nexgen graphene heating panels

[PeterW]

28 minutes ago, Clive Osborne said:

You are basically saying regardless of the covering it will take the same energy to get to 23C on the surface . We can heat a 20mm tile to 24C in 10 minutes from 15C .

 

Yes - it’s called Newton’s Law of Thermodynamics ....

 

Just to advise, until there is some solid technical and accredited research shown by @Clive Osborne regarding Nexgen then please can we leave this thread as is. 

 

 

[Clive Osborne]

I have said we will post this when we have it next week on numerous occasions. I have also explained radiant far infrared on the surface of a wall with nothing other than paint and plaster in front of it will take less power than heating water , putting it in a buffer tank , reducing the temperature by blending with cold water. Then get through 50mm of screed and heat the floor surface.

It's common sense . Now we get to thermal mass and what point is there to continue to release heat from the thermal mass of the floor after the room is already up to temperature.  In passive or new build you would end up with too much heat. Then we have air changes to consider . Not ideal if you heat air via convection.Anyway I am as bored as everyone else with this. Nexgen on wall picture prior to paint / plaster. Total power at full power 870 watts per hour. Actual heated element size 10 sq metres at 32 to 34 degrees. Warm up time 2 to 8 minutes.

[Jeremy Harris]

17 minutes ago, Clive Osborne said:

I have said we will post this when we have it next week on numerous occasions. I have also explained radiant far infrared on the surface of a wall with nothing other than paint and plaster in front of it will take less power than heating water , putting it in a buffer tank , reducing the temperature by blending with cold water. Then get through 50mm of screed and heat the floor surface.

It's common sense . Now we get to thermal mass and what point is there to continue to release heat from the thermal mass of the floor after the room is already up to temperature.  In passive or new build you would end up with too much heat. Then we have air changes to consider . Not ideal if you heat air via convection.Anyway I am as bored as everyone else with this. Nexgen on wall picture prior to paint / plaster. Total power at full power 870 watts per hour. Actual heated element size 10 sq metres at 32 to 34 degrees. Warm up time 2 to 8 minutes.

 

 

 

I appreciate what you're saying, but there is a very clear, fundamental, principle here.  To heat a given space, that has a known, fixed, heating requirement, to a defined temperature, requires a defined heat input.  This cannot be changed, it is a fixed function, determined by the heat loss rate from the space.  Ventilation rate is just one element of the total heat loss, so is included in the basic heating requirement; it has as much significance as the other forms of heat loss from the heated space.

 

The form of heat input is irrelevant

 

The time taken to heat the space is irrelevant, as we are dealing with a steady-state condition, not a dynamic one.

 

It matters not whether the heat be entirely radiant, convective or conducted.

 

The area of the heated surface is also irrelevant as far as efficiency is concerned. 

 

All that matters is the amount of electrical power required in order to provide the required heating power into the space, to balance the heat loss rate.

 

As we live in a self-build passive house, that I designed and thermally modelled, I understand the challenges of managing heat loss, heat recovery ventilation, ensuring that the decrement delay for the external structure is adequately long to ensure good thermal stability, and the heating and cooling challenges of such a build.

 

I look forward to seeing your energy efficiency data in due course.

 

 

[MikeSharp01]

14 hours ago, Barney12 said:

As there appears to be some issues with clarity of information on this thread could you just confirm that you put the pasty in your pants? 

Do you have any efficiency calcs?

According to herindoors probability of any sort of intimacy and warm body radiation theory you stand no chance with a pasty in your pants and you must not neglect the latency corollary that clearly defines the quarantine period, according to the inverse inverse cube law of time since any sort of pasty in the pants. There is considerable research, sadly now rather old, start HERE, that examines the nature of containment for pasty products - including what will happen to your collar, the screw extruder required, the need for a flat bottom and the probable effects on the container design.

 

Along with the challenges to ones relationships the laws of physics also apply the the pasty phase, but, one guesses, that is a whole nother conversation.

 

(Sorry Peter)

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

containment for pasty products

A hinged bucket on wheels then.

Now, I lived in France and was joined by my Belgium cousin for a few days.  He was always amazed how well I got on with the local girls and wanted to know my secret.

I said it was simple, I just put a potato down my Speedos.

The next day, he came up to me and said that he had been trying the potato trick but he was just laughed at.

I said 'You need to put the potato in the front of your Speedos'. 

Edited July 12, 2019 by SteamyTea

[joe90]

How I regret the wording of my post earlier,    I EAT THE PASTY!!!!!

[joe90]

OMG, Thermal mass, everyone duck ?

[MikeSharp01]

5 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Thermal mass

Yep - I saw that but was not brave enough to mention it, but I now have my tin hat by my side - just in case.

 

[Nickfromwales]

9 hours ago, Clive Osborne said:

In passive or new build you would end up with too much heat.

Hi Clive.

I'm afraid that is not the case, and have real-world experience of fitting wet heating systems in 'passive' standard dwellings ( so speak from experience ). The heat output from UFH in a decent sized slab is very mild-mannered and very easy to control if set up correctly. You would, for eg, have less overall comfort from a heater that switches on / off vs one that stays at a chosen set temp, plus not having the slab means you cannot load-shift off low rate electricity as you have no thermal storage from such an emitter as the panels you mention. You are a slave to whatever rate of electricity is available at any particular time when you heat via such mediums. 

Any inefficiencies from the wet system are soon absorbed by the many benefits of it, load-shifting for one, but also a house with a cool / cold floor is not very pleasant in a residential dwelling IMHO, but the panels would have some appeal in other retro-fit situations I'm sure ( where the higher running costs are outweighed by convenience ).

 

In short, you would also end up with "too much heat", locally to the panels, when trying to heat a whole room with them, so 6 and two 3's I'm afraid.

 

7 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Yep - I saw that but was not brave enough to mention it, but I now have my tin hat by my side - just in case.

 

We will always have 'thermal mass'..........

Hmmmm, is that Jeremy's drone I can see from my window. "INCOMING!!!!!!!"

[Jeremy Harris]

11 hours ago, Clive Osborne said:

 Total power at full power 870 watts per hour. Actual heated element size 10 sq metres at 32 to 34 degrees.

 

 

Those numbers don't seem to match what would be expected, are you sure that the data is accurate? 

 

Even small errors in surface and room temperature measurements can result in fairly large variations in heat output, due to the non-linear relationship between Δ_T and heat output for a radiating surface.

 

Using your data, and assuming a surface emissivity of 0.9 for the wall/panels (which will be within a couple of % for a typical painted wall), then for a heat output of 870 W (not "watts per hour") then the Δ_T between the heated surface temperature and the room temperature would be  7.93°C. 

 

So, for a heated surface temperature of 32°C the room temperature for this heat output would be 32°C - 7.93°C = 24.07°C and for a heated surface temperature of 34°C then the room temperature for this heat output would be 26.07°C.

 

These room temperatures  seem very high to me. 

 

Are you 100% sure that the surface temperature of the heat emitting surface is really as high as 32°C to 34°C?

 

Using a more typical case, with a room temperature of 21°C, a heated surface area of 10m² and a surface emissivity of 0.9 (so Δ_T for 870 W heat output is 7.93°C), gives a heated surface temperature of 28.93°C.  This seems to be much closer to what I'd expect, having measured the surface temperature of other radiant heating systems in the past.

 

[Bitpipe]

If the heating element is applied to the walls (painted or skimmed over) what happens if I want to hang a picture or fixture - ie can it survive being penetrated?

 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

what happens if I want to hang a picture

Probably twist the picture frame.

[Ferdinand]

10 hours ago, joe90 said:

How I regret the wording of my post earlier,    I EAT THE PASTY!!!!!

 

Bit of a boob there, if you try eating every pasty you see.

[Ferdinand]

5 minutes ago, Bitpipe said:

If the heating element is applied to the walls (painted or skimmed over) what happens if I want to hang a picture or fixture - ie can it survive being penetrated?

 

 

Potentially shocking?

[Bitpipe]

11 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Potentially shocking?

 

Its. 24v system so no risk to life but guessing a nail / drilled hole in the wall could damage the emitter.

 

Efficiency claims aside, how practical & robust is this kind of solution in a domestic environment?

[Patrick]

Very entertaining. Not making a very convincing impression for the system @Clive Osborne

Probably the wrong crowd here . They rely far too much on facts. It s terrible.

Would be interesting to see the "German test results" mentioned earlier.

We all know that anything tested with the word "German" in it is far superior and HAS to be trusted. ?

[Clive Osborne]

12 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

I appreciate what you're saying, but there is a very clear, fundamental, principle here.  To heat a given space, that has a known, fixed, heating requirement, to a defined temperature, requires a defined heat input.  This cannot be changed, it is a fixed function, determined by the heat loss rate from the space.  Ventilation rate is just one element of the total heat loss, so is included in the basic heating requirement; it has as much significance as the other forms of heat loss from the heated space.

 

The form of heat input is irrelevant

 

The time taken to heat the space is irrelevant, as we are dealing with a steady-state condition, not a dynamic one.

 

It matters not whether the heat be entirely radiant, convective or conducted.

 

The area of the heated surface is also irrelevant as far as efficiency is concerned. 

 

All that matters is the amount of electrical power required in order to provide the required heating power into the space, to balance the heat loss rate.

 

As we live in a self-build passive house, that I designed and thermally modelled, I understand the challenges of managing heat loss, heat recovery ventilation, ensuring that the decrement delay for the external structure is adequately long to ensure good thermal stability, and the heating and cooling challenges of such a build.

 

I look forward to seeing your energy efficiency data in due course.

 

 

I will post it on here. Please do not forget you started this by saying there is no difference in energy usage between a 1950s electric heater and Nexgen. Now please also understand we are talking about comfort. Its fact that we lose heat as FIR . Is it that crazy that FIR is absorbed easily by us and after all that is the acid test. We do not use air sensors alone in test we use black bulb to measure radiation. We have a mixture of Nexgen and a hot water convection system. I never have the air temp above 19 and my wife never complains.  In other rooms with radiators its 21C in winter. There is plenty of evidence on FIR heating so I am not going to go into it here. I will post results as I have said about 20 times.

[Clive Osborne]

On 11/07/2019 at 23:22, scottishjohn said:

I am still awaiting the answer to my question 

130sqm house with near passiv insulation levels  heat load of 2400kw per year 

why should i use nexgen instead of UFH 

and more importantly what would the cost of a system with controls to do this and total electricity required to accomplish an ambient temp in house of 22c 

can it use a mix of solar pv and mains as power supply for winter when solar pv cannot provide enough  energy to run the nexgen panels 

you say it is fitted like wallpaper --that means it is not behind the wall but on the habitable side of it ,so would need to be covered by something ?

do you have an installation video ?

You are referring to a air temp of 22C. We do not heat air I gaurantee you would turn Nexgen lower than 22C. It's about comfort. We do address this on the website amongst other things. It's not witchcraft there are many studies by companies far bigger than us with data on this. We also use lower temps because to get as much FIR as possible. As I said I will post data on here.

[ProDave]

8 minutes ago, Clive Osborne said:

I will post it on here. Please do not forget you started this by saying there is no difference in energy usage between a 1950s electric heater and Nexgen. Now please also understand we are talking about comfort. Its fact that we lose heat as FIR . Is it that crazy that FIR is absorbed easily by us and after all that is the acid test. We do not use air sensors alone in test we use black bulb to measure radiation. We have a mixture of Nexgen and a hot water convection system. I never have the air temp above 19 and my wife never complains.  In other rooms with radiators its 21C in winter. There is plenty of evidence on FIR heating so I am not going to go into it here. I will post results as I have said about 20 times.

So are you now eventually saying, that the key to your energy saving claims are as I suggested earlier that you keep the ROOM temperature lower and achieve comfort for the occupants by the radiant heat they receive directly?

 

If so, then why not just state that claim in plain English, and then people might believe a system that can achieve comfort for occupants while maintaining a lower room temperature could actually cost less to run.

 

EDIT  As Steamy Tea says, that would make a low running cost claim true, but it would still not make the heaters "more efficient"

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Clive Osborne said:

Now please also understand we are talking about comfort

I was waiting for this.

What you seem to be saying here is that you can be in a room that has cold air in it, but as long as you are bathed in some far infrared radiation, you won't feel cold.

This is not how one measures efficiency.

I can make my car more fuel efficient, over a set period of time, by not driving it much.  Not really the point though is it.

One possible problem with having a house that is colder than necessary, is that condensation can be an issue.  I hope you have done a risk assessment on this aspect.

[Declan52]

What will the test results actually show. Will they show what you as a company want to show to provide sales of your product or is it a complete test incorporating all the questions that have been asked here.

In the past some companies that sell a product that rely on independent test results don't fully test everything and leave out certain aspects so their product looks like the all singing all dancing answer to our prayers. 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Declan52 said:

In the past some companies that sell a product that rely on independent test results don't fully test everything and leave out certain aspects so their product looks like the all singing all dancing answer to our prayers. 

Not that multifoil insulation sellers would do anything like that.

 

[Jeremy Harris]

13 minutes ago, Clive Osborne said:

I will post it on here.

 

Thanks, I look forward to reading it in due course.

 

13 minutes ago, Clive Osborne said:

Please do not forget you started this by saying there is no difference in energy usage between a 1950s electric heater and Nexgen.

 

Sorry, but I didn't "start" anything.  I only made the point that 1 kW of heat = 1 kW of heat, and the means by which that heat is delivered to a space with a defined heating requirement doesn't matter, as far as the steady state is concerned.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Clive Osborne said:

Now please also understand we are talking about comfort. Its fact that we lose heat as FIR . Is it that crazy that FIR is absorbed easily by us and after all that is the acid test. We do not use air sensors alone in test we use black bulb to measure radiation. We have a mixture of Nexgen and a hot water convection system. I never have the air temp above 19 and my wife never complains.  In other rooms with radiators its 21C in winter. There is plenty of evidence on FIR heating so I am not going to go into it here. I will post results as I have said about 20 times.

 

I understand the perceived comfort effect well too, and have commented here several times on how 3G glazing, with 2 low e coated panes, feels subjectively warmer for a given room temperature than 2G glazing with only 1 low e coated pane.  The reason for that is primarily to do with the surface of the body sensing the reduced radiative heat loss through the glazing.

 

Using a black body reference source (emissivity = 1.0) would be normal practice for calibrating instrumentation, but the key factor will be the actual surface emissivity of the decorated wall, ceiling or floor into which the heated film is set.  A painted surface will have an emissivity of about 0.9 usually, as I'm sure you're aware.

 

 

 

[scottishjohn]

1 minute ago, SteamyTea said:

Not that multifoil insulation sellers would do anything like that

I have used multifoil blanket  under my suspended floor as it was the easiest way to insulate the whole floor and deal with all the wiring and pipes etc from original  build 

 and have to say it seems to work very well as it has air on both sides --not being compressed in anyway 

[Clive Osborne]

6 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So are you now eventually saying, that the key to your energy saving claims are as I suggested earlier that you keep the ROOM temperature lower and achieve comfort for the occupants by the radiant heat they receive directly?

 

If so, then why not just state that claim in plain English, and then people might believe a system that can achieve comfort for occupants while maintaining a lower room temperature could actually cost less to run.

 

EDIT  As Steamy Tea says, that would make a low running cost claim true, but it would still not make the heaters "more efficient"

I  am saying that it's a mixture of things . Including temperature emitter size wavelength of the FIR, amount of FIR. You will I'm sure be aware that having FIR inside a metal panel at 80C becomes just radiant heat no real FIR benefit . Wavelength also changes with temperature.  We concentrate on FIR content. One thing I have established is we need to do more about the amount of FIR on our website