[Greenbuilding] infrared heaters

[sanjay jain]

While I generally dislike the marketing industry, not because they are bad people, they're only doing what they're motivated to do...

BUT - in this case, can we not say efficiency is comfort, rather than heat generation? If the heater uses less energy for you to be comfortable it is more efficient than a conventional heater.

~sanjay

"Russell, Richard" <Richard.Russell at shawgrp.com> wrote: Let's be careful to distinguish between "efficiency" and short-term
perceived comfort. If either type of heater is within the building
envelope, then both will be essentially 100% efficient at converting
electrical energy coming in to heat. The infrared, if designed properly,
might be better at distributing that heat within the room evenly,
particularly if the other is a baseboard unit that both radiates heat
away from the wall where it is mounted and heats up air local to it,
resulting in some convective transport to other parts of the room.
Whatever surface faces a radiating source will absorb heat and start to
warm up. Your skin facing the source will feel warmer, so you might
conceivably feel warmer at a lower average room temperature, while
letting other rooms remain at a lower temperature and thus lose less
heat through the building envelope.

On the other hand, if either type of heater is the sole means of
replacing heat lost through the building envelope to maintain some
constant indoor temperature, then both types will use the same amount of
electric power. Arguably the infrared unit could use more if it radiates
a lot of energy straight out the windows.

Dick Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin
Pratt
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:33 PM
Subject: [Greenbuilding] infrared heaters

One of my students was trying to convince me that infrared electric
heaters are much more efficient than typical electric heat. Without
researching it, I'm thinking, how can it be more efficient than 99
percent?

Save me the time of researching it--what do you all think?
****Internet Email Confidentiality Footer****
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this
message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or
responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may
not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you
should destroy this message and notify the sender by reply email.
Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to
Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and
other information in this message that do not relate to the
official business of The Shaw Group Inc. or its subsidiaries shall
be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
______________________________________ The Shaw Group Inc.
http://www.shawgrp.com  

_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding email list
     Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building elements
List info: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
      publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec
Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
To get on the list:
  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
To get off the list:
  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.