Enegy Efficiency

[The Truth about Spas]

I just want to know which spa manufacturers actually have an unbiased company test for energy effeciency.

If so, please lead us to the source.

Thank you

[Atali Awa]

Arctic provided me with an independant Canadian study. I purchased one in Nov 06 and the energy usage has been lower than expected... The problem is, the jets are failing at an alarming rate. In 4.5 months, I've had more than 80 failures. Arctic and the dealer are giving me the run around. If you have not purchased a spa yet, whatever you do, don't buy an Arctic.

[Eazy-E]

Arctic is a very good reputable brand, thats why they are one of the few spa search certified. Sometimes people cause their own problems, which is what the case is in this situation above^^^. Don't use Baqua spa chemical and your problems are solved.

[Jim_The_Jim]

I just want to know which spa manufacturers actually have an unbiased company test for energy effeciency.

If so, please lead us to the source.

Thank you

There have been three independent tests side by side of full foam against thermal closed, and the full foam always looses.

This is a well known fact with the spa industry.

[Trigger]

There have been three independent tests side by side of full foam against thermal closed, and the full foam always looses.

This is a well known fact with the spa industry.

http://www.selberg.org/~speed/erik_journal.html

Actually, that's wrong. (and you know it).

One test was not "independent" it was initiated and paid for by a hot tub company that promotes thermal design.

And nothing was oncluded that full foam always looses. It made suggestings that thermal was a "better" design, as it *attempted* to recover waste heat, Better as in greener, (not necesary for manufactuarbilty, design, reliablity, or anthything remotely comming close to suggesting it was superior in engineering. Espically so with energ. If you read rhe reports FULLY and understand WHY they were conducted,you'd understand.

As far as energy efficeny between like tubs it was absolutely inconclusive. Even the folks who paid for the tests will tell you that.

You are wrong, please go read the research again, and please correct your post.

[thestallion]

There have been three independent tests side by side of full foam against thermal closed, and the full foam always looses.

This is a well known fact with the spa industry.

Actually I know of tests that were paid for by one of the largest TP makers and the reason it was not published was how poorly it did compared to the full foam spas it was tested against. There are circumstances where each does out-perform the other. But any of the better built spas of either type will cost "about" the same to run each month.

[Tom]

Whee, here we go with another FF/TP round!!

<<One test was not "independent" it was initiated and paid for by a hot tub company that promotes thermal design. >>

Hey, that was us! True, we footed the bill. But the study was independent in that it was conducted at arms length by a reputable government test agency. They purchased "off the shelf" spas (including ours), ran the tests, and reported the results.

<<And nothing was concluded that full foam always looses.>>

Yes, that statement does exceed the conclusions of the study, which were

1. "Energy consumption significantly increases when air temperature [decreases]." (Kind of obvious)

2. "As an indicator of thermal performance, tests performed at low temperature are more suitable." (which is why we think the CEC test standard of 60F is too high)

3. "Power consumption for steady state is influenced mainly by the overall spa thermal insulation" (again, obvious)

4. "It is beneficial to the overall thermal efficiency of the system if some of the heat generated by the pump/motor can be retained in the system [to] contribute to the heating efficiency." (Kind of them to notice)

<<As far as energy efficiency between like tubs it was absolutely inconclusive. Even the folks who paid for the tests will tell you that.>>

We certainly wouldn't tell you that! The numbers are definitely in our favor. Although two of the top four performers at the sub-zero temperature were full-foam, still the Arctics beat them both.

Thanks, Trig, I needed the break.

[Trigger]

ah...never mind.

[Jim_The_Jim]

ah...never mind.

The Tong and Rogers Report from the universities of Arizona and Colorado:

Independent studies done by two universities ( Colorado and Arizona State Universities 1996) have found that using the waste heat generated by the equipment and transferring it into the spa's water is more efficient than filling the spa's cabinet with foam. Here is an excerpt from the report. "a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

This is so obvious to any real engineer. It is certainly obvous in the Alberta test, since the Arctic cost less with bigger equipment.

[Trigger]

The Tong and Rogers Report from the universities of Arizona and Colorado:

Independent studies done by two universities ( Colorado and Arizona State Universities 1996) have found that using the waste heat generated by the equipment and transferring it into the spa's water is more efficient than filling the spa's cabinet with foam. Here is an excerpt from the report. "a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

This is so obvious to any real engineer. It is certainly obvous in the Alberta test, since the Arctic cost less with bigger equipment.

See Jimmy, this is where you always get confused.

You cherry pick statements and then paraphrase what you think it means. It's not what "real engineers" do. It's what wannabes and fools do. You are notorious for it. It's misleading and foolish.

I'd like to see the full report and statement, (can't find it on line. if you have a pointer, please provide. It seems this is a mystery report...).

Anyhow:

your favorite quote #1:

"A fully insulated spa makes no attempt to recover waste heat. "

For the discussions of aggregrate insulation we will say "Absolutely". But FF tubs do recover heat for some applications.

But....what does that mean? It means the passive insulating method of full foam does not rely or need the heat from the pumps. In other words, what that quote is saying is; a Full foam tub does not need to generate heat to maintain its ability to insulate.

That's it.

Not good. Not bad. Just that's it.

Since you are biased, you see that statement as a pejorative remark to Full Foam. It isn't. It's a neutral statement of conditions. <--- that's a key statement. Let's repeat that because it's critical. You are biased. You see that statement as a pejorative remark to Full Foam. It isn't. It's a neutral statement of conditions.

Do you understand?

Here we go with your next statement you quoted....

"...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

My questions: How is it "superior"? Superior is an adjective. Without qualifiers on what "superior" consist of, the remark is commentary. When ever you spout it, all I can think of is the cheesy TV commercials that make statements like "The Ronco sure grip knife is superior to any other knife without the sure grip!" Anyone with an understanding of advertising knows that statement is legally true, but also BS. The fact that I read this quote in a so called "Study" is suspicious.

Jim just where did you get this report? Did you have to save up cereal box tops to get it?

Anyhow, to indulge you let's assume we are talking about R values and cost to maintain and operate, as that's what most of us think of. (We’ll assume FF and TP are equal to control, maintain, as well as in reliability, even though these are really negatives for Thermal). Shall we? The final efficiencies of the thermal design are dependent on the heat from the pumps, the cabinets insulating ability and its integrity, the ambient weather conditions as well as water surface area, and amount of use. This is why the reports you always tout carry little to no weight. At the very best they are "suggestive" but they are not conclusive. There are some tubs out there that use a thermal design and are not superior (in insulation abilities, or cost to run) to full foam tubs. In fact they are absolutely horrendous when talking about energy efficiency. Reread that last line and then think about your statements you are quoting.

These two statements you quoted are strange. Espically so when you play the "Engineering" card. I would very much like to review the report and understand who Tong and Rogers are. These two posts are "off" as far as being engineering statements. Perhaps you just picked the wrong items to quote.But if you are going to reference this report, please provide a link. (Like "real" engineers do.)

We've been through this a million times and the variables and conditions are far more than what the report captures and cannot be used as a blanket statement like you want to. Even with the data in the Alberta report the insulating covers played a huge role in that. You know all that, but you continue to ignore it to promote your own desires. In engineering that's a mortal sin.

Do you see how your biased opinion influences what you read and how you try to present it? Do you see how the quotes you picked don't represent anything substantial, yet you try to position them together to make a point you want to believe?

I doubt that you do understand, but please don't make claims what "real engineers do". If you ever get a degree, you can start to think about it, but don't tell us what real engineers do, or don't do. You don't have the qualifications to even make a statement like that. Please, go back to rubbing the backs of little old ladies to make a living.

Now, on the topic of insulation and costs, do you want to look at the data you provide to your customers and label on your site as "energy reports" and hold that up to your "engineering standards" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ??? That's something we can actually talk about and refer to an actual product. We both know it's a joke, but it's what YOU post. And what YOU use in marketing your product. Do you want to take a look at that, Mr. Engineer?

Do you?

[Dr. Spa]

Hey trig. is your mailbox here full? I cant PM you

[Trigger]

Hey trig. is your mailbox here full? I cant PM you

Fixed it Doc. I'm open for PM's.

[Tom]

The Tong and Rogers Report from the universities of Arizona and Colorado:

Independent studies done by two universities ( Colorado and Arizona State Universities 1996)

Jim,

I'd really appreciate having a copy of that report. I can't find it online (not even on your site), and neither university has been able to track it down. Please scan it and post it on your site so we can all read it.

Thanks

Tom

[Trigger]

Jim,

I'd really appreciate having a copy of that report. I can't find it online (not even on your site), and neither university has been able to track it down. Please scan it and post it on your site so we can all read it.

Thanks

Tom

Oh I am sure Mr Arjuna can provide us with a copy of the report. After all he cites it in his "studies" in his self proclaimed "articles" and in his Marketing. I'm SURE he will be by here any moment .

[Eazy-E]

Wow Trigger. You sure like to pick apart Jims' posts and try to talk all big and smart, and even talk about him needing to get a degree. Just curious, what school did you go to?? I'll need to let them know that they need to teach their students to spell better than you do. Might try using spell checker!!

Don't take offense to this. I just thought that it was funny how you were trying to talk all big and use big words and many of them were spelled wrong.

[Trigger]

I appologize for the spelling. There is no excuse. I corrected it.

What words were too "big" for you?

I can use smaller words, if you prefer.

[Jim_The_Jim]

Oh I am sure Mr Arjuna can provide us with a copy of the report. After all he cites it in his "studies" in his self proclaimed "articles" and in his Marketing. I'm SURE he will be by here any moment .

Because of the fact that this forum is run by Hot Spring sales people, I am putting a copy of this post on our forum.

If you take someone who has a degree, most of the time they don't know how insulation works either. This is because the universities do not teach how foam works. They only teach how to use insulation in formulas, not how it works. If you research and read a lot of books on thermodynamics you can find out how it works. Egotistical people often get really angry with me, because I point out that they don't have understand simple scientific principles used in insulation. Most people do not, because it is not what they are interested in and it is not taught in college or universities. This is what I do, so I know what I am talking about. It has been proven in all my testing and in three independent tests.

Instead of talking about spas, they use personal insults, and I am pretty used to it. I just don't like people who insult my family, harm my family by their hate. I really dislike people who insult my beautiful, loving and kind wife. I find it interesting that any forum would put up with continual rule breakers on the forum. I don't allow it at all on our forum.

According to Jon Watkins, the originator of Hot Spring, from an article in the San Diego newspaper in 1988 he stated that the reason for the '"rovel" and full foam was to avoid the use of fiberglass. That is fact, I have copies of the article as well. I got them from a Hot Spring sales manual. The foam is used to hold up a single sheet of plastic. The "insulation" part was secondary, and especially in Southern California where it never gets cold. Back then it was the best they could come up with, because better ways of using fiberglass and acrylic had not been perfected until about 1991. The thermally closed was first engineered by Coleman engineers in 1993 and 1994. They did it because it is the most effective way to insulate.

Egotistical Men often don't like me, because of my advanced knowledge in many things of this earth. They will start with the personal insults, rather than discuss the subject.

There are very few people in the spa industry who understand much about spas, and they build them, and the proof is in the products and the poor condition of the spa industry. The word is out, because spas have a bad reputation for being "money pits". Over 10,000,000 people have read our site and the q and a. I suspect that in the future, because of the extreme popularity of the site, 20,000,000 more will read it in the next five years.

I do have a copy of the darn thing, but like I told Tom, I don't know where it was filed. I had someone put all my old files in the basement and they did not label them so I could find it. It is an arduous task, that I don't believe I really need to do, because of the proof in the actual spas. There are thousands of files in the basement, because we kept them all for the past almost 11 years. I did come across the advertising piece from Coleman who published the report. Coleman spas is no longer, so they don't seem to have copies of the report at MAAX.

Anyway, it is an obvious thing for anybody with "quality" thermodynamic training and can understand simple principles of thermodynamics. It is the reason why the Alberta test was so conclusive that a spa with bigger high amp motors cost less in cold weather than a Hot Spring with a tiny circ pump and weaker jet pumps. It is the warm air chamber that does the job. If you can't understand this, then I guess you are at the mercy of advertising.

Average air is 1341 times less expensive to heat than water. If the air on the outside of the vessel is over 100 degrees there is a very low "Delta T". The air is the only real thing that needs to be insulated and losing heat from air is 1341 times less costly than losing heat directly from the water vessel. There is nothing difficult to understand.

This is a direct quote from the Tong and Rogers report.

Independent studies done by two universities ( Colorado and Arizona State Universities 1996) have found that using the waste heat generated by the equipment and transferring it into the spa's water is more efficient than filling the spa's cabinet with foam. Here is an excerpt from the report. "a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

The simplest way to describe it is like this;

Take your spa vessel and place it inside an insulated room with heated air. How much does it cost to heat a room that is less than 20 Cubic feet of air? Take your full foam spa and put it inside a room heated to tropical temperatures and you will see a vast improvement in the cost own. This is so darn simple to understand.

I forgot, my tune "Find The Waters Of Your Soul" is a hit on two internet websites.

[Eazy-E]

Because of the fact that this forum is run by Hot Spring sales people, I am putting a copy of this post on our forum.

If you take someone who has a degree, most of the time they don't know how insulation works either. This is because the universities do not teach how foam works. They only teach how to use insulation in formulas, not how it works. If you research and read a lot of books on thermodynamics you can find out how it works. Egotistical people often get really angry with me, because I point out that they don't have understand simple scientific principles used in insulation. Most people do not, because it is not what they are interested in and it is not taught in college or universities. This is what I do, so I know what I am talking about. It has been proven in all my testing and in three independent tests.

Instead of talking about spas, they use personal insults, and I am pretty used to it. I just don't like people who insult my family, harm my family by their hate. I really dislike people who insult my beautiful, loving and kind wife. I find it interesting that any forum would put up with continual rule breakers on the forum. I don't allow it at all on our forum.

According to Jon Watkins, the originator of Hot Spring, from an article in the San Diego newspaper in 1988 he stated that the reason for the '"rovel" and full foam was to avoid the use of fiberglass. That is fact, I have copies of the article as well. I got them from a Hot Spring sales manual. The foam is used to hold up a single sheet of plastic. The "insulation" part was secondary, and especially in Southern California where it never gets cold. Back then it was the best they could come up with, because better ways of using fiberglass and acrylic had not been perfected until about 1991. The thermally closed was first engineered by Coleman engineers in 1993 and 1994. They did it because it is the most effective way to insulate.

Egotistical Men often don't like me, because of my advanced knowledge in many things of this earth. They will start with the personal insults, rather than discuss the subject.

There are very few people in the spa industry who understand much about spas, and they build them, and the proof is in the products and the poor condition of the spa industry. The word is out, because spas have a bad reputation for being "money pits". Over 10,000,000 people have read our site and the q and a. I suspect that in the future, because of the extreme popularity of the site, 20,000,000 more will read it in the next five years.

I do have a copy of the darn thing, but like I told Tom, I don't know where it was filed. I had someone put all my old files in the basement and they did not label them so I could find it. It is an arduous task, that I don't believe I really need to do, because of the proof in the actual spas. There are thousands of files in the basement, because we kept them all for the past almost 11 years. I did come across the advertising piece from Coleman who published the report. Coleman spas is no longer, so they don't seem to have copies of the report at MAAX.

Anyway, it is an obvious thing for anybody with "quality" thermodynamic training and can understand simple principles of thermodynamics. It is the reason why the Alberta test was so conclusive that a spa with bigger high amp motors cost less in cold weather than a Hot Spring with a tiny circ pump and weaker jet pumps. It is the warm air chamber that does the job. If you can't understand this, then I guess you are at the mercy of advertising.

Average air is 1341 times less expensive to heat than water. If the air on the outside of the vessel is over 100 degrees there is a very low "Delta T". The air is the only real thing that needs to be insulated and losing heat from air is 1341 times less costly than losing heat directly from the water vessel. There is nothing difficult to understand.

This is a direct quote from the Tong and Rogers report.

Independent studies done by two universities ( Colorado and Arizona State Universities 1996) have found that using the waste heat generated by the equipment and transferring it into the spa's water is more efficient than filling the spa's cabinet with foam. Here is an excerpt from the report. "a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

The simplest way to describe it is like this;

Take your spa vessel and place it inside an insulated room with heated air. How much does it cost to heat a room that is less than 20 Cubic feet of air? Take your full foam spa and put it inside a room heated to tropical temperatures and you will see a vast improvement in the cost own. This is so darn simple to understand.

I forgot, my tune "Find The Waters Of Your Soul" is a hit on two internet websites.

Wow! You know your stuff Jim. Thats good stuff!!

[Trigger]

Thanks Jimmy. Your response is perfect!

[Trigger]

I know I really shouldn't, but it's just too easy...

.

...Because of the fact that this forum is run by Hot Spring sales people...

Jimmy Arjuna, you are a liar. I don't know how simpler or a more straight forward way I can say that.

James Arjuna you are a liar. When you start a post with a lie, everything else you say is questionable.

If you take someone who has a degree, most of the time they don't know how insulation works either. This is because the universities do not teach how foam works. They only teach how to use insulation in formulas, not how it works.

I wonder if Tong and Rogers and the Universities of Colorado and Arizona understand? I guess we'll never know, since "your dog ate the report".

I do have a copy of the darn thing, but like I told Tom, I don't know where it was filed. I had someone put all my old files in the basement and they did not label them so I could find it. It is an arduous task, that I don't believe I really need to do, because of the proof in the actual spas.

Actually you do. You cite the report several times in your marketing literature. It's the quote that is driving this post. The "proof" in the spas is what we are trying to discuss and is exactly the issue in question. This is the central point and the entire reason we are even posting to you. Without it, you need to go home. Your response to all this is absolutely dumbfounding.

Side note: you know, after 11 years of your BS Jim, you'd think you could come up with some documentation for you claims. Don't you have any of your own *data* (not your bs articles, but data from actual tests) on your own tubs? Did you loose that too?

This is a direct quote from the Tong and Rogers report.

Independent studies done by two universities ( Colorado and Arizona State Universities 1996) have found that using the waste heat generated by the equipment and transferring it into the spa's water is more efficient than filling the spa's cabinet with foam. Here is an excerpt from the report. "a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

Jim it's responses like that, (referencing the exact same quote in question to defend its validity) that lead people to believe you may have some debilitating mental condition.

[Chris H]

I have said this before:

Tong and Rogers / Cheech and Chong: they're the same aren't they?

Has anyone other than the almighty one seen this report?

EDITED: there to they're

[Dr. Spa]

I have said this before:

Tong and Rogers / Cheech and Chong: there the same aren't they?

No they're not. Cheech and Chong actually exist.

Other that the more recent Arctic backed study, the rest I highly suspect are nothing more than urban legends. Many people have tried to find copies of these supposed reports for quite a few years now, and only come up empty handed. I have a friend that up until 2 years ago owned two stores that sold Coleman spas for around 25 years. According to her, that original study that was "commissioned by Coleman",. never really existed. She used it in her sales pitch, as many did, but many many numerous requests never got her an actual copy of it.

[Trigger]

No they're not. Cheech and Chong actually exist.

Other that the more recent Arctic backed study, the rest I highly suspect are nothing more than urban legends. Many people have tried to find copies of these supposed reports for quite a few years now, and only come up empty handed. I have a friend that up until 2 years ago owned two stores that sold Coleman spas for around 25 years. According to her, that original study that was "commissioned by Coleman",. never really existed. She used it in her sales pitch, as many did, but many many numerous requests never got her an actual copy of it.

Bu.bu...but it's a keystone in the foundation of Jim's "reports" and a founding document in his "super duper thinkers" club.

[Richs100]

I do have a copy of the darn thing, but like I told Tom, I don't know where it was filed. I had someone put all my old files in the basement and they did not label them so I could find it. It is an arduous task, that I don't believe I really need to do, because of the proof in the actual spas.

This is a direct quote from the Tong and Rogers report.

Independent studies done by two universities ( Colorado and Arizona State Universities 1996) have found that using the waste heat generated by the equipment and transferring it into the spa's water is more efficient than filling the spa's cabinet with foam. Here is an excerpt from the report. "a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

Ok....let's recap so far:

- Jim repeatedly cites this elusive energy "Report" that NO ONE ON THE PLANET seems to have a copy of except him.

- Tom from Artic asks Jim to provide a copy of the elusive, alleged "Report".

- Jim then says "I do have a copy of the darn thing, but like I told Tom, I don't know where it was filed".

- Then Jim states that finding the Report would be "an arduous task, that I don't believe I really need to do, because of the proof in the actual spas".

- Then Jim provides us with a "direct quote" from the Report.

Someone's got a heck of a memory to be able to provide a direct quote from a report that can't be found.

What's the "Proof"? (The semi-oval reasoning just kills me!)

We are told "The proof is in the actual spas"!

Kinda like: We don't need no stinking report!

Maybe the proof is next to those "mice caves" in the full foam insulation that Jim keeps talking about.

That's all for now from the exciting, continuing Spa Wars debates.

[Trigger]

Rich

Don't forget the part where Jimmy gves no credibility to Universities and Engineers, but fails to remember it's a University engineering study that he is basing his whole statement on and trying to defend.