the highest specific heat). It is also more viscous.

The first point would lead, if the flow rate is constant, to a slower transfer ...

The second, at a lower flow - for the same circuit / same pump.

So that a circuit with this liquid "transfers" calories less easily seems logical to me: without changing anything in the circuit, we will end up with a reduced flow of a liquid having a lower specific heat (a little, if we compare the liquid coolant to a van to transport calories, they would be slower vans and containing less).

If the heat transfer liquid transfers fewer calories, the boiler will go into stand-by faster ... So we can imagine that it consumes less.

But on arrival, there will be a lack of calories ... And therefore it will be less hot (fewer vans bringing fewer calories ...).

This is why I continue to doubt very much that the change of liquid alone can greatly change the issue of heating consumption (implied, maintaining the same heating level ; because otherwise, each degree of decrease is up to 7% savings; this is known and can be explained, however, very simply; but we are no longer in a comparable system).

However, I note that the certification is a little vague about maintaining the same temperature, even if it is mentioned ... A route would be the least of things!

So despite that, I doubt it.

But I cannot be right against a university certificate. I understand it well.
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88

by Gaston » 27/11/12, 09:49

Did67 wrote:If the heat transfer liquid transfers fewer calories, the boiler will go into stand-by faster ... So we can imagine that it consumes less.

But on arrival, there will be a lack of calories ... And therefore it will be less hot (fewer vans bringing fewer calories ...).
100% agree with Did67.

If the 20% savings are real, it is because the temperature average of the room to be heated has fallen.

The fact of decreasing the "flow" of calories has perhaps an interaction with the temperature regulation of the room. :?:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

by Ahmed » 27/11/12, 09:51

Alpha X, do not let yourself be taken down by the narrow and petty spirits that haunt this forum and are obsessed with unconditional respect for the first principle of thermodynamics or else (which amounts to the same thing) futilely wonder about the source from which may well come the surplus of calories which escape the radiators and which has not supplied by the boiler.

For my part, I find that freeing oneself from such a constraint to favor another, more satisfactory rule (less fuel oil => more heat) is quite meritorious.

However, you do not go to the end of the possibilities opened up by your product (lack of imagination?), Saving 20% ​​of fuel is playing small!

Suppose a superposition of loop exchangers inside a boiler: a simple electrical resistance in one of the exchangers would suffice for the reaction to start and then to be self-sustaining.
There is even a risk of the system racing, but it is still not this small detail that risks stopping the Turkish laboratories ...

Perhaps this logical development is already planned, in this case, I am confused to have deflowered in anticipation a marketing plan aimed at gradually preparing fundamentally home-like minds for an energy revolution of such magnitude ... : Oops:
Last edited by Ahmed the 27 / 11 / 12, 09: 54, 1 edited once.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

by Did67 » 27/11/12, 09:52

Indeed, there may be a slight influence on the finesse of the regulation ... It is easier to regulate a slower transfer ... Again, 2 or 3% savings, why not ???
0 x
Alfa-x
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 33
Registration: 27/08/12, 09:44

by Alfa-x » 27/11/12, 12:13

Alain G I agree, I had no idea that here I was going to have to deal with people much more competent than me in technical matters.

So I invited our consulting engineer to join us, which he will do shortly (Franck) and he will come to discuss it with his qualifications which far exceed mine.

In the meantime, Franck has taken up the figures from the product efficiency study carried out in a heating system school in Lokeren.

I enclose the graphics which clearly demonstrate what we are saying.

A gives the gas saving (in this case) achieved during the test period; the other shows the evolution of heat production per m³ of gas consumed as a function of time. (water in blue in red the water + x-energy mixture)

https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... gEiLxE.jpg

https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... C8UCwg.jpg

Alain G wrote:Alfa-x


It's a shame you misrepresented the product!


Nothing in studies demonstrates the heat transfer advantage except that it rises in temperature faster than water!


I partially deal with the steam boilers at the factory and I know how important it is to have flues in good condition for performance and durability and your product should promote that side instead.

Nothing in your study link proves that the water used is deoxygenated which would help the calorie transfer performance vs your product.

Although I believe that your liquid can improve the yield, you did not present it in the right aspect to convince some skeptics who doubt by ignorance!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

by Obamot » 27/11/12, 13:37

Mwouais pffff, typical, we answer next to the major objection:

Image

... because I see no correlation with the temperature data.

As already said above, if the temperature drops, consumption will inevitably drop ...

It does not appear. Point bar.

So in the absence of this data, you could not decently say that consumption would drop, since the data is missing. Because if it decreases, it is obviously not relative to an improvement in yield (or something)!

Otherwise, as Ahmed humorously suggested, you would have discovered a new type of "heat pump!" : Mrgreen: : Cheesy: the "energy revolution" is underway ... certainly!

The second graph is most interesting, because of the unlikely (I mean impossible) symmetry between the two curves:

Image

Indeed, your product having a calorimetric response different from water (H2O), the curve should necessarily mark a difference:

Image

and if we admit that it has the properties described, how on earth could we achieve such symmetry. So your graph tends on the contrary to show that there is no significant difference, so I deduce that the temperature would have dropped or another hypothesis which would arrive at the same result, that is to say that your product would not be far from l 'water. : Mrgreen: that's what we think.

NB: honestly, I would have rather seen it in the form of a Gaussian curve.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google Adsense [Bot] and 360 guests