Poll: Heating Concepts

[JohnW2]

WOW four votes, as many as that? I think all it confirms, is that more people than I would expect, don't understand basic physics.

I don't really understand the small number of votes. A number of people (like yourself) have written fairly clear assertions in this discussion, but seem to have been for some reason 'frightened' to vote (or 'frightened' for their vote to be seen?) - even though there were "don't know" and "it depends" responses available.

John - if you really want to know for certain, then set up the simple experiment I described. There is a perfectly valid reason why the Willis is designed the way it is, to act as a sort of pump.

I've been very busy recently, and that's likely to persist for a while, but as soon as I have got a bit of time I do intend to conduct some experiments, but somewhat more complex than you suggested - so 'watch this space' (but be prepared to be a little patient!)

 

[ebee]

Good, it would be nice toget to the bottom of it. or should I say, become more informed, all of us.
I am surprised that many people expressed opinions but yet did not vote (unless like me made a mistake) , those ascertains 9whether I agree with them or not) should be there in the vote ideally so we can judge an outcome.
Personally I have no objection to my vote being seen even if I turn out to be totally wrong.
Every opinion counts it really does, whichever flavour, it is important.

I would rather I be proved wrong than nothing proved at all.

 

[blup]

An immersion heater will heat water below it by conduction, but the tank will have exploded (steam/thermal expansion) or cut out at the fuse first.

 

[JohnW2]

An immersion heater will heat water below it by conduction, but the tank will have exploded (steam/thermal expansion) or cut out at the fuse first.

That's my view - but not everyone seems to agree. I reckon that effectively makes you another 'No' vote which did not get cast

 

[JohnW2]

Good, it would be nice toget to the bottom of it. or should I say, become more informed, all of us.

As I said, I hope to be able to achieve that, in due course.

I am surprised that many people expressed opinions but yet did not vote (unless like me made a mistake)

Quite so. As I wrote, they seemed to be 'frightened to vote' and/or 'frightened for their vote to be seen', but I don't understand why that would have been the case!

I would rather I be proved wrong than nothing proved at all.

Quite so.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

An immersion heater will heat water below it by conduction, but the tank will have exploded (steam/thermal expansion) or cut out at the fuse first.

Or, the heated water might just do what hot would naturally does, and rise out the top, at the same time drawing cooler water in from the bottom.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are you overlooking the fact that what happens depends on where the thermostat is.

Edit - meant for John.

 

[ebee]

Yes it could be Harry

Yet again it could just be that water at the top would be hotter and again water at the bottom would be cooler in the whole tank (The Willis) so the average temp is hotter and the extremes are hotter and cooler in comparison with that new average figure.

Certainly an interesting experiment if done properly with a few sensors.
We might all learn from it.

 

[JohnW2]

Are you overlooking the fact that what happens depends on where the thermostat is.
Edit - meant for John.

I said very early on that everything we've been discussing (particularly the Willis system) is crucially dependent upon the location of the thermostat.

The Willis system appears to use standard immersions (with 'built in' thermostats') which I would have thought would dictate a lot of the behaviour.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I said very early on that everything we've been discussing (particularly the Willis system) is crucially dependent upon the location of the thermostat.

No - particularly in the immersion cylinder; not the Willis

The Willis system appears to use standard immersions (with 'built in' thermostats') which I would have thought would dictate a lot of the behaviour.

Yes, but it is half way up a chamber supplied from the coolest water in bottom of the cylinder.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The Willis system appears to use standard immersions (with 'built in' thermostats') which I would have thought would dictate a lot of the behaviour.

Only to limit the overall temperature in the Willis compartment - other means of controlling the overall amount of heated water generated, can be added to the main cylinder.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Only to limit the overall temperature in the Willis compartment - other means of controlling the overall amount of heated water generated, can be added to the main cylinder.

As it is done with normal heating of cylinders.

 

[JohnW2]

... There is a perfectly valid reason why the Willis is designed the way it is, to act as a sort of pump.

... Or, the heated water might just do what hot would naturally does, and rise out the top, at the same time drawing cooler water in from the bottom.

As you will understand, that's where I am uncertain/sceptical, and the reason why I need to do the experiments.

At first sight, I would expect the heated water to rise to the top of the 'column' of water that already existed, with the level of the top of that 'column' only rising very slightly because of 'expansion' (lower density of heated water) - i.e. I would not expect it to 'pump out' and need to be replaced with cold water from below. Anyway, we'll see ('in due course' )

 

[ebee]

At first sight, I would expect the heated water to rise to the top of the 'column' of water that already existed, with the level of the top of that 'column' only rising very slightly because of 'expansion' (lower density of heated water) - i.e. I would not expect it to 'pump out' and need to be replaced with cold water from below. Anyway, we'll see ('in due course' )

That is my thinking too, however I am ready to discover we might not be correct and I still interested in the outcome either way.

It might be a "Kickself Question" as Clive Sinclair and that Russian chap (honary life President of MENSA or sommesuch) used to call them, a question so difficult it was impoosible to solve yet once you did the answer was so simple you felt you wanted to kick yourself for not realising it.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

At first sight, I would expect the heated water to rise to the top of the 'column' of water that already existed, with the level of the top of that 'column' only rising very slightly because of 'expansion' (lower density of heated water) - i.e. I would not expect it to 'pump out' and need to be replaced with cold water from below. Anyway, we'll see ('in due course' )

That is my thinking too, however I am ready to discover we might not be correct and I still interested in the outcome either way.

Consider this - The Willis system would not function at all, unless it did. It obviously therefore must, or no one would install one, ever.