The joke's on him. It's going to take MORE money to re-heat cold(er) water.Yes, LL pays for hot water. The timer is supposedly a money-saving measure.
That pesky thermodynamics.The joke's on him. It's going to take MORE money to re-heat cold(er) water.
I was going to point that out, too.The joke's on him. It's going to take MORE money to re-heat cold(er) water.
It's a house and I'm in the converted garage, so we share a common wall, but landlord is on far side of their place.Once again: "what type of residence are you in (room in someone's house, apartment, SFR, etc.)?" "Landlord lives adjacent to me" doesn't answer that question.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's not a legal rental in the first place.It's a house and I'm in the converted garage, so we share a common wall, but landlord is on far side of their place.
I think it should not be that wayMy landlord has the hot water heater on a timer and is insistent it remain this way. This is a new phenomena to me. Does anyone have feedback? Can this be rightfully done by a landlord? It's really not much of an issue, but a curious topic.
Well, that settles it then!I think it should not be that way
I agree it is basically flawed thinking.Well, that settles it then!
A lot of people seem to have problems with thermodynamics.That pesky thermodynamics.
To the LL's credit, they wanted to install a tank-less one, but would have had to do an electrical upgrade - so the electrician determined. Will the timer really save on $, or is this more of an illusion? As others have said, it seems like it would initially take more juice to heat up the not-as-hot water from the timer cycle in the morning, and neutralize any potential financial benefits or savings. Just my hunch...A lot of people seem to have problems with thermodynamics.
Heat Transfer seems to stymie the same folks.
Perhaps the landlord should invest in a tank-less water heater.
At BEST, it will take the same energy...and that's in a perfect system.To the LL's credit, they wanted to install a tank-less one, but would have had to do an electrical upgrade - so the electrician determined. Will the timer really save on $, or is this more of an illusion? As others have said, it seems like it would initially take more juice to heat up the not-as-hot water from the timer cycle in the morning, and neutralize any potential financial benefits or savings. Just my hunch...
I believe your hunch has merit.To the LL's credit, they wanted to install a tank-less one, but would have had to do an electrical upgrade - so the electrician determined. Will the timer really save on $, or is this more of an illusion? As others have said, it seems like it would initially take more juice to heat up the not-as-hot water from the timer cycle in the morning, and neutralize any potential financial benefits or savings. Just my hunch...