# Simple & Cheap room heater



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

Saw a similar video a year or so back and tried it out. Worked surprisingly well in a smaller room and became part of my winter "no power" preps.


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

Good idea..I saw those candles at Wally's the other day cheap..need to add them to my shopping list..thanks..


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

How is it supposed to put out more heat? A candle will put out the same amount of heat if it's open or inside this setup.


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

labotomi said:


> How is it supposed to put out more heat? A candle will put out the same amount of heat if it's open or inside this setup.


The plain term 'thermodynamics' refers to macroscopic description of bodies and processes.
"Any reference to atomic constitution is foreign to classical thermodynamics." The qualified term 'statistical thermodynamics' refers to descriptions of bodies and processes in terms of the atomic constitution of matter, mainly described by sets of items all alike, so as to have equal probabilities.
Thermodynamics arose from the study of energy transfers that can be strictly resolved into two distinct components, heat and work, specified by macroscopic variables.
Thermodynamic equilibrium is one of the most important concepts for thermodynamics. The temperature of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium is well defined, and is perhaps the most characteristic quantity of thermodynamics. As the systems and processes of interest are taken further from thermodynamic equilibrium, their exact thermodynamical study becomes more difficult. Relatively simple approximate calculations, however, using the variables of equilibrium thermodynamics, are of much practical value in engineering. In many important practical cases, such as heat engines or refrigerators, the systems consist of many subsystems at different temperatures and pressures. In practice, thermodynamic calculations deal effectively with these complicated dynamic systems provided the equilibrium thermodynamic variables are nearly enough well-defined.
Basic for thermodynamics are the concepts of system and surroundings. The surroundings of a thermodynamic system consist of physical devices and of other thermodynamic systems that can interact with it. An example of a thermodynamic surrounding is a heat bath, which is considered to be held at a prescribed temperature, regardless of the interactions it might have with the system.
There are two fundamental kinds of physical entity in thermodynamics, states of a system, and thermodynamic processes of a systems. This allows two fundamental approaches to thermodynamic reasoning, that in terms of states of a system, and that in terms of cyclic processes of a system. Also necessary for thermodynamic reasoning are thermodynamic operations.
A thermodynamic system can be defined in terms of its states. In this way, a thermodynamic system is a macroscopic physical object, explicitly specified in terms of macroscopic physical and chemical variables that describe its macroscopic properties. The macroscopic state variables of thermodynamics have been recognized in the course of empirical work in physics and chemistry.[15]
A thermodynamic system can also be defined in terms of the processes it can undergo. Of particular interest are cyclic processes. This was the way of the founders of thermodynamics in the first three quarters of the nineteenth century.
A thermodynamic operation is a conceptual step that changes the definition of a system or its surroundings. For example, the partition between two thermodynamic systems can be removed so as to produce a single system. There is a sense in which Maxwell's demon if he existed would be able to violate the laws or of thermodynamics because he is permitted to perform thermodynamic operations, which are permitted to be unnatural.

None of this makes sense to me. Where's Bobb? :2thumb:


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

None of this makes sense to me either, Where's Bobb?


----------



## hitman3872 (Oct 21, 2013)

Think of it as a convection oven once the oven is hot the amount of energy to maintain that temperature is reduced. So the principle is to just heat the ceramic which will radiate heat, once the pots are warm you will need less energy to keep them warm and they will still generate the same warmth for long periods. If your going to use one of these for a home office or such start off by warming the pots in an oven for an hour first they will make a room warmer.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

hitman3872 said:


> Think of it as a convection oven once the oven is hot the amount of energy to maintain that temperature is reduced. So the principle is to just heat the ceramic which will radiate heat, once the pots are warm you will need less energy to keep them warm and they will still generate the same warmth for long periods. If your going to use one of these for a home office or such start off by warming the pots in an oven for an hour first they will make a room warmer.


It still cannot radiate more heat than it absorbed from the candle. The same amount of heat that would have been imparted to the room if the ceramic pot wasn't there at all.


----------



## Sourdough (May 22, 2010)

If I want to HEAT a room up.......I just need a (not too ugly) woman.


----------



## OldCootHillbilly (Jul 9, 2010)

It's all bout btu's an them candles ain't got many. Anythin bigger en a broom closet an it be artwork.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Supposedly a candle flame is about 50 btu per hour and a tea light candle contains 250 to 300 btu's per candle.
Here is many more candle heater posts....................
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f32/candle-heat-205/

I think a light bulb puts out about 3.4 btu per hour per watt. So a sixty watt bulb would be about 200 btu's per hour


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

hiwall said:


> Supposedly a candle flame is about 50 btu per hour and a tea light candle contains 250 to 300 btu's per candle.
> Here is many more candle heater posts....................
> http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f32/candle-heat-205/
> 
> I think a light bulb puts out about 3.4 btu per hour per watt. So a sixty watt bulb would be about 200 btu's per hour


Plus the light bulb is cheaper to operate than the cost of the candle


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

> Plus the light bulb is cheaper to operate than the cost of the candle


Exactly......................................................


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Why does a metal wood stove work more efficiently than an open fireplace? That's why it works better than 4 open candles does.

It would work to a degree. My house is built around a double barrel masonry chimney. Once the fire's been going a while I can hit the brick with an IR thermometer and it will register up to 100 degrees radiating from the brick where the flue goes up the wall.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

tenOC said:


> Why does a metal wood stove work more efficiently than an open fireplace?


Because of the * chimney*


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Well, because of storage device that absorbs and radiates heat.
The metal stove absorbs the heat. Place a fan on a fireplace insert and it moves a lot of heat in the room not up the flue.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

tenOC said:


> Well, because of storage device that absorbs and radiates heat.
> The metal stove absorbs the heat. Place a fan on a fireplace insert and it moves a lot of heat in the room not up the flue.


 There's no chimney/flue with which to contend using the candle. There's no direct heat loss to outside the room. If you lit a fire in a room with no chimney it would get just as hot in the room as it would using a wood stove.

Why do you not see something to absorb and radiate the heat used with other sources like kerosene or ceramic heaters?


----------



## Dixie (Sep 20, 2010)

*Maybe it uses the same principle as the Easy-bake ovens. One light bulb is all it took to bake a cake at approx. 375 degrees. But with candles, no electricity needed.*


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

I was being diplomatic before, but haven't conveyed my message. You're wrong that the chimney is the vehicle that warms the room. It's the addition of the mass of the stove that captures it from escaping out the chimney. The open chimney is the enemy of heat retention.

The pots would localize the heat instead of allowing it to run to the ceiling where it's not felt.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

tenOC said:


> I was being diplomatic before, but haven't conveyed my message. You're wrong that the chimney is the vehicle that warms the room. It's the addition of the mass of the stove that captures it from escaping out the chimney. The open chimney is the enemy of heat retention.
> 
> The pots would localize the heat instead of allowing it to run to the ceiling where it's not felt.


Yep. I do believe you are correct. It seems to me that anything that would capture and retain heat, would radiate that captured heat. I also realize that the size of the "heater" would effect how large of an area it would heat.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

tenOC said:


> I was being diplomatic before, but haven't conveyed my message. You're wrong that the chimney is the vehicle that warms the room. It's the addition of the mass of the stove that captures it from escaping out the chimney. The open chimney is the enemy of heat retention.
> 
> The pots would localize the heat instead of allowing it to run to the ceiling where it's not felt.


I never said the chimney heats the room. Quite the opposite actually. My point was that a stove puts our more heat into the room because there's less heat lost up the chimney. Since we're not talking about replacing a fireplace or stove, it's not relevant and any correlation between a candle/fireplace and pot covered candle/stove isn't very useful.

As far as the heat from the candle rising to the ceiling... the same happens to the heat from the pot as soon as it's radiated away. Remember that we're talking about heating the room and not warming your hands or feet.

Does the candle put out any more heat because of the pot?
Does anything about the room geometry change because of the pot?

The only difference is that the heat from the candle takes a little longer to be felt because the pot has to warm up and then it radiates heat for a little longer after the candle burns out. In the middle of those two events their is an equilibrium reached where the same amount of heat is coming from the candle/pot as would come from a lone candle.

I'll ask again as to why thermal mass isn't used with kerosene, propane or electric heaters if it effectively increases the functionality.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

Sentry18 said:


> Saw a similar video a year or so back and tried it out. Worked surprisingly well in a smaller room and became part of my winter "no power" preps.


That is a simple version of a RocketMassHeater ..


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

labotomi said:


> I'll ask again as to why thermal mass isn't used with kerosene, propane or electric heaters if it effectively increases the functionality.


Quite obvious. Cost and the ability to handle large heavy units. It's a no brainer. Thermal mass is and has always been a good heat source retainer.

Research it some. Thermal energy is a large subject.

Many other countries use large thermal heating units. Sand, rock, water, steel, concrete....anything that can be warmed will transfer that warmth. Thermal homes have been around even here in the USA for many years. https://www.thenaturalhome.com/passivesolar.html

Small portable kerosene, propane and electric heaters are CHEAP and HIGHLY inefficient. They use fuel poorly and operate at a high cost.

Air Conditioning is NOT just a reference to cooling for the warm months. It is in fact CONDITIONING of the air and contents of a given room, cooling or warming. If you let your home cool all the way off in the winter or heat all the way up in the summer, thermal/cooling energy from the floor, couch, recliner, table and chairs will take their toll. If they heat up in the summer, they will radiate heat until they are cooled. Same in the winter, they have to be warmed up.

Thermal mass has and will always be with us. Learning to get control of it and use it to one's advantage is what one should work towards.

The OP was just sharing something he has decided to add to his preps as a backup if the power goes away. Gonna try it myself.

BTW I currently use wood heat with sand to heat the water for my home and heat the hot water for home use. The thermal energy only has to be reheated twice a week. It works so well.

Jimmy


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Jimmy24 said:


> Quite obvious. Cost and the ability to handle large heavy units. It's a no brainer. Thermal mass is and has always been a good heat source retainer.


I understand the thermal mass concept well. If it worked as the clay pot project contends then we would see companies producing smaller heaters equipped with them that would compete against the larger ones without them.

It's an easy concept. Energy in equals energy out. No exceptions.

A thermal mass is not a source of heat any more than the tank on the back of my toilet is a water source. They're both storage devices.

I've looked up this subject on other forums and even on sites that focus on alternative energy/living it's accepted that this does not cause any increase over the use of the candles alone.


----------



## Jimmy24 (Apr 20, 2011)

labotomi said:


> I understand the thermal mass concept well. If it worked as the clay pot project contends then we would see companies producing smaller heaters equipped with them that would compete against the larger ones without them.
> 
> It's an easy concept. Energy in equals energy out. No exceptions.
> 
> ...


Never said it was anything but a retainer. But if you use it correctly it is a better source than the candle alone. You should test the idea sometime. You will be surprised.

BTW it would never be dealt with by manufactures. No $$$ in it....

Jimmy


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

Many electric heaters use the 'thermal mass' concept- most have seen the oil-filled heaters (some use copper).
Here is a site that explains about electric heaters.................................


> The "free" heat that they imply you get after the heater turns off is not free at all. In the case of the "oil-filled" or "cured copper" heat exchangers, what is happening is that when you turn the heater on, the oil or copper is soaking up much of the heat that the heating element is producing. You are paying for this heat, but it is being "saved up" inside the heater. Once the oil or copper gets hot, it begins giving off heat to the surrounding air, at the same rate that the heating element is making the heat. During this operation, the heater is no different than any other heater. Once the heater turns off, it quits using power, but the saved up heat (that you PAID FOR earlier), will continue to heat the surrounding area for a while. Yes, the advantage to this is a MORE EVEN source of heat, but NO, it will NOT cost any less to operate.


http://www.wisedan.com/heater.html


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

hiwall said:


> Many electric heaters use the 'thermal mass' concept- most have seen the oil-filled heaters (some use copper).
> Here is a site that explains about electric heaters.................................
> 
> http://www.wisedan.com/heater.html


Oil filled heaters are used because they are quieter than ones that use forced air. The lack of forced air require having a larger surface area to transfer the heat. Copper is used because it is one of the best heat conductors available so a lower temperature difference is needed for heat transfer.

Read the description you posted. It explains that you aren't getting any more out than you put in.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

labotomi said:


> I never said the chimney heats the room. Quite the opposite actually. My point was that a stove puts our more heat into the room because there's less heat lost up the chimney.


Gotcha. So we're close to agreeing that limiting the chimney effect (loss) will result in warming an area.



> Since we're not talking about replacing a fireplace or stove, it's not relevant and any correlation between a candle/fireplace and pot covered candle/stove isn't very useful.


Actually, that's just your opinion. I _am_ talking about similarities. The stove captures heat from the chimney heat-column effect. The pot does the same thing by interrupting that same column effect escaping to the ceiling as well as allowing it to saturate the terracotta in the way the metal stove does.



> As far as the heat from the candle rising to the ceiling... the same happens to the heat from the pot as soon as it's radiated away. Remember that we're talking about heating the room and not warming your hands or feet.


The candle is heating particles in the air on a very small surface area. The terracotta is a larger vessel that is a larger surface area that is heated and thus radiates from a larger surface area.



> Does the candle put out any more heat because of the pot?
> Does anything about the room geometry change because of the pot?


Does the wood in the stove put out any more heat because of the stove?
Does anything about the room geometry change because of the stove?

That's looking to extraneous items for explanation. It's not a free energy machine.


> The only difference is that the heat from the candle takes a little longer to be felt because the pot has to warm up and then it radiates heat for a little longer after the candle burns out. In the middle of those two events their is an equilibrium reached where the same amount of heat is coming from the candle/pot as would come from a lone candle.


It heats a greater area for a longer period of time. By conservation of energy, it radiates that heat over a greater area for a longer period of time. Also, fast moving particles in the air transfer heat faster as they're racing to the ceiling surrounded by cooler particles. Rub your arm slowly and heat builds slowly. Rub it faster and heat transfers to your arm faster.

Do I believe it will heat a room? Only locally near the pot. And only if crafted to retain the heat near the pot instead heating quickly moving air traveling to the ceiling. And only if the room is well insulated. It's a small hammer. It can't do much work. It won't heat a tent as one future striker commenter to the video mentioned.



> I'll ask again as to why thermal mass isn't used with kerosene, propane or electric heaters if it effectively increases the functionality.


Why is thermal mass used in wood stoves and solar applications? Ever heard of Soap Stone and it's impact on heat retention? Actually kerosene heats the walls, ceiling and everything around it which equates to thermal mass. I heated with it for years. The Japanese still do. If someone wanted to maximize the use of fuels, thermal mass can add efficiency/functionality just as my 100 degree bricks in my chimney do. The masonry chimney in my house is 7-1/2' wide and 13' high.

The Subaru or Porsche with an intercooler mounted over the engine suffers efficiency loss because of the chimney effect heating the cooler's mas up. Mount the same cooler elsewhere and it works better. You didn't change any components nor the capacity. You only move them to keep the heat column from soaking the mass of the cooler.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

labotomi said:


> Read the description you posted. It explains that you aren't getting any more out than you put in.


I did read it, thats why I posted it. Other than the lower fire hazard, thermal mass electric heaters are pretty much a scam.
The candle and pot setup can not be compared to a vented wood stove. 
With the candle and pot your only real benefit is the open flame is covered so it might be safer. Even the claim of cheap heat is false unless you happen to work at a candle factory.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

How can it not be compared to a wood stove insert?

Conservation of Energy. You don't get more than is used. Anybody thinking it's free energy is wrong. It may not even be cheap. But anybody able to understand that retaining the heat near the source of flame (and near the human operating the source) can understand the principle. Without the terracotta, the only way to experience the heat is to place it directly under you.

Heck, if I can keep my feet warm (or even one of my feet) I feel warmer all over. Ceiling fans don't cool a room or change the geometry, but you perceive a cooler room by using them, and you can keep the AC off longer.


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

I'll be the first to tell you ... I don't know about thermal mass stuff ...

But if you are looing for a cheep room heater look a the Aladdin lamps.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

labotomi said:


> There's no chimney/flue with which to contend using the candle. There's no direct heat loss to outside the room. If you lit a fire in a room with no chimney it would get just as hot in the room as it would using a wood stove.
> Why do you not see something to absorb and radiate the heat used with other sources like kerosene or ceramic heaters?


I have to disagree here, the same amount of calories may be released, but the release of BTUs is on a sine type curve as the surface temperature rises, so with out a controlled amout of combustion air relative to chimney effect the amout of warming heat will not be the same. the amount of energy converted will be the same if you believe in the "law" of thermodynamics but useable heat not the same.

The terracotta would probably slow the wave frequency of the energy waves and thus make the radiant heat more absorbable or at least be perceived as more heat.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Tirediron said:


> I have to disagree here, the same amount of calories may be released, but the release of BTUs is on a sine type curve as the surface temperature rises, so with out a controlled amout of combustion air relative to chimney effect the amout of warming heat will not be the same. the amount of energy converted will be the same if you believe in the "law" of thermodynamics but useable heat not the same.


* IF* you believe? If you don't believe in the first law of thermodynamics, please share your views. 


Tirediron said:


> The terracotta would probably slow the wave frequency of the energy waves and thus make the radiant heat more absorbable or at least be perceived as more heat.


The radiant heat emitted by a terracotta pot at the temperature reached using candles would be close to if not completely insignificant.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

hiwall said:


> I did read it, thats why I posted it. Other than the lower fire hazard, thermal mass electric heaters are pretty much a scam.
> The candle and pot setup can not be compared to a vented wood stove.
> With the candle and pot your only real benefit is the open flame is covered so it might be safer. Even the claim of cheap heat is false unless you happen to work at a candle factory.


My apologies. I mistook the intent of your post.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

tenOC said:


> How can it not be compared to a wood stove insert?


A fireplace draws a large amount of air. More than is needed to maintain the fire. The warm air drawn into the fireplace from the room is replaced by colder air from away from the fire. 
A wood insert allows this airflow to be controlled the fire still burns at close to the same temperature, but does not have the same airflow draw as an open fireplace which keeps most of the room air that's been heated by the fire from being drawn into the fireplace and out the chimney.

The forced air fan on a wood insert can help efficiency by increasing the differential temperature which increases the heat transfer but similar setups are found on some open fireplaces as well (built into the bricks).



tenOC said:


> Heck, if I can keep my feet warm (or even one of my feet) I feel warmer all over.


That's not what was presented in the video. The contraption is far enough away from the working space that any heat will have to come from convection via circulating air. Also, his claims are about increasing the temperature of the room, not warming a part of his body.



tenOC said:


> Ceiling fans don't cool a room or change the geometry, but you perceive a cooler room by using them, and you can keep the AC off longer.


They actually can if you use them to remove moisture such as sweat from your body. The evaporation causes "sensible" (temperature) heat to be converted to "latent" heat. This absorption of energy for the phase change is significant.

eg. 
It takes 1 BTU to increase 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit.
It takes 970 BTUs to change 1 pound of water at 212 degrees Fahrenheit to 1 pound of steam at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
This is why you can heat a pot of water to 212F quite rapidly and then it just sits there for quite a while before it starts boiling.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

There is only one debate here - does the addition of a clay pot increase the heat output of the candles. The obvious answer is no. But I would allow that the clay pot might somehow allow the more complete combustion of gases emitted from the burning candle by the entrapment of those gases. I don't believe so but it seems possible. The addition of the pot would end the radiant heat produced and change it to only convection heat which could be debated as good or bad.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

tenOC said:


> Why is thermal mass used in wood stoves and solar applications? Ever heard of Soap Stone and it's impact on heat retention?
> 
> ... thermal mass can add efficiency/functionality.


_*Thermal mass*_ only changes the period of time the heat is available. It doesn't magically change the *amount* of BTU's received or given.

You may enjoy extended heat radiation on the back end, but it comes as a cost on the front end in the form of waiting for heat to arrive in the surrounding air at the beginning, because you are warming up that silly pot first.

TiredIron has it right in the "curve" he mentioned. A soapstone fire place does NOT give off more heat.... it only regulates heat as it cools down more slowly when the fire goes out, and the advantage to that is "warmth output" given during the time you are sleeping and not feeding the stove.

If you have a wife like mine that stays up until 1 AM and feeds the stove before she comes to bed, and I am up at 4:30 AM feeding it again, then there is zero advantage to owning a soapstone stove over a steel/iron one.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

labotomi said:


> * IF* you believe? If you don't believe in the first law of thermodynamics, please share your views.
> The radiant heat emitted by a terracotta pot at the temperature reached using candles would be close to if not completely insignificant.


All of the "laws" of science are based on scientific "fact", which are based on a theory being somewhat accurate multiple times. science dissects things and looks at individual components, not often the whole most of these "laws" were written long before there were devices that could accurately measure and record results. As soon as science can accurately show how gravity works, not just the force of attraction due to body mass then maybe someone will have the right to decide on laws.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

> All of the "laws" of science are based on scientific "fact"


All laws of science only stand until they are proved wrong


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Tirediron said:


> All of the "laws" of science are based on scientific "fact", which are based on a theory being somewhat accurate multiple times. science dissects things and looks at individual components, not often the whole most of these "laws" were written long before there were devices that could accurately measure and record results. As soon as science can accurately show how gravity works, not just the force of attraction due to body mass then maybe someone will have the right to decide on laws.


There are devices *now* that can be used to measure this to an incredible accuracy in addition to being proven over and over again mathematically. We can measure the mass of particles that make up the components of individual atoms and show that when that mass "disappears" (during fission or fusion) the exact energy corresponding to that mass was released (E=MC^2). When measurements agree with predictions of increasing accuracy over and over again, it's a good indication that the law is fundamentally valid.

Concerning our lack of understanding about gravity... At one point we didn't understand the electromagnetic force of repulsion but could see it's effects. We didn't understand what kept atoms together (strong nuclear force) but knew something was keeping every atomic nucleus from ripping itself apart from the electromagnetic force mentioned previously. Even though we didn't know what was happening we could see it's effects and make predictions based upon the consistency. Now that we understand what's happening, it only strengthens the theories we already used. We have an excellent understanding of the effects of gravity and some promising theories that seem to be coming close to testable. Simply saying that not knowing the why casts everything else in doubt is disingenuous.

If you want to doubt simply for the sake of doubting, it's your right. I was hoping you'd have something to back up this skepticism.

This law may eventually be proven wrong. Even if that happens, I don't think whatever inconsistencies are found will make a hill of beans difference towards the issue of using a terracotta pot over a candle to make a room heater.


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

You and your science and facts; I don't buy any of it. Obama was elected twice, people think the .40S&W is a good round and the Jersey Shore is coming back to television. Everything is clearly just theoretical and no facts exist.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Sentry18 said:


> ..... I don't buy any of it. Obama was elected twice, people think the .40S&W is a good round and Jersey Shore is coming back to television. Everything is clearly just theoretical and no facts exist.


Good points - - - all three fly in the face of logic, and mock her.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

A lot of long word do not prove "science" according to scientific "fact" things are not as they seem. you argument that not knowing why something happens doesn't mean we don't understand it doesn't hold water. What part of the brain is removed During the formal education process that makes facts and the use of long words interchangeable. 

Accepting the old wives tales for fact would have kept humanity in the cave.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Tirediron said:


> A lot of long word do not prove "science" according to scientific "fact" things are not as they seem.


Nor do short words prove science is wrong.


Tirediron said:


> you argument that not knowing why something happens doesn't mean we don't understand it doesn't hold water.


Is that what you inferred from my post? Read it again. Concentrate on this portion


> Even though we didn't know what was happening we could see it's effects and make predictions based upon the consistency.





Tirediron said:


> What part of the brain is removed During the formal education process that makes facts and the use of long words interchangeable.


The stupid part



Tirediron said:


> Accepting the old wives tales for fact would have kept humanity in the cave.


Not accepting these "laws" is what would have kept us from advancing.

Science to Tirediron: "Haters Gonna Hate"


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

That's not going to do anything. You want a real heater for when there's no power? Get a kerosene heater.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

It probably won't do 'much' since the hammer is pretty small. I have two Kerosene heaters. I have a wood stove insert. I have gas heat and I have radiant heat. I'm going to pick up some terracotta flower pots next. 



labotomi said:


> A fireplace draws a large amount of air. More than is needed to maintain the fire.


 The candles have more than enough air too. 


> The warm air drawn into the fireplace from the room is replaced by colder air from away from the fire.
> A wood insert allows this airflow to be controlled the fire still burns at close to the same temperature, but does not have the same airflow draw as an open fireplace which keeps most of the room air that's been heated by the fire from being drawn into the fireplace and out the chimney.


The fireplace loses heat out of the house. The candles don't. They recirculate inside air. Insulate well enough and inside temps retain heat.



> The forced air fan on a wood insert can help efficiency by increasing the differential temperature which increases the heat transfer but similar setups are found on some open fireplaces as well (built into the bricks).


The bricks themselves are thermal mass. Again we probably agree that thermal mass is capable of transferring heat that would ordinarily be lost up the flue, no? That's a positive gain in retained/ transferred heat.



> That's not what was presented in the video.


And nobody here has proved that it doesn't work. Just people arguing if it will or won't work based on laws they want to invoke, and I have shown several other reasons that it will work pertaining exactly to the effects of the chimney/thermal column everyone knows about. Buzzards know about thermal convections on an unimpeded heat column. Everyone's ceiling is warmer than the floor. Retaining the heat lower, will convince the user the room is warmer. My backup heat is radiant Ceil-Heat. It heats mass in the room instead of particles in the air. If I lay down, I feel heat over my body. If I sit still long enough I don't where it doesn't hit. The room isn't warmer laying down, but I am since the heat is radiating where I feel it. If I presented a method for you to sit on your ceiling where the heat is greatest I'd present a video saying I warmed your room. The man presents a video that says it warms the room where he's working.



> The contraption is far enough away from the working space that any heat will have to come from convection via circulating air.


 That's just opinion. Is someone there measuring perceived effect or even recorded temps?


> Also, his claims are about increasing the temperature of the room, not warming a part of his body.


 Warming the body is done by raising the temperature.



> They actually can if you use them to remove moisture such as sweat from your body. The evaporation causes "sensible" (temperature) heat to be converted to "latent" heat. This absorption of energy for the phase change is significant.


That's transpiration and is not under the laws you've brought in. I bought them in to reveal that there is more at work than the single theory some are arguing here.



> eg.
> It takes 1 BTU to increase 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit.
> It takes 970 BTUs to change 1 pound of water at 212 degrees Fahrenheit to 1 pound of steam at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
> This is why you can heat a pot of water to 212F quite rapidly and then it just sits there for quite a while before it starts boiling.





LincTex said:


> _*Thermal mass*_ only changes the period of time the heat is available. It doesn't magically change the *amount* of BTU's received or given.


I expect people here want someone to say it increases the BTU output, but nobody has said that. At least I haven't.



> You may enjoy extended heat radiation on the back end, but it comes as a cost on the front end in the form of waiting for heat to arrive in the surrounding air at the beginning, because you are warming up that silly pot first.


I don't believe it's a linear progression and a the thermal mass in solar applications proves there are more efficient ways to collect and store heat than direct application of the source. Using the absolute source as the only engine works as long as the source is on. Standing in direct Sunlight warms you. Wearing dark clothes increases heat transfer. My black car with dark interior transfers and stores even more heat than my white car with dark interior. The BTU output doesn't change. Efficiency does. Usage does increase. There are no laws presented saying terracotta doesn't increase heat usage factors like a dark car, dark clothes, rocks, water in barrels or bricks. 

People use rocks, sometimes paint and sometimes water barrels to retain heat. The same amount of "heat" falls on the same location (which has less air volume with the mass introduced) and yet it yields a greater and longer



> TiredIron has it right in the "curve" he mentioned. A soapstone fire place does NOT give off more heat.... it only regulates heat as it cools down more slowly when the fire goes out, and the advantage to that is "warmth output" given during the time you are sleeping and not feeding the stove.


And I didn't say it gave off more heat. I said it's thermal mass when someone said thermal mass doesn't factor in. It's the same heat source with thermal mass. But it may actually give off more heat having stored heat in the increased mass instead of just the mass of the thin metal stove. Materials aren't the same in absorption, retention and transmission. It's not a large factor, but it's an improvement when using thermal mass in some instances.



> If you have a wife like mine that stays up until 1 AM and feeds the stove before she comes to bed, and I am up at 4:30 AM feeding it again, then there is zero advantage to owning a soapstone stove over a steel/iron one.


But there are a lot of single people in the world and some people married women who can go to bed early and sleep for 10 hours.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

the candles would certainly aid in heating the room(any room). 6 candles (like he used) would produce a steady 300 btu's (approx.). A human doing little produces about the same so in the video that guy had introduced roughly 600 btu's into that very small room. I'm sure that did increase the temp in the room.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

tenOC said:


> The candles have more than enough air too.


You totally missed the point of that statement



tenOC said:


> The fireplace loses heat out of the house. The candles don't. They recirculate inside air. Insulate well enough and inside temps retain heat.


I was answering the issue of why you can't compare this to a wood stove insert. You missed that point as well.



tenOC said:


> The bricks themselves are thermal mass. Again we probably agree that thermal mass is capable of transferring heat that would ordinarily be lost up the flue, no? That's a positive gain in retained/ transferred heat.


Again, not comparable because there's not a flue in the room with the candle contraption to loose heat.



tenOC said:


> And nobody here has proved that it doesn't work.


They have, just in another thread

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f16/cute-little-candle-heater-22418/



tenOC said:


> That's transpiration and is not under the laws you've brought in. I bought them in to reveal that there is more at work than the single theory some are arguing here.


Actually, it's evaporation of moisture. Transpiration applies to plants. You shouldn't confuse it with evaporation, vaporization or sweating.



tenOC said:


> And I didn't say it gave off more heat. I said it's thermal mass when someone said thermal mass doesn't factor in. It's the same heat source with thermal mass. But it may actually give off more heat having stored heat in the increased mass instead of just the mass of the thin metal stove.


This is your conceptual error. All the heat from the candle is released into the room whether you put the pot over the candle or not. It cannot give off more heat as you say because their is no more heat to give off. The ONLY heat to give off is that which comes from the candle.



tenOC said:


> I have two Kerosene heaters. I have a wood stove insert. I have gas heat and I have radiant heat. I'm going to pick up some terracotta flower pots next.


I bet it'll be one of your least used preps.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Actually you intentionally sidestepped several points several times while then agreeing in principle twice but still won't admit that you did. This isn't about the issue. This is about being intentionally stubborn and getting the last word. This thread helped my prep in a different way.

Your conceptual error is pretending I'm saying something other than what I'm saying about the heat being released into the air. There is only so much energy available is not the same as saying there are more and less efficient ways to heat. Good luck trying to be the master of everyone you prep with while exhibiting inferior debating tactics.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

tenOC said:


> The bricks themselves are thermal mass. Again we probably agree that thermal mass is capable of transferring heat that would ordinarily be lost up the flue, no? That's a positive gain in retained/ transferred heat.


I would say "No" - - they just happened to be able to capture "some" heat that would otherwise be lost in a very inefficient design. You have to remember that those bricks you are referring to lose heat in every direction when cooling off - - - not JUST back into the room. They lose heat out of the back side - - which is calculated as a net loss (since that portion of the heat went away from the room). That is not good. An efficient stove would have made sure the heat from the fire went into the room - not into bricks.



tenOC said:


> Standing in direct Sunlight warms you. Wearing dark clothes increases heat transfer. My black car with dark interior transfers and stores even more heat than my white car with dark interior.
> 
> There are no laws presented saying terracotta doesn't increase heat usage factors like a dark car, dark clothes, rocks, water in barrels or bricks.


OK, you need to make note that absorption and storage are two very, very different things.

A black surface absorbs more sunlight than a white surface. The color of a surface does not affect how much actual heat can be stored. A piece of black construction paper gets hot in the sun, but is cool within seconds of going into the dark because construction paper cannot store heat very well. This is how black screen or "soda can" solar heaters work - they capture heat quickly, but lose it quickly to the circulating air. That is how the heat leaves the solar collector where it is NOT wanted and gets into the room where is IS wanted. The screen or soda cans has almost no ability to store heat.

Rocks, water barrels and bricks are only storage methods. They cannot collect heat unless directly exposed to the heat source. You can increase the RATE at which they collect heat, such as by painting the bricks or barrels black (instead of white, red, blue, etc.) and placing them in the sunlight. However, they still can only release heat if heat is given to them in the first place. A brick painted black and placed in a freezer at 0*F - - then taped to your hand and placed in the sunlight - - will feel awfully damn cold until it heats up. The flower pot is the same way. A warm brick feels great if you don't have to hold onto it the whole time it's cold - - as soon as you set it down and walk away and let it "do its thing" it is no longer simply a collector, it just became a storage device because you don't want any of its heat now (because it doesn't really have any) - - you want its heat for later.

Whether the flower pot is in direct contact with your skin, or you get heat from contact with the air, the flower pot is only a simple storage device. The only argument presented here that could be plausible is that it may radiate heat that can be felt to some degree more than just convection heat from an open burning candle. If that is the stance you take, I can accept that theory. However, since the flower pot is NOT creating or destroying heat then all of you must accept the fact that the air in a room can NOT be made "warmer" by placing a flower pot over a burning candle, versus an open burning candle.

In summary - perhaps the flower pot will place the heat closer to where it can be used more effectively (nearer to you) instead of the ceiling, but the net amount of heat given to the room can only be changed by using a larger candle with a bigger flame. The actual (meaning all points in the room measured and then averaged together) temperature of the room will NOT increase with the addition of a flower pot over the candle.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

LincTex said:


> I would say "No" - - *they just happened to be able to capture "some" heat *that would otherwise be lost in a very inefficient design.


But they capture heat that would be lost if they weren't there. They absorb some of what is lost and radiate it over their surface. That's one portion of the possibilities in the experiment. The thermal mass in the room instead of escaping out the chimney. 


> You have to remember that those bricks you are referring to lose heat in every direction when cooling off - - - not JUST back into the room. They lose heat out of the back side - - which is calculated as a net loss (since that portion of the heat went away from the room). That is not good. An efficient stove would have made sure the heat from the fire went into the room - not into bricks.


It transfers in from the flue and out the bricks. My chimney's not outside. It's right in the middle of the house, two floors, and I can walk around all 4 sides. It's 7' by 3-1/2' with two fireplaces. And for those with only one wall in the house the bricks on that wall don't lose heat out the back. The bricks on the back wall and side walls do. With no bricks? More heat is lost/not captured.



> OK, you need to make note that absorption and storage are two very, very different things.
> 
> A black surface absorbs more sunlight than a white surface. The color of a surface does not affect how much actual heat can be stored. A piece of black construction paper gets hot in the sun, but is cool within seconds of going into the dark because construction paper cannot store heat very well. This is how black screen or "soda can" solar heaters work - they capture heat quickly, but lose it quickly to the circulating air. That is how the heat leaves the solar collector where it is NOT wanted and gets into the room where is IS wanted. The screen or soda cans has almost no ability to store heat.


It's both in a car or in a water bottle. The interior contains the mass, like water, rocks, foam, plastic, carpet, etc.. The color makes a diff in absorbing heat and the mass stores it. And yes I'm saying this is another component not allowed in some people's opinion.



> Rocks, water barrels and bricks are only storage methods.


 Not when they're darker colored. They do both. 


> They cannot collect heat unless directly exposed to the heat source. You can increase the RATE at which they collect heat, such as by painting the bricks or barrels black (instead of white, red, blue, etc.) and placing them in the sunlight.


Yes, that's what I said. The source (for instance the Sun) provides an absolute amount of heat energy. Add components and you increase efficiency, but you have not increased the amount of potential.



> Whether the flower pot is in direct contact with your skin, or you get heat from contact with the air, the flower pot is only a simple storage device.


And a radiator.



> The only argument presented here that could be plausible is that it may radiate heat that can be felt to some degree more than just convection heat from an open burning candle. If that is the stance you take, I can accept that theory. However, since the flower pot is NOT creating or destroying heat then all of you must accept the fact that the air in a room can NOT be made "warmer" by placing a flower pot over a burning candle, versus an open burning candle.


Yes, that's another part of the possibilities of the experiment.



> In summary - perhaps the flower pot will place the heat closer to where it can be used more effectively (nearer to you) instead of the ceiling, but the net amount of heat given to the room can only be changed by using a larger candle with a bigger flame. The actual (meaning all points in the room measured and then averaged together) temperature of the room will NOT increase with the addition of a flower pot over the candle.


It's possible for it to break the thermal column of heat traveling rapidly upwards away from the user (keeping it from creating a thin column of an indoor "thermal" (chimney effect) that the user will never feel. It can store an amount of heat over a greater surface area, actually I should say a greater _usable _surface area, since the open, unhindered flame is like trying to heat the outdoors with a stack heater. Confine the heat for longer in the area of the user and he may get a result.

This is all dependent on the room, the insulation & draftiness and the design of the little experiment setup.


----------

