To get email notification when someone adds to a thread you're following, click on the star in the thread's header and it will turn yellow; click again to turn it off. To edit your profile, click on the gear.
The Wall has a powerful search engine that will go all the way back to 2002. Use "quotation marks" around multiple-word searches. RIGHT-CLICK on the results and choose Open Link In New Window so you'll be able to get back to your results. Happy searching!
In fairness to all, we don't discuss pricing on the Wall. Thanks for your cooperation.
To my dismay, my church is considering replacing our existing steam radiator with forced hot air. I'm familiar with many of the fundamental arguments against doing this, but I'm intrigued by something I read here on the Wall in regards to churches in particular.
I read here (http://www.heatinghelp.com/forum-thread/79128/Heat-loss-for-churches) that in such cases, steam systems were often greatly undersized compared to heatloss. The thought was that the radiators could keep things at ground level (like pews and such) nice and warm without necessarily heating the very top of the church. From my own crude estimates of heatloss, this seems to be the case- the connected load (about 1000 sq ft EDR) is substantially lower than heatloss. This is a high ceilinged (75'?) stone church with essentially no roof insulation. The original tongue and groove roof decking is visible from inside the church.
Being that a hot air system could not help but heat the entire envelop, am I correct to assume that in a case like this hot air could be significantly more expensive to operate? Could heating up the air against our uninsulated (cold!) roof/ceiling have deleterious effects as well (condensation? rot?)?
Any thoughts on this subject would be appreciated.