Hot Tub Forum
Original => Hot Tub Forum => Topic started by: Spiderman on March 07, 2007, 12:57:22 pm
-
Just curious (and I'm not opening up any FF VS. TP can of worms here), I just was wondering. If TP is as good as FF, does TP work as well as foam in other applications, like freezers, ect.? Do coolers, freezers, ect, use TP methods, or isn't is possible?? :-?
-
Thermal Pane works by creating a warm air barrier between the shell and the cabinet. If the air in this space is kept at a temperature equal to the spa water, there is no heat loss (as heat transfers from hot to cold). If the air is heated greter than the desired water temp, the spa water is heated.
TP designs, such as artic, maintian this thermal barrier by capturing the heat given off by the pumps. No system works 100% and there are many other issues and trade offs in the equation. But if you can heat the air via the waste heat at a rate greater than it's being lost, you can maintian a thermal barrier and minimize heat loss from the water, in effect "insualting it". It's not a static system like foam, or fiberglass.
Theramal pane wouldn't apply to freezers and such, as with freezers your trying to "lock in the cold" and stop warmer air from the outside of the freezer warming the inside via conduction throught the freezer walls.
-
PSSSSSSST= The sound a can of worms makes when it opens. This topic always gets heated debate.
-
Charmin makes good TP ;D and that dait no lie.
-
No, let's not debate which is better (foam) , just explain how they work. Hopefully this will stop it from becoming a dead horse. but I think Spiderman asks a good question. I've found a lot of folks think "thermal windows" or "thermos bottle" when the term "Thermal Pane" comes up and there's a significant difference when we talk hot tubs.
-
In it's simplest form, it's just a question of where you put the insulation.
TP= minimal on the shell, airspace open under the cabinet, foamboard or similar on the inside of the cabinet.
Pumps and plumbing all inside the heated air in the cabinet.
Full Foam= Shell is heavily foamed to hold the heat in the water.
Pumps outside of foam barrier, plumbing for the most part inside of the foam.
They both can work if done correctly.
Thermopane is useless without tin foil and a fan, though. ;D
-
PSSSSSSST= The sound a can of worms makes when it opens. This topic always gets heated debate.
Yes, but if that heated debate creates hot air, it will limit the heat loss from the vessel.
8-)
-
Thermopane without a heat source is limited to the amount of insulations r-factor. It's very easy to run your pump more to create the improved r-factor of the heat source, but now you have a diminished return because your running your pump more than is required. This is the factor that makes it a wash versus FF And as the thermopane style tub ages air leaks develop on the non quality brands that also diminish the insulations r-factor. Also things like the access door and any venting for the warmer weather create air flow, and if this is not addressed during very cold snaps, your TP style will be loosing it's r-factor (heat source) quickly which will create a power hog. These issues never arise on the FF style of insulation skeem. However, plumbing/pumps/equipment..... it will last longer in a power down/freeze situation inside it's little warm air environment on a TP style tub as long as the cold wind is not blowing right through the cabinet cooling the space faster than the vessel heat can keep it warm. And I would never use this as a sales pitch because either way FF or TP a repair needs to be made ASAP. Only sales people who use the insulation as a selling point get ingrored or bantered by me, because it truely is a non issue. Remember Arctic and how they got blasted starting a few years ago when they first showed up on the boards pitchin how they were so much better because of there insulation??
-
(hoof beats heard in the distance...)
TP relies on the large pumps for:
- Maintinaing the warm air barrier. Without it, as Tman says, it's ability to provide effective insualtion is gone.
- Circulaton and filtration
- Therapy.
The main pumps does triple duty and is the heart of the system for the 3 main systems of a Thermal pane tub.
Question: What is proably the single biggest failure of any tub? I am told the pumps,
Question: What produces the most strain on a pump? Starting it up.
-
(hoof beats heard in the distance...)
Question: What is proably the single biggest failure of any tub? I am told the pumps,
Consumers who do not take care of their spa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As far as the pumps go it is usually the pump seal that leaked and caused the front bearings to go out. Why do the seals fail, so first sentence.
-
As a consumer what am I expected to do in order to properly take care of my pumps? I did not see anything in the maual, or warrenty. Did I miss something?
-
pH
Do not use a floating feeder except for Brilliance.
8-)
-
Capturing waste heat from a pump is one thing, but using it a heat source is another.
Electric motors, I've heard, prefer a cooler operating environment than a hotter one.
Not sure if the lack of circulating air would affect longetivity of the motors?
(Hoofbeats- not so distant now)
-
Capturing waste heat from a pump is one thing, but using it a heat source is another.
Electric motors, I've heard, prefer a cooler operating environment than a hotter one.
Not sure if the lack of circulating air would affect longetivity of the motors?
(Hoofbeats- not so distant now)
I agree. I never could understand why one particular individual advocates the running of pumps for eight hours per day to keep water warm. I still feel the most efficient way to heat water is with a heater.
-
I agree. I never could understand why one particular individual advocates the running of pumps for eight hours per day to keep water warm. I still feel the most efficient way to heat water is with a heater.
I know of one place that recomends running them 24/7 in the cold weather.
At what point do you cross the line of "insutlation" and cross over into realm of "secondary heat source"
-
pH. Do not use a floating feeder except for Brilliance.
I know that Brilliance claims to be chlorine free, which you have mentioned as a benefit regarding off-gassing damage -- but is it also pH buffered?
-
As a consumer what am I expected to do in order to properly take care of my pumps? I did not see anything in the maual, or warrenty. Did I miss something?
Maintain proper water chemistry, nevertheless all seals will wear out and start leaking. To prevent the leaking from damaging the motor check the pump for any signs of leakage. Catch it early and all you need is a new seal.
A good time to look and when you do a drain and fill. The area that you want to pay close attention to is where the shaft enters the pump.
-
I know that Brilliance claims to be chlorine free, which you have mentioned as a benefit regarding off-gassing damage -- but is it also pH buffered?
Brilliance sanitizer is pretty much all bromine. Brilliance shock, which is MPS, is not buffered.
When I used their sanitizer and shock I was contantly having to adjust my water.
-
(hoof beats heard in the distance...)
TP relies on the large pumps for:
- Maintinaing the warm air barrier. Without it, as Tman says, it's ability to provide effective insualtion is gone.
- Circulaton and filtration
- Therapy.
The main pumps does triple duty and is the heart of the system for the 3 main systems of a Thermal pane tub.
Question: What is proably the single biggest failure of any tub? I am told the pumps,
Question: What produces the most strain on a pump? Starting it up.
drew,
My circ. pump is the only pump that runs outside of the single 2-speed therapy pump that circulates water on low speed twice a day for 2 hrs. each. What did you mean about larger pumps? I don't see it in my TP application.
-
Remember Arctic and how they got blasted starting a few years ago when they first showed up on the boards pitchin how they were so much better because of their insulation??
I wasn't around back then (probably lucky I wasn't!) However, there is a scientific basis for that claim. Oddly enough, five years later, there still seems to be only one published comparative study of the thermal efficiency of hot tubs.
http://www.arcticspas.com/downloads/performance/Thermal%20Performance%20Test%20of%20Spas.pdf
Tman122 and others have quite correctly pointed out numerous problems with that study, but AFAIK it still remains the only such research available.
-
GITTY UP COMON GITTY UP.......I SELL TP.....NOT CHARMIN.....WORKS GREAT HERE IN FLORIDA....CUSTOMERS LOVE THEIR COLEMAN SPAS....ONE LAST THING....CS SELLS MANY MANY SPAS IN CANADA...A GROWING MARKET IN FACT....IT MUST WORK WELL....SIMPLE LOGIC...ISNT THERE ROOM FOR COMPETING IDEAS....OR ARE THE TP GUYS SHAMMING CONSUMERS? FIFTY CENTS A DAY TO OPERATE.....THIS IS WHAT I TELL MY CUSTOMERS AND NONE IN ALMOST FIVE YEARS HAVE RETURNED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT OPERATING EXPENSES......FAR FAR FROM ENERGY HOG STATUS. SADDLE UP.....
-
No one is saying there is not room for "alternate ideas" Its just this idea is not better, just different.
-
new ideas and innovations are always slow to be accepted especially when it poses a threat to the standard.
Coleman 480 - 3 years running, no leakies, no loose fitties, no burned up pumpies, no big electricity spikies, no circ pumpies, no complainties.
-
Tom,
I have a question on the report you linked.
Did the testers run the tests based on no users, just normal operation?
If so, I noticed they actually started the jet pumps on Hot Spring on the test. Why did they do that? Wouldn't that corrupt the test since Hot Spring uses a circ pump and doesn't need a "filter cycle?" Seems to me that would cause the Hot Spring results to have higher power consumption than it should have. How long did the researchers run the jet pumps?
It looks to be a pretty good test, but I question why the researchers turned on the Hot Spring jet pumps. If they tested the Hot Spring without using the jet pumps, what would the result have been?
-
You question why they turned on the pumps but not the double r-factor in the Arctics cover where 80 percent of the heatloss occurs? Tom is right though it is the only test out there, even if it was sanctioned by a manufacturer and not a fair comparision. ;D
-
I only respond to these kind of threads because I love contraversy, I thrive on it.
-
Tom,
I have a question on the report you linked.
Did the testers run the tests based on no users, just normal operation?
If so, I noticed they actually started the jet pumps on Hot Spring on the test. Why did they do that? Wouldn't that corrupt the test since Hot Spring uses a circ pump and doesn't need a "filter cycle?" Seems to me that would cause the Hot Spring results to have higher power consumption than it should have. How long did the researchers run the jet pumps?
It looks to be a pretty good test, but I question why the researchers turned on the Hot Spring jet pumps. If they tested the Hot Spring without using the jet pumps, what would the result have been?
If you read the study, you'll note that it is for "steady state" operation, with no actual use or simulated use. While some have suggested that this makes the results inapplicable to "real world" use, it is nonetheless scientifically sound as all models operated under similar constraints.
As far as I can tell, the Vanguard pumps were run in order to make the operating conditions similar for all the tubs, and while on the face of it that seems reasonable, it may indeed have affected the results.
There are many other discrepancies with the study; I suggest you search the board if you're interested. Tman122 in particular has gone over the study closely, so a look at his past posts would be worthwhile.
-
You question why they turned on the pumps but not the double r-factor in the Arctics cover where 80 percent of the heat loss occurs? Tom is right though it is the only test out there, even if it was sanctioned by a manufacturer and not a fair comparision. ;D
Not only sanctioned, but commissioned by Arctic! :P
You want to go through all this cover stuff again, Tman? Pfui. Read page 3: "The client [Arctic Spas] made the selection of the spa vendors and models, but the independent third party that conducted the research [Alberta Research Council] purchased them as any consumer would purchase them. This includes spas produced by the client, so that no modifications could be made to the spas."--my emphasis.
And if the Arctics came standard with thick covers and the others didn't, whose fault is that? Pfui, I say! And if the Arctics came with standard covers and still got good results, how is that a problem? Pfui, and again pfui! >:( >:( >:( >:( ;D
If you or anybody else wants to shell out ($250,000 should do it) for a more "fair" test, go to it!
There, Tman, your daily dose of controversy. ;)
-
I've never understood the argument about the covers used? :-/ If that's the way they are purchased and Arctic happens to have a superior cover, then good on them! I could see the beef if they utilized an upgraded cover for the test but that wasn't the case at all. Tough to bit*h about it as standard equipment...
I also disagree with the suggestion that 80% of heat loss occurs from the top (unless you're talking about the cover off?) nor the suggestion that a thicker cover is more efficient but that's an entire new thread. ;) Is there data you have on this Tman or is it a guess? ;) I can't leave here...there's just sooooo much to learn! :)
-
I have an Infared camera available to me ( a buddy does home evaluations for the local power company) And if you ever get the chance you should look at an outside hot tub in -20 degree weather. You will clearly see a heat plume rising from the tub straight up. Yes some heat is illuminating from the sides and traveling upward, but in the FF spa we looked at and my combination Foam/TP there was substantialy more heat loss from the upper lip at the cover seal and from the cover seam and around the cover. You just have to look at it if you ever get the chance. And yes 80 percent is an approximation.......not a guess!!! ;)
A cover upgrade is standered in Northern Minnesota......... :P
Oh and tell me Steve....why would a cover with R12 be as effiecient at stopping heat loss, what ever the percentage, as a cover with R20? I understand what your saying if the numbers were an R40 cover versus an R60 but I think an R9 versus an R19 would be substantial....Doc?
I believe the extra inches on the Arctic cover relate to an almost double R-Factor....Doc?
Sorry I keep asking for Doc but I don't feel like looking up the numbers, it's friday and I am on my second beer with no repairs scheduled for the weekend for a change.
-
Why you guys come to me for this stuff? You think I can just spit out something like, R-14 stops about 90% of heat loss, and R-20 about 95%?
Oh..... well gee... I guess I can ;D
Seriously though, please remember that this is based SOLEY on insulating ability and does NOT take air infiltration into consideration. It also doesn't take into consideration any leaks from the seam of a cover, nor a cover with minimul insulation along the hinge.
-
Let's start it in a new thread so as to not hijack this one. It can be specific to covers and chances are we'll get a better response. I'll check back later on tonight or tomorrow. Sound like a plan?
-
heh heh heh....... ok, so maybe I didn't read your whole question.. been a long day.
Arctic uses a "cast core" foam, as opposed to EPS. I"m not exactly sure what "cast core" is, but I believe it's similar to extruded polystyrene. Most all spa covers are expanded polystyrene.
The R value of expanded polystyrene, based on 1 of thickness, varying densities;
1.0# R-3.85
1.25# R-4.0
1.5# R-4.17
2.0# R-4.35
I'd have to look up extruded, but my recollection is R-5 per inch
-
heh heh heh....... ok, so maybe I didn't read your whole question.. been a long day.
Arctic uses a "cast core" foam, as opposed to EPS. I"m not exactly sure what "cast core" is, but I believe it's similar to extruded polystyrene. Most all spa covers are expanded polystyrene.
The R value of expanded polystyrene, based on 1 of thickness, varying densities;
1.0# R-3.85
1.25# R-4.0
1.5# R-4.17
2.0# R-4.35
I'd have to look up extruded, but my recollection is R-5 per inch
Why you guys come to me for this stuff? You think I can just spit out something like, R-14 stops about 90% of heat loss, and R-20 about 95%?
So a 3/2 taper made from 1 Lb. density would have a maximum R-Value of about 12 and a 5/4 taper made from castcore would have a maximum R-Value of about 25.....double. But we do not know the exact cover used by the others in the test.....
And if you are using 5-7 percent more of your energy because of the lower R-Factor in the cover, it would relate to aproxemitly that much more KWH per day in usage for the next nearest compititor to the Arctic which only was what percent higher in operating cost...huh? I think there was pennys difference between the top 2 in the test.
Speculate with me here, if the second place tub had an equal R-Value in the cover which tub would of been on top?
oops sorry. Yes a new thread if anyone is interested. But it has been covered several times previous as Tom mentioned.
-
Since we're not starting a new thread, ::) here's a question to ponder;
At what point does R Value become redundant in the case of a spa cover's thickness and then instead, become a feature for added strength?
Steve
-
Since we're not starting a new thread, ::) here's a question to ponder;
At what point does R Value become redundant in the case of a spa cover's thickness and then instead, become a feature for added strength?
Steve
Local building codes require us to achieve a certain R-Factor in our building practices in walls and attic spaces. I am going to guess here and say these minumums are not the maximum effective R-Factor. I believe for an Attic here in Northern Minnesota it is R-30 minumum. I do not think those kinds of R-Factors are achievable on a managable cover. So my point is, to try and speculativly answer your question Steve, I dout the point of diminishing return is achievable on a managable cover.