Plug tops / Plug caps?

[JohnW2]

I‘ve been told furnaces in the US heat air while boilers heat water.

I don't think so. If I understand correctly, things that we would call CH boilers appear to be called 'furnaces' over there.

 

[Echo the husky]

I have this very old NOS MK plug and socket. Even back then they are calling it a socket and plug.

 

[plugwash]

I don't think so. If I understand correctly, things that we would call CH boilers appear to be called 'furnaces' over there.

I don't know what americans would call what we call a "boiler".

But afaict "wet" central heating systems like we use in the UK are unusual in the USA. Americans tend towards "central air" systems, where heated or cooled air is pumped around the house. The "furnace" is the component of the "central air" system that heats the air.

 

[SUNRAY]

The French have plug sockets, the part connected to the appliance has a socket for the earth pin, but the lives plug into the wall plug socket. So since both parts can be given the name of either plug or socket, it seems to make sense to have some unambiguous name.

Plocket, Plet, Soug, socklug. Perhaps a matching pair should be Soug and Guos? they both sound a little French.

We however, have a whole host of names which don't seem to make sense. Boiler for an item which, if it boils water, is considered faulty, the USA furnace does seem a better name.

Is a furnace the best possible furn?

 

[SUNRAY]

I must admit that I was brung up with the saying "Bulbs go in gardens and lamps go in lampholders"

Werrll I were brunged up nowin':

A lamp was a fitting for the purpose of generating/emitting light

In a lamp there is:

1, A gas mantle,

or

2, A wick dipped in an oil supply,

or

3, A candle,

or

4, A bulbholder containing a bulb.

It seems that some dictionaries agree too:

Shops used to sell bulb holders

ok some of those are (in my mind incorrectly) described as lamp holders.


Shops used to sell bulbs

I dare say some of those are also (in my mind incorrectly) described as lamps.

And of course I've already shown shops used to sell lamps, see 1-4 above.

also plugs plug into a socket

That is how I understand it too


And that is what will always be my troth

 

[JohnW2]

.... But afaict "wet" central heating systems like we use in the UK are unusual in the USA. Americans tend towards "central air" systems, where heated or cooled air is pumped around the house. The "furnace" is the component of the "central air" system that heats the air.

Yes, I totally agree with all that, but ....

I don't know what americans would call what we call a "boiler".

The US terminology seems a bit confused/confusing, such that I didn't know the answer to that, so I consulted Mr Wikipedia and if what he says is true, then it seems that they may well call that a "furnace" as well ... (with my emboldening) ....

Buildings​

• Furnace (central heating): a furnace, or a heater or boiler, used to generate heat for buildings
• Boiler, used to heat water; also called a furnace in American English when used for heating and hot water in a building

 

[SUNRAY]

Yes, I totally agree with all that, but ....

The US terminology seems a bit confused/confusing, such that I didn't know the answer to that, so I consulted Mr Wikipedia and if what he says is true, then it seems that they may well call that a "furnace" as well ... (with my emboldening) ....

Buildings​

• Furnace (central heating): a furnace, or a heater or boiler, used to generate heat for buildings
• Boiler, used to heat water; also called a furnace in American English when used for heating and hot water in a building

That is my experience, however if my understanding is correct their wet system are - or possibly were - more commonly steam powered and their radiators were in the early days mounted high up.

 

[JohnW2]

That is my experience, however if my understanding is correct their wet system are - or possibly were - more commonly steam powered and their radiators were in the early days mounted high up.

I don't know, so you may well be right.

However, it certainly is my understanding that any for of 'wet' central heating is/was fairly uncommon over there. I can see that might make some sense. Since the ultimate aim is to heat the air within a building, it would seem reasonable, possibly 'better', to heat air directly, rather than a heated water/steam. However, the 'dry' systems presumably are'more demanding' in terms of infrastructure requirements, and hence are probably only really sensible in relation to 'new builds'?

 

[ericmark]

My first house was hot air, ducts took air around the house, and vents in the doors allowed it to return. Yes it heated the house very fast, but it also cooled fast, and cost a fortune to run.

 

[JohnW2]

My first house was hot air, ducts took air around the house, and vents in the doors allowed it to return. Yes it heated the house very fast, but it also cooled fast, and cost a fortune to run.

Interesting, but I don't fully understand the reasons for what you say ...

1... Why did the house cool any faster than when the primary heating was of 'room air' by, say, wet radiators?

2... In comparison with what did it 'cost a fortune to run'? Again, whether a ducted hot air or 'wet radiators' system, the primary heating of the house is achieved by heating the air within the rooms, with that eventually going on to heat the fabric and contents of the room - so I don't see why the energy requirements should be appreciably different.
The cost might, of course, differ if one were talking of different fuels or different 'conversion efficiencies'.

 

[SUNRAY]

My first house was hot air, ducts took air around the house, and vents in the doors allowed it to return. Yes it heated the house very fast, but it also cooled fast, and cost a fortune to run.

The strange thing is one of the things going through my head was the number of warm air systems I assisted replacing back in 70's/80's and all for the reasons you quote. The other benefit of replacing them was the huge spaces they occupied came in handy for other uses. In particular my sisters first house, the stairs were in the dining room and the cupboard containing the heater was directly ahead of the stairs, and the cupboard door fouled on the carpet when new stair carpet fitted (just indicating distance) after removing the heater and boarding the floor the intention was to use the cupboard as storage. However the alternative action of removing the cupboard required a couple (in your terms) of sq yds of parquet flooring.
The reality of changing from gas fired warm air to gas fired radiators resulted in:
1, No drafts
2, More stable temperature control around the house
3, Consistant temperature, without the warm, cold, warm, cold cycling
4, lower gas bills
5, much bigger dining room

One of the points which is overlooked with thermostatic warm air (as opposed to modulated) is when the warm air stops the space is immediately cooling wheras a warm radiator provides hysteresis in the same way as a fan heater Vs oil filled radiator. Yes wet takes a little longer to warm up but that's the only con, after that it's all pro's. Another pro being the lack of massive ducts meandering around the house.

A work colleague refitted his kitchen, the space previously occupied by the heater was used for a big upright fridge/freezer and washing machine with the new wallmounted boiler above it.