Leaderboard

Maybe it's just me but i wouldn't rip anybody a new A$$hole. They didn't package anything, they just sold it.

What a load of guff is written here about heat loss and economy. Far too many people with “ notions “ about heat loss and thermodynamics based on their emotional approach rather than a scientific one. The question is which is the most economic use, not what brings the biggest savings or usage benefits so let’s not cloud the waters. it s a matter of scientific fact that not heating something uses less energy than heating something. The economics are basic no mater what your source of heat is. There are currently 4 laws of thermodynamics, but the one concerning us here is regarding heat loss of an object at a given temperature. This is proportional to the temperature. Simply put, the hotter the item, the faster the heat will be lost (the insulation values always remain the same in the case of a hot tub) so it is simple to show that constantly maintaining a higher heat will cause more heat to be lost over the same given time as maintaining a lower temperature. This equates to “ more expensive” The energy required in raising an object to a set temperature must also be compared to the energy used in maintaining a set higher temperature and the savings made during the cool down period. As a wise Scotsman once said “Ye canny beat the laws of physics” So please ignore all the anecdotal and notional evidence promoted here. If the opposite was true, then we would have the Holly Grail of physics “Free Energy” which would mean that perpetual motion machines could exist. If you still disagree, I would be seriously looking at your education system.

???? Water will heat at the same rate (degrees per hour) if you put the same kW into it, regardless of the water temp. Confusion seems to be that peopel think, "well if you let the water cool to from 100 to 90 it's going to take 2 hours of heating to bring it back up to 100". What people don't realize, is that if you maintained the temp at 100, the heater will need to run MORE than 2 hours to do so.

Very reasonable analogy, except for one thing. If you apply Neutons law to it, when the bucket is full, it will be leaking out the bottom faster, than when it's less than full. Think of it like, as the water level drops, and there's less pressure on the bottom of the bucket, it will be leaking slower. The further the water level drops, the slow the water will leak out.

The utility company is dead wrong if they say maintaining a constant temp uses less energy. The only way that would be possible is if the operating components and heater are somehow more efficient at 100F than a lesser temperature. Better enough to offset the energy savings. If this were really the case then there would be no reason to have a home thermostat on a timer unless you wanted to vary the temp during the day to suit your own personal requirements.

It actually depends on the laws of physics. Not if it's gas or electric. Now if y'all can change the universes laws of physics go right ahead.

Heat travels from hot to cold. The greater the temperature difference the faster the transfer. As your spa cools, it will lose less heat (fewer BTU's) per minute or hour. e.g at 100 degrees it will be losing more heat per hour than at 90 degrees. Neutons law of cooling : The greater the temperature difference the faster the heat exchange. Assuming you heat your spa to 100 degrees, and it cools to 90 degrees when you turn on the heat... The system will need to run for less time to bring the temp back up to 100 than it would if it continually kept the water at 100 degrees.... But as Roger said, you're probably only saving pennies a month doing this.