raf696
Harmless
Posts: 2
Registered: 8-10-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
what gives of more energy in a form of heat, one burner on high, or two on low?
what gives of more energy in a form of heat, one burner on high, or two on low?
It's most likely a simple question for you guys, but for me it is very... immediate.
As you can figure out, we can't afford to pay our heating bills, so the only thing we can do is to heat our home with a gas stove (since we pay per
person not by usage... yeah... it has come to that... either we freeze to death, or we stop give a f*#k about natural resources).
So... once again can you tell me what will give out more heat one burner on, on high, or two burners on low?
And secondly, can you tell me what is the gas consumption.... I mean... I already sleep in two pairs of pants and two sweaters, but what I mean is...
how much more gas do we spend lightng two burners... I mean, what's the equation for the fue/heat ratio?(i still would like to be resource-friendly)
Please be specific, because my chemi/fisics knowledge is quite limited.
First part of my question is more needed.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
As long as the gas burns completely, heat is heat, and the amount depends exactly on how much gas you burn.
I don't know how much lower "low" is compared to "high", but I can guarantee you two burners on "high" will put out double the power of one.
If you can't afford basic necessities such as heat, you should consider applying for a government welfare program.
Tim
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Two versus one doesn't matter, it's all about the amount of gas burned. In general I'd assume that one burner on high will generate a lot more heat
than two on low. If you are trying to conserve, I would use the burner to heat something that will then give off the heat gradually, as that will
reduce the tendency of your heat to just go to the ceiling as hot air.
However, it sounds like your problems are not something that can be resolved by minor optimization and I hope you can find a more complete solution.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
raf696, sorry to hear about your current situation.
Have you tired talking to the utilities and any government Energy Office? In my area there are several programs to help people pay utility bills.
One of them lets customers add a few dollars extra when they pay their bill, and that goes into a fund to help those who need it.
Also be mindful of potential carbon monoxide buildup if you run those burners 24/7 without any ventilation. A carbon monoxide detector would be
advisable, but I realize that they aren't giving those away either. Best of luck!
|
|
|
User
Hazard to Others
Posts: 339
Registered: 7-11-2008
Location: Earth
Member Is Offline
Mood: Passionate
|
|
Maybe somekind of buffer would improve saving gas (bit unsure but let me explain)
One could place lets say a dense object such as a big stone or a block of metal on top of the stove.
When the gas is turned off it would still keep distributing heat for a couple of hours thus saving gas.
I think this would be more efficient than the hot air which quickly fades.
Bit of the same principle as keeping a fridge full of water versus an empty one.
Just a mindspin, can someone back me up or correct me.
Regards.
What a fine day for chemistry this is.
|
|
|
Swede
Hazard to Others
Posts: 491
Registered: 4-9-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A lot of the heat just might disappear up a vent or hood over the stove, even with the suction motor turned off. I'd perhaps attempt placing a
section of stainless steel mesh at an oblique angle to the flames. It'll glow red, and the infrared radiation from the screen just might heat the
room better.
If you look at the little propane bottle heaters for camping, etc, the heat comes from the screen, not a naked gas flame.
|
|
|
bquirky
Hazard to Others
Posts: 316
Registered: 22-10-2008
Location: Perth Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
there may be some safety issues with sleeping next to a running stove with its vents blocked off.
I know people have died sleeping in cars that had gas fridges.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
They will find him dead anyway, just another tragedy. As well the most inefficient way to go for gas. If we assume life is important he will have 2
windows at opposite ends of home open 1/4" minimum. The heat lost in this way will make his gas use much greater. Yet its pay or die as the need for
airflow to offset the CO is critical. Having lived in -40 typical winters for a decade I do understand staying warm and alive. He needs a ceramic
heater using catalytic screen to shift the balance back to CO2 production. Heat will go up, gas use will go down, in the end he will pay for the
heater with the decrease in gas use. Of course I do not know if he is talking LP or propane in a tank outside, or natural gas from a city main. I am
sure it makes a difference in answering his question.
Some air is still needed as CO2 obviously suffocates but the critical thing is the blood stays clear of CO which blood cell by cell kills since the
red blood cell takes longer than survival allows to break the CO bond, (usually killing the cells anyway). All the considerations about volume of gas
used VS BTU's produced need to consider catalytic combustion as opposed to the terribly inefficient burn from the open flame on the range. Not to
mention the increase in fire safety. Living in Montana for years taught me coal was good, or an oil furnace running on #1 diesel was a hell of a lot
cheaper and safer. Just do burn coal in wood stove you need a special bed or it will burn right through the bottom burning down the house.
Having lost a house full of everything and starting over in one state with gas furnace and nearly dying from CO twice years later in other locations -
again gas heat (burn chamber had crack pumping CO into air ducts in one incident and even sneakier was one house where the vent did not go high enough
above the roof causing exaust from furnace to pump back down into house from strong wind with a roof of just the right slope to aid the backflow)
taught me gas sucks unless it is a catalytic type. I've done that also, had one place where 3 rooms had these ceramic heaters mounted in wall, toasty
yet fairly cheap.
Not finding during those years good sensors on the market I bought some sensors for various gasses from Figaro, designed and built my own detection
system and it worked well. Used a relay output to kill the 24 VAC if CO rose too high shutting down the furnace and sounding alarm. Never had to rely
on it as future places never had problems, but it sure would have saved me from weeks of illness over the cracked gas furnace episode. At least I was
just under the CO level which would have needed massive transfusions to save me. I have heard of other incidents where not even blood transfusions
could save people which sure makes those 20$ Wallmart CO detectors look good to own. I strongly suggest you buy one.
To the question I imagine two on low will at least burn cleaner and waste less gas than one blasting away. Being a cold winter I sure wish that
imaginary global warming would get here sooner.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"Just do burn coal in wood stove you need a special bed"
Just caught that in my post but too late to edit. Somehow my brain skipped over the word "not". The point is still made fire danger but thought
correction is needed. Coal stoves have beds designed for the far greater temperatures than wood, and remembering a MT tragedy caused by such a mistake
prompted that sentence.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
