Infrared heat

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

There are many products they try to claim they can reduce your heating costs, particularly if you are doing electric heat, but in the end they all rely on heating a smaller volume of area. Anything that plugs into the wall and creates heat is going to be equally expensive to run in terms of adding heat to an area. Doesn't really matter what kind of heat it claims to create.

Wouldn't an exception be if a device also requires a fan to move the heated air?

Also, are you saying that all types of space heaters work equally well? E.g., oil-filled radiator vs infrared. Or are you just saying that two devices with the same amps or watts are going to cost the same to run, regardless of how well they heat?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

Wouldn't an exception be if a device also requires a fan to move the heated air?

Also, are you saying that all types of space heaters work equally well? E.g., oil-filled radiator vs infrared. Or are you just saying that two devices with the same amps or watts are going to cost the same to run, regardless of how well they heat?

With the same amps and wattage... they should cost the same to run.
The difference is the conversion of that electricity to BTUs.

Think of it like a light bulb... all bulbs produce light... but some produce more heat than others. Since the purpose - generally - is to produce light; the heat is electricity being wasted.

The fan doesn't produce heat, but it does consume electricity.

The radiant heater allows you to feel warmer because the infrared radiation is projected directly at you, rather than heating the air and blowing it at you. Because of that, you may find yourself running the radiant heater on a lower wattage... thus consuming less electricity to get the same feeling of warmth.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The radiant heater allows you to feel warmer because the infrared radiation is projected directly at you, rather than heating the air and blowing it at you. Because of that, you may find yourself running the radiant heater on a lower wattage... thus consuming less electricity to get the same feeling of warmth.

Many of these "reduced cost heating" scenarios all presume the person is basically sitting still in a single room. The IR heating might be able to direct the heat in a more concentrated area, but then if you move to another area, it's going to be colder.

A more practical scenario might be to have a general heat source that heats the entire to room to something like 60 degrees, and then a secondary heat source, like an IR unit, an electric blanket, etc. that heats the person to 70 (or whatever).

[fatlazyless]

Do these 1500-watt, three setting, oil filled heaters that run on 500w-1000w-1500w have the Underwriter's Lab safety test, seal of approval for electric home appliance safety?

Same question for any portable, electric heater ...... does it have that U.L. listed, safety stamp?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Many of these "reduced cost heating" scenarios all presume the person is basically sitting still in a single room. The IR heating might be able to direct the heat in a more concentrated area, but then if you move to another area, it's going to be colder.

A more practical scenario might be to have a general heat source that heats the entire to room to something like 60 degrees, and then a secondary heat source, like an IR unit, an electric blanket, etc. that heats the person to 70 (or whatever).

Unless you move the IR.
But since for other reasons that an occupied home would need to maintain at least some basis of heat (plumbing et al), we should presume the heater would be used to increase the sensation of heat within a small area.

As long as that area did not affect the thermostat, the remainder of the house should hold that basic temperature - presumably.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Unless you move the IR.

Sure, but that isn't really a thing the typical homeowner is going to be doing. I was trying to keep it a little more high-level and relatable to common home heating scenarios so it didn't become an ad-hoc physics course

[John Mercier]

The common homeowner isn't likely to be concerned enough with the cost of heating to do so.
But one that is... is likely to do so.

It is like the high price of gasoline. It is relative.
People might not like the cost, but does it really deter them from using it in a manner that is wasteful (wasteful being a variable of perception).
I didn't notice a severe drop in boating, out-of-state license plates, or trucks on the road... so I am going to guess in most cases it was actually more an emotional than financial reaction.

Should prices really become the issue, we would see more homeowners begin to conserve through more extreme means... but I don't see it as of yet other than discussions.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

Wouldn't an exception be if a device also requires a fan to move the heated air?

Also, are you saying that all types of space heaters work equally well? E.g., oil-filled radiator vs infrared. Or are you just saying that two devices with the same amps or watts are going to cost the same to run, regardless of how well they heat?

Not quite.

What I was trying to say is that every electric heater will produce the same net amount of heat for a given amount of power consumption. An oil-filled 800W heater will produce as much heat as an 800W ceramic heater in 1 hour of operation, and will cost the same amount to run. If one has a fan, and the other does not, the one with the fan might distribute the heat more evenly, but their operational cost and net output will be the same (within a very small margin that is insignificant).

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Not quite.

What I was trying to say is that every electric heater will produce the same net amount of heat for a given amount of power consumption. An oil-filled 800W heater will produce as much heat as an 800W ceramic heater in 1 hour of operation, and will cost the same amount to run. If one has a fan, and the other does not, the one with the fan might distribute the heat more evenly, but their operational cost and net output will be the same (within a very small margin that is insignificant).

If this is true, then the various types of electric heaters are all about the same in the end.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

If this is true, then the various types of electric heaters are all about the same in the end.

Correct. Converting electricity to heat is pretty straight forward, it involves a big resistor at the core of it. You can do various things to move the heat (fan), or create things to help store and radiate the heat more slowly (oil-filled), but at the end of the day, the power usage, operational cost, and total amount of heat created will be the same for any given wattage.

Also, all electric heaters will be equally efficient, a 100W heater costs 1/10th as much to run as a 1000W heater, and it will heat the area 10 times slower. But they will both use the same amount of electricity in the end to raise the room temp by 3 degrees, for example.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Correct. Converting electricity to heat is pretty straight forward, it involves a big resistor at the core of it. You can do various things to move the heat (fan), or create things to help store and radiate the heat more slowly (oil-filled), but at the end of the day, the power usage, operational cost, and total amount of heat created will be the same for any given wattage.

Also, all electric heaters will be equally efficient, a 100W heater costs 1/10th as much to run as a 1000W heater, and it will heat the area 10 times slower. But they will both use the same amount of electricity in the end to raise the room temp by 3 degrees, for example.

IR isn't intended to raise a room's temperature: IR is designed to warm one's body. (Or many more bodies).

This is especially important when a cold north wind blasts our one-season cottage.

The cottage wasn't built (or insulated) to be heated. This isn't a "tight" dwelling. (Which has its own sets of problems). With wind, even the ample heat from our wood stove doesn't stay around for very long. An increase of only 20° above the outside temperature can be expected from wood stove heat under windy conditions. Although well-built, focused IR heat extends this dwelling's useful season into October.

Maintaining dense tree growth along the shoreline would help, but would defeat our terrific view of the Ossipee Mountains! The dense tree growth elsewhere keeps A/C use down (this summer) to only 10 minutes one night--and winter's windfalls serve to feed the wood stove. (And don't bother to split the wood).

One drawback to IR is some aging of exposed skin may be experienced:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...87002415305049

[John Mercier]

Why would it ''age'' your skin?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

You can disagree all you want, but 800 watts is 800 watts. You'll be warmer if you move your resistive heater closer to you. They are not efficient ways to heat your home.

The infrared heater is not designed to heat one's home. It's designed to efficiently heat one or more individuals. (And any local errant objects that can retain IR heat).

You leave the comfort of your infrared heater and hurry to put another log on the fire.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Why would it ''age'' your skin?

At the bottom of the supplied link, this conclusion:

Heat induces oxidative DNA damage in human skin in vivo

UV radiation is absorbed directly by DNA and leads to the formation of pyrimidine dimers, of which more than 75% are thymine dimers (Patrick, 1977). UV radiation produces ROS. DNA is also susceptible to oxidative damage, and 8-oxo-dG is a useful biomarker of oxidative damage in DNA (Pelle et al., 2003). As heat shock in human skin can produce ROS, we investigated the effects of heat shock on DNA damage in human skin in vivo.

Interestingly, heat shock at 43°C for 90 minutes, like UV irradiation, increased the 8-oxo-dG in the epidermis and dermis of human skin in vivo maximally at 24 hours post-heat (Figure 1a). However, heat shock, unlike UV, did not produce thymidine dimer formation (Figure 1b).
Therefore, heat-induced ROS induce cumulative DNA damage through oxidative damage.

Like UV radiation, IR-radiated heat induces aging of exposed skin. (According to this study).

(ROS=reactive oxygen species).

Like most papers at Elsevier, the link is "heavy reading"--and IR skin damage is still being studied.