DIY Home Improvement, Remodeling & Repair Forum > DIY Home Improvement > Plumbing Forum > Maximize Water Heater?




Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-10-2009, 01:13 PM  
Redwood
Certified Lunatic
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Olde Tyme, Connecticut
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestor_Kelebay View Post
Redwood: I don't think you read that clip the way I did. It says that this woman suffers from a condition that causes her to have seizures frequently, and when she stepped into the scalding hot shower she had a seisure, collapsed and lay helpless in the tub while 136 degree water sprayed on her unprotected body.

That is hardly "typical". If that woman had checked the water with her hand first and collapsed on the floor, she wouldn't have been scalded....

....140 degrees is the highest I'd set a water heater. As long as that temperature of water is being used by responsible adults, then I don't consider that to be careless or unreasonable. If there were elderly, mentally impaired or young children using that water, I'd turn the heater down to 120.
Everywhere in between is really a matter of personal choice in my view.

For over 20 years I've had my water heaters set at 135 degrees, and so far no one has complained that the water is too hot. If anything, people complain that their showers aren't hot enough. So, what's a guy to do? The higher water temperature makes for more warm showers every morning so that no one has to make do with a cold one.
The way I read it is the owner of the apartment set the water temp above 120 without an anti-scald device such as a tempering valve installed and exposed themselves to a liability that cost them $750,000. The end of which was a judgement against them!

Code here limits the setting to 120 degrees F unless a tempering valve is installed.

In any case it is not something that a tenant is supposed to mess with it is the landlords duty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by majakdragon View Post
Still trying to figure out how water in a tank can go to 70% before you would notice a temperature difference. If I have a 40 gallon tank, and add 20 gallons of cold water to it, the temp is going to be noticable. I realize that the cold water goes to the bottom of the tank, but 20 gallons is 20 gallons not matter how you look at it. Getting a 20 minute shower is a good rate.
Quote:
Insufficient Hot Water (#111-1)
A water heater should deliver 70% of its rated capacity, with less than 30 degrees drop in water temperature.

There is only one way to determine whether or not a water heater is efficiently supplying its maximum production of hot water. Immediately after the water heater has completed its heating cycle, all of the hot water should be drawn from the heater, and the temperature measured in the process. This can be done with the use of a standard mercury thermometer and a standard 3 or 5 gallon bucket. Note the number of buckets of water drawn off to reach a point 30 degrees lower than the highest temperature. Multiply the number of buckets drawn off by 3 (or 5) (the number of gallons per bucket.) This figure should then equal, or exceed, 70% of the rated capacity of the heater.

GAS HEATERS:
If the test was conducted on a 30 gallon water heater, then the water drawn off should exceed 70% of 30 gallons. Therefore, 21 gallons of water should have been drawn from the heater with less than a 30 degree drop in temperature. The gas burner will then operate for approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes to recover the water which had been drawn.

ELECTRIC HEATERS:
If the test was conducted on an electric water heater, then the maximum wattage input should be multiplied by .004, and that number divided into the rated gallon capacity of the heater. This will determine the number of hours necessary to recover the water drawn off. For example, on a 50 gallon electric water heater, if the maximum wattage input is 4500 watts, you would multiply 4500 by .004: result, 18 gallons per hour recovery. Then divide 18 into the rated gallon capacity (50 gallons.) Result would be 2.8 – or approximately three hours operating recovery time.

RESULTS:
If 70% of your volume capacity is efficiently drawn off and operating recovery time is normal, then it can only be concluded that your demands are greater than the water heater’s delivery ability. Source Link


__________________
Redwood is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-10-2009, 04:13 PM  
Nestor_Kelebay
Emperor Penguin
 
Nestor_Kelebay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,844
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Redwood:

Quote:
The way I read it is the owner of the apartment set the water temp above 120 without an anti-scald device such as a tempering valve installed and exposed themselves to a liability that cost them $750,000. The end of which was a judgement against them!
That judgement would almost certainly be appealed.

Both Canadian and American law is based on the British "Common Law" that uses the test of the "reasonable man". The test is not whether we did or didn't know something or whether we did or didn't know that doing something would have prevented a loss or tragedy or a death. If that were the case, we would all claim ignorance, such as "I didn't know the gun was loaded." or "I thought he was a moose, so I shot." or "I was convinced he was going to attack me, so I hit him first." The test is whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances could have anticipated the result of his actions.

In this case, the question that is to be asked is whether or not a reasonable man could have anticipated that by setting the heater thermostat to 136 deg. F. could have anticipated that this could have had the consequences that it did.

That is, could he have reasonably anticipated that this temperature of water would have represented anything more than a "possibility of a scald to someone not careful enough to test the bath or shower temperature before getting in".

I'd say that most people would agree that a reasonable person would anticipate that a water temperature of 136 degrees could potentially scald someone who wasn't careful using that temperature of water, but that generally these burns would just be superficial if they inadvertantly fill the tub with hot water instead of a mix or stuck their hand under running water without knowing how hot it was. But, for the most part, those are the normal consequences of people not paying careful attention when turning on taps and waiting for the water to warm up, and nothing more than a superficial (first degree) scald ever comes of it.

But, I'd say that most people would agree that a reasonable person could not anticipate that the hot water would cause someone to have a seizure and lose consiousness so that they fall into their shower and remain unable to get away from that hot water until their entire body is scalded. That is not something that anyone would consider to have been reasonably "predictable" as a result of setting the water heater to a higher temperature setting.

Even if the building owner, manager or caretaker knew of this woman's propensity to have seizures, it's still not reasonable to say that he could have reasonably anticipated the chain of events that result in her being scalded as a result of falling into the bathtub instead of falling on the floor like she normally would be expected to in the course of a seizure.

Besides, depending on how long these seizures lasted, exactly the same thing would have happened if the water temperature was set lower, to say 120 deg. F. It just would have taken a little longer seizure for the woman to have been equally scalded.

I think we're not hearing the whole story. This could have been a residence for people with disabilities and there may have been a history of negligence by the management. If not, then that judge's decision is bound for an appeal court. No reasonable person could have anticipated that exposure to hot water would result in someone having a seizure and losing consiousness and being scalded over their entire body because they fell into the shower rather than onto the floor.

Most of the consequences of our actions are somewhat predictable. Some first degree scalds would have been reasonably predictable, but third degree burns to a person's entire body would not be expected.


__________________

Last edited by Nestor_Kelebay; 07-10-2009 at 04:30 PM.
Nestor_Kelebay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-10-2009, 08:01 PM  
Redwood
Certified Lunatic
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Olde Tyme, Connecticut
Posts: 887
Default

Nestor,
The thing you fail to realize is the the water heaters come preset at 120 degrees F, the plumbing code states that they not be set higher than 120 without a tempering device. Now if I come along and turn it up yes I will be creating a liability for myself.

The days of the "reasonable man" are long gone and "deep pockets" have taken over. The courts and jury's have decided that it is their duty to protect people that the research of Charles Darwin determined should be destined for extinction. The fact that a person could buy a cup of coffee at a McDonalds drive trough window place the cup of coffee in their crotch and drive away spilling the cup and being scalded winning a lawsuit says this is the case...

I'm done arguing this point with you...
It is what it is I set water heaters at 120 degrees F!

__________________
Redwood is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-10-2009, 09:27 PM  
Nestor_Kelebay
Emperor Penguin
 
Nestor_Kelebay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,844
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

I agree. Let's just agree to disagree since further argument is not going to change either mind.

__________________
Nestor_Kelebay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-13-2009, 07:41 AM  
Speedbump
Water well etc.
 
Speedbump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Riverview, Fl.
Posts: 414
Liked 20 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Did I miss something? I didn't read anything about someone getting scalded. The first post I saw was this one.

Quote:
I've been told by sources (possibly unreliable) that there is a way that I can maximize the amount of hot water my water heater puts out. It only gives me about 20 minutes of hot water at a time. Is there a way I can fix this. I'm renting so I'm not about to replace the damn thing. Thanks for the help.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about then tell me so. I'm looking for a quick fix. Both of my thermostats (upper and lower) are set at 125F.
__________________
FAQ's
Speedbump is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-13-2009, 08:47 AM  
Redwood
Certified Lunatic
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Olde Tyme, Connecticut
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestor_Kelebay View Post
I'm thinking the quickest fix would be to crank up the water temperature, but I wouldn't take it any higher than 140 degrees.
Not really Speedbump...
Just this is all so I cautioned against it...

I think the OP needs to access whether the water heater is functioning properly an whether it is sized properly...

But at this point he seems to be in stealth mode....
__________________
Redwood is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-13-2009, 09:53 AM  
majakdragon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lafe Arkansas, Arkansas
Posts: 165
Default

Redwood, go back and read your own quote. 30 degrees is a lot if the water is 120 to start with. I think I would notice 30 degree decrease in temperature.

__________________

if you have never made a mistake, you probably haven't done much.

majakdragon is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-14-2009, 12:27 AM  
Nestor_Kelebay
Emperor Penguin
 
Nestor_Kelebay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,844
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedbump View Post
Did I miss something? I didn't read anything about someone getting scalded. The first post I saw was this one.
Speedbump:
The OP wanted to find a quick and easy way to get more hot water out of his water heater.
I suggested turning the thermostat up from 125 to 140 degrees C.
Redwood linked to a court case where the owner of an apartment block was fined 3/4 of a million dollars for having his water heater thermostat set too high, at 136 degrees C. Apparantly, one of his tenants turned the shower on and waited for it to warm up. When she stepped into the shower, there was virtually no cold water in the mix, and she got sprayed with scalding hot water. This woman (an otherwise healthy and normal 25 year old woman) suffered from a medical condition that caused her to be pre-disposed to having seizures. Upon touching the 136 degree water, she had a seizure, collapsed into the bathtub and lay unconsious while scalding hot water from the shower sprayed onto her unprotected body until she regained consiousness and got out of that shower. She suffered 3rd degree burns over much of her body as a result.
I responded that such a court decision was destined to be appealed and overturned as the law in both the US and Canada assigns blame based on the notion of "the reasonable man". The culpability in the case would pivot on the question of whether or not a reasonable man could have predicted the sequence of events that resulted in this woman getting scaled by the shower water.
My point was that a reasonable person could not have anticipated that the 136 degree C water could have resulted in the sequence of events that caused the tenant to be scalded. Redwood's point was that anything over 120 deg. C must be considered "a potentially dangerous" water temperature, and we agreed to disagree on whether the landlord was responsible for the injuries sustained by his scalded tenant.

There's a lot that we don't know. If the management of the apartment block where the woman lived were aware of her condition and had some inkling that a hot shower could bring on a seizure, then there might be room to say that they could have predicted that having the water heater set higher than "super safe" endangered this particular tenant. However, if the apartment block management was unaware of her propensity for seizures, then I believe they're not responsible.

Imagine you're stopped at a red light behind another car. The light turns green and the car ahead of you doesn't move. You're in a hurry and beep your horn loud and hard to draw the other driver's attention to the fact that the light has changed, and the driver of the car in front of you suffers a seizure as a result. Without any muscular control, his foot slips off the brake pedal and onto the gas pedal, whereupon his car speeds up and ends up piling into cars stopped at the next intersection, killing the driver of the car you beeped at and severely injuring the person in the car he hit. The real question is: Are you responsible for the death of one driver and the severe injury of another?

My point is that the Common Law we Canadians and Americans inheritied from Britain would say "no". That's cuz a reasonable man could not have foreseen that the result of honking your horn (however long and hard) at a driver ahead of you would cause him to have a seizure and to speed headlong down the road into any traffice ahead of him. Since the resulting carniage couldn't have reasonably been predicted by the reasonable man driving the car behind, he's not responsible for the death of the driver of the car ahead, nor the injuries to the driver at the next light.

Why the landlord of the apartment block this woman lived in got a 3/4 million dollar fine because one of his tenants got scalded because she had a seizure upon touching very hot shower water is something an Appeal Court is probably going to consider now. Unless the landlord was fully aware of her propensity for seizures, INCLUDING seizures caused by touching hot water, then this case belongs in an appeal court.
__________________

Last edited by Nestor_Kelebay; 07-14-2009 at 12:35 AM.
Nestor_Kelebay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-14-2009, 06:39 AM  
Speedbump
Water well etc.
 
Speedbump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Riverview, Fl.
Posts: 414
Liked 20 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

OK, after breezing through the quotes looking for links to that, I saw that one of the quotes Redwood inserted was that piece. I missed it thinking it was something that had already been posted above. That's what I get for assumming.

I think we might be a lot better off without the court system the way it's being run these days. As oppossed to the way the it was intended many years ago.

__________________
FAQ's
Speedbump is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-14-2009, 06:56 PM  
Nestor_Kelebay
Emperor Penguin
 
Nestor_Kelebay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,844
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedbump View Post
I think we might be a lot better off without the court system the way it's being run these days. As oppossed to the way the it was intended many years ago.
I think the days of the "frivolous law suit" is over. I think judges are realizing that awarding large amounts for "emotional distress" or "pain and suffering" had the effect of promoting frivolous law suits and encouraging people to "frame" a company in order to launch a law suit. It got to the point where people were planting human fingers in their own food in order to sue a company and get a huge out of court settlement for the "emotional distress" they suffered knowing they almost engaged in canibalism or whatever. You no longer have a court system, you have a lottery system; the more emotional distress you can pretend to have endured, the higher the cash payout.


__________________

Last edited by Nestor_Kelebay; 07-14-2009 at 07:16 PM.
Nestor_Kelebay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter DIY Home Repair Forum Replies Last Post
Turn down water heater during the day? G Dot Green Energy and Sustenance Living 18 02-02-2012 03:44 PM
can I reuse hot/cold water flex lines on gas water heater? gordon Plumbing Forum 2 12-14-2008 12:16 PM
Looking to buy a more efficient Water Heater 82-T/A General Appliance Discussion 1 07-03-2008 07:36 AM
Hot Water Heater guyod Plumbing Forum 6 01-24-2008 11:57 AM
New water heater maverick General Appliance Discussion 1 03-29-2006 08:39 AM