Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.10378170 [View]
File: 28 KB, 1020x709, apt temps.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10378170

tl;dr turning your heating off is a retarded meme.

I simulated my apartment as a cubic meter of water and assumed that (using some insulator ABC) that it takes 1 hour 50 minutes for the cube to lose 2 degrees celsius, by which time the thermostat will feel the cold and engage the heating (desired temp 21 C, so it fluctuates between 22 and 20 C, because of hysteresis, etc).

My "alpha cycle" is a regular heating engagement lasting 10 minutes and introducing the necessary energy to go back to 22 C from 20 C. This cycle costs 8.4 MJ.

My "beta cycle" is a more powerful heating engagement lasting 10 minutes and introducing the necessary energy to go from 18 C to 22 C, as would be the case if you "turned the heating down" during the day/sleeping. This cycle costs 16.8 MJ, but is performed less often.

In the (top) constant heating scenario, 12 alpha cycles and 0 beta cycles are performed daily, amounting to 100.8 MJ of energy per day.

In the (bottom) intermittent heating scenario, 8 alpha cycles and 2 beta cycles are performed daily, amounting to 100.8 MJ of energy per day.

Even if the heating is turned down, the thermostat will eventually kick on to maintain the lower temperature (meaning it is compensating heat loss anyway), and will be turned up for the more "comfortable" energy while I am at home. My daily energy deficit is the same, no matter which temperature I choose to live at, since I have to maintain the heat in my apartment.



Navigation
View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]