The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What Is More Efficient..low heat & high speed...high heat & Low speed ?  (Read 5181 times)

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Dear Sirs, Madams, Not-Sure's,


See my fan heater ?



Nice eh ?...being delivered on Tuesday !

It's only going to be used in a small room so, what will be the best setting ?

Low speed but high heat ?....or low heat and fast speed ?

Does it make any difference ? (except for the noise)


I really wish I knew......I may cry myself to sleep if I don't find out !!



 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Lower heat, faster speed. The power used by the coil is several orders of magnitude greater than the fan. Find out what is the least level of heat to keep you comfortable and the highest amount of fan speed that doesn't drive you nuts or blow your papers all over the place.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Lower heat, faster speed. The power used by the coil is several orders of magnitude greater than the fan. Find out what is the least level of heat to keep you comfortable and the highest amount of fan speed that doesn't drive you nuts or blow your papers all over the place.


Thank you Jim.

 This is excellent news. Funny you should mention 'nuts '...as I shall indeed be drying those in front of it too !!....(not too close of course...that would be silly and wrong and I don't want to cook my nuts)
 

lyner

  • Guest
If  you start with a cold room and you need it to be warmed up to a comfortable level then the most efficient way to supply heat is at high power. The room will be losing heat as soon as you start any heater so it is better that you are actually in the room whilst it is warm. As soon as you leave the room, turn the heater off. This way you will lose the least amount of  heat for a given time of 'comfortable occupancy'.
There are, of course, other factors. If the room is very high then you  risk wasting a lot of hot air near the ceiling (losing heat and not keeping you warm), in which case, you may be better off with a lot of fan power to stir it all up.
But we all know about hot air on these forums. . .
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
2000 Watts is 2000 Watts and will heat up a room however it is produced  but  a fan heater heats  up room move evenly and 'apparently' more quickly.   1000 Watts will not reach the same temperature.

A non-fan heater tends to very hot close to it but cooler well away from it. 

 

lyner

  • Guest
Many rooms would get too hot with a 2kW heater  running continuously. A thermostat would turn the heater off when appropriate. My argument is that the higher power could actually involve less loss  because of the greater lag in pre-warming the room with a smaller heater .
Of course, if you want to 'feel' warm very quickly,  a battery of radiant heaters can be very effective in some applications. For a broad source of radiant heat, the inverse square law doesn't apply.  The effect is more or less instant and, for a brief stay in the room, is good value as it doesn't involve heating the air or room contents, much.
It's a matter of horses for courses.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums