Infrared heat

[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.