Cheap Heat...

Make sure you don't have a running computer or two monitors running at the same time. I bet those things do a lot more to generate heat for the room.
 
Yeah, no matter how many flower pots you pile on, that tea light is not giving off any more heat. The author of this article needs to take a thermodynamics class. He is giving off more heat than that little candle.

And in terms of $/btu, I seriously doubt that a candle is cheaper than natural gas.
 
I concur with post 3. The candle by itself is no less effective. The other thing is burning enough of those candles at once risks air quality issues. CO, etc in modern built homes which are effectively airtight under normal pressures.
 
don't see why that wouldn't work, great idea, as long as you're not burning hundreds of them in an airtight room.
 
I think the process of getting the air to flow through the system and be warmed in the process would create more warmth than the "40 to 80 watts" would lead you to believe.... Only one way to find out for sure. Now where did I put those flower pots?
 
This has been around the internet a few years and seems to be making a comeback. To say it will heat your room is an overstatement. When you're freezing a candle will feel warm though. The clay pots might help keep the heat centralized near you before dispersing up and away but you'd be better off with an electric blanket and a wool hat.

and yes, burning anything indoors without ventilation for prolonged periods is a bad idea.
 
I remember seeing a show a while back where a guy was with some nomads way the f up in Siberia. The system they used for shelter when they camped for the night was a large tent with a smaller tent inside. Inside of the smaller tent, they had a candle burning and they slept in a sleeping bag. The narrator said he couldnt believe how warm it was inside considering the frigid temperatures outside. This kind of reminded me of that.
 
I remember seeing a show a while back where a guy was with some nomads way the f up in Siberia. The system they used for shelter when they camped for the night was a large tent with a smaller tent inside. Inside of the smaller tent, they had a candle burning and they slept in a sleeping bag. The narrator said he couldnt believe how warm it was inside considering the frigid temperatures outside. This kind of reminded me of that.
Two people in a small tent with a dead air space outside will hear it up as well.

But by all means, who here is heating their house with candles?
 
physics fail.

Doesn't make sense to try and get any heat out of candles.

In cold parts of the country, particularly New England, there are few excuses not to have a wood stove for anyone who understands the risks of service outages, or cost savings. The excuses there are, physical inability, budget, structure etc... a Mr. Heater is low hanging fruit.
 
I remember seeing a show a while back where a guy was with some nomads way the f up in Siberia. The system they used for shelter when they camped for the night was a large tent with a smaller tent inside. Inside of the smaller tent, they had a candle burning and they slept in a sleeping bag. The narrator said he couldnt believe how warm it was inside considering the frigid temperatures outside. This kind of reminded me of that.

It is like a thermos, or double paned windows.

Heck, if oil is that tight, turn on the stove for a minute or two to warm your hands.

I think it was warmer out than in at suppertime tonight.
 
Electric heat is 99.999% efficient, but that doesn't make it cheap!

If he put a 40 watt lightbulb in that flower pot, electricity would cost half what he's spending by heating with tea lights, with about the same amount of heat produced in an 8 hour period.
[sad2]
A quality beeswax tea light burns a bit over 4 hours and produces about 1,425 BTU over that period, but he's saying he can heat a room for 8 hours with one tealight?
 
Considering a Kerosene lantern puts out up to 1,000 BTU/H according to my surfing, that would seem to be a lot better bet.

I had one of those Coleman catalytic heaters years ago. But I was trying to keep an M113 warm at night in Germany in Winter. Not adequate.
 
A quality beeswax tea light burns a bit over 4 hours and produces about 1,425 BTU over that period,...

Iirc, the average person gives off around 350 btu/hr at rest. Thats not a whole lot different than the candle. (1425/4=356~/hr). You could invite someone over and get the same btu's for free. (providing they byob [grin])
 
My Great Grandmother had these things all over her house. They had no electricity or other source of energy. They made their own candles and clay pots. Old school to say the least. Her place was always warm. Passed at 103.
 
I'm pretty sure that the energy from a fuel can't be increased by heating a pot up.

Unless you put the candle in a metal box , and then added some little sticks , and then some big sticks , and vent it to the roof ...
 
You get about 25 watts from a tea light. The BTU's don't increase by stacking shit on top.

- - - Updated - - -

I always laugh when people buy these really expensive electric heaters. Watts = Watts
 
Last edited:
I thought the clay pots are either for:

1) keeping drafts from blowing the candle out

or

2) retain heat a little while after the candle goes out
 
Stuff like this proves how gullible the general public is. 4 tea light candles no matter how they are burning will most likely not even keep up with the heat loss of even the tightest house. The pots are not multiplying heat, they will just help disburse it due to the air flow.
 
the cheapest heat is politicians hot air or Hugo's free oil that Kennedy gets, second is the sun,third is free pallets/wood.
 
You get about 25 watts from a tea light. The BTU's don't increase by stacking shit on top.

- - - Updated - - -

I always laugh when people buy these really expensive electric heaters. Watts = Watts

Someone once exclaimed to me that his electric heater had perfect (ie; 100%) efficiency... :) While right when accounting for only the the electricity side of the equation, I don't think he really thought through how the electricity came to be.
 
Someone once exclaimed to me that his electric heater had perfect (ie; 100%) efficiency... :) While right when accounting for only the the electricity side of the equation, I don't think he really thought through how the electricity came to be.
In terms of eco-friendliness, sure. He was right, in terms of "getting every therm you pay for", electric heat is 100% efficient; other heating methods can send +20% of the heat output up the chimney. OTOH, since electricity costs three times as much as cordwood and twice as much as heating oil ($$ per BTU), being 100% efficient still leaves electricity as the most expensive heat source (but still about half the price of heating with tea lights).
 
In terms of eco-friendliness, sure. He was right, in terms of "getting every therm you pay for", electric heat is 100% efficient; other heating methods can send +20% of the heat output up the chimney. OTOH, since electricity costs three times as much as cordwood and twice as much as heating oil ($$ per BTU), being 100% efficient still leaves electricity as the most expensive heat source (but still about half the price of heating with tea lights).

No, it doesn't even in terms of eco-friendliness. From a unit of fuel at the power plant, only 50-60% of it becomes electricity (thermal efficiency or heat rate). Then the losses of transmitting that across wide expanses (including voltage regulation) adds another 10-20% loss on top of that. So that every unit of fuel only yields about 45% of the original fuels heat potential as useable heat from the AC wall socket. Hence why looking at conversion efficiencies requires looking at the fuel used throughout the entire supply chain.
 
No, it doesn't even in terms of eco-friendliness. From a unit of fuel at the power plant, only 50-60% of it becomes electricity (thermal efficiency or heat rate). Then the losses of transmitting that across wide expanses (including voltage regulation) adds another 10-20% loss on top of that. So that every unit of fuel only yields about 45% of the original fuels heat potential as useable heat from the AC wall socket. Hence why looking at conversion efficiencies requires looking at the fuel used throughout the entire supply chain.
True, when you look at the big picture.

Ecology aside, I am most interested in how much I am paying per actual BTU of heat achieved in keeping me warm, rather than in the worldwide consequences of supply chain losses.
 
Back
Top Bottom