Date:         Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:24:59 +0000
Reply-To:     "John C..." <JCarp2001@COMCAST.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "John C..." <JCarp2001@COMCAST.NET>
Subject:      Re: Suburban Type Furnace Install;
Comments: To: Karl Mullendore <tdiguru@WESTYVENTURES.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <vanagon%2009103001533031@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

No Problemo, & no injustice felt  :o) 

Like I said ; 

"if wishes were fishes" 

" we'd all have Propexsus "  :o) 

( is that Propi' for jus one ??? ) 

very well could be; after all,,,, it is....  Friday   :o)   ..... 

JC... 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Mullendore" <tdiguru@WESTYVENTURES.COM> 
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:43:29 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain 
Subject: Re: Suburban Type Furnace Install; 

In case anyone misunderstood my intent of the previous post, it was NOT made 
to in any way to discredit or belittle John's installation -- actually quite 
nice given the amount of space used. I am merely stating valid comparisons 
based on personally examining both types heaters and the manufacturers 
efficiency ratings. If it came across differently then I apologize for doing 
so. 

I also didn't mean that the Propex could pay for itself in fuel savings, but 
in the bigger picture of pollutants. Very small difference in the overall 
picture, if one looks at it that way. If that makes me an 'environmental 
wacko', Robert K, then so be  it. Someone has to be. :-) 

Karl 

>On 10/29/2009 7:31 PM Karl Mullendore wrote: 
>> efficient when running perfectly - Propex heaters are 95%. Throwing away a 
>> gallon of propane for every three that results in heated air seems a bit 
>> wasteful, not to mention fouling the environment more. Might that make the 
>> efficient Propex a better deal in the long run? 
>> 
>> Karl 
>>