My experience is that with the hot water heater in the same location as our
previous water heater, the delivery time is about the same. You might have
literally one or two seconds before the gas kicks on, but otherwise it is
the same. Also, if you're standing at the sink turning the hot water on
and off, like for washing dishes, the pipes fill up with hot water as they
do with a traditional water heater, and the hot water is there immediately
when you turn the faucet back on. Of course if you let it sit for a while
it will cool down (the water in the pipes that is.). I have to say that
while I haven't used one of these units in a trailer I am a convert when it
comes to using them at home. Also, the space savings are quite substantial
in our home. It allowed us to put everything, including storage in a very
small furnace closet. I would be interested to know what the actual size
of the RV units is. Are they larger or smaller than normal water heaters?
Jodi
Laramie, WY
At 10:49 PM 3/19/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>John: I think it was Tuna? who said that given the short distances
>between tank
>and heater in an A/S, a tankless unit might actually pass more water
>through before
>delivering hot water as it can take a while to bring the water up from
>whatever the
>ambient is, whereas a tanked heater has only the amount of water in the
>pipes from
>tank to fixture before it delivers hot water. My experience with tankless
>heaters
>was in England and there they tended to be placed just above the place of use,
>e.g., kitchen sink, bathtub, and even there, it sometimes took a while to get
>actual hot water out of them. What's been your experience in terms of
>time for
>delivery to tap in your home: faster than from the tank unit, noticeably
>slower,
>what? In California there is no such thing as an "unlimited" water supply
>even
>when you're hooked up. Well, there is, in meter-free Sacramento for one,
>but I'm
>speaking rainfall-wise here.
>
>--Sarah
>
>John and Jodi Guerin wrote:
>
> > I think the advantage in an RV is not ever running out of hot water. Of
> > course that would mostly be in situations where the water is in unlimited
> > supply. As for a home I KNOW that the savings is real. We use about a
> > third of the gas to power our tankless hot water heater compared to the old
> > one, which was just an ordinary hot water heater. Also, I never have to
> > wait for the water to reheat before I take a shower, run the dishwasher or
> > clothes washer. The third advantage is that these things have very little
> > parts that ever need replacing because you are removing the corrosion prone
> > tank of water. I paid about $600 for mine and have probably have more than
> > recouped my money's worth with the gas price hikes. Oh, and by the way, I
> > never have a shower where I wish the flow was stronger, in fact it's better
> > flow than most regular showers I've been in. True Story.
> > Jodi
> > Laramie, WY
> >
> > PS, we also have a "clothes processor", the kind that washes and dries in
> > one unit and doesn't have to be vented. Talk about New Age...
> >
> > At 10:13 AM 3/19/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Robert (and others),
> > > What is the REAL-WORLD advantage to tankless water heater? The problems
> > >you cite in an RV situation look like very real disadvantages to me.
> > >
> > >I personally can't much see the supposed advantage in a home
> > >installation, either. The big claim to fame is the lack of heat loss
> > >from the normal water heater tank, but I've shut off the power to my
> > >electric heater in the shop and found the water just about as hot 24
> > >hours later. It's still warm 48 hours after the power's been off, and
> > >this is a heater that's over 30 years old. Presumably, the new heaters
> > >have better insulation and even less heat loss. If you used hot water
> > >only very intermittently, say every other day, I could see a slight
> > >advantage to a tankless outfit, but not the way most families live.
> > >
> > >Sorry to be a heretic, but in this case, I think the Emperor has no
> > >clothes.
> > >
> > > <<Jim>>
> > >
> > >
> > >Robert C Townsend wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it, the compressed air and demand pump systems both
> > > maintain
> > > > around 35 psi... a good question and an important consideration,
> though...
> > > > however, for the kinds of hot-water use for which the tankless
> systems are
> > > > 'best', i.e. 'unlimited hot water', a city-water supply would clearly
> > > be the
> > > > preferable source. In 'boondocking' situations - where one's water
> > > supply is
> > > > necessarily limited to what one carries with - the traditional small
> > > propane
> > > > fired systems seem more suitable for 'navy showers', since the
> initial cool
> > > > water is that which is in the hot-water line between faucet and
> heater...
> > > > the tankless systems take a few extra seconds (pints? gallons?) to
> get the
> > > > water flowing through it up to temperature....
> > > >
> > > >-
> > >--
> > >
> > > <<http://www.oldengine.org/members/jdunmyer>>
> > > <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> > > <<lower SE Michigan, USA>>
> > > <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
> > >http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
> > >
> > >If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary
> original
> > >text from your reply.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
> > http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
> >
> > If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary
> original
> > text from your reply.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
>http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
>
>If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary original
>text from your reply.
>
>
To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary original
text from your reply.
