anorlunda said:
I like that word.
Me too!
I'd never heard of "kludge" before. Did you also look up its history?
Merriam-Webster;
"The first recorded use of the word kludge is attributed to Jackson W. Granholm, who defined the word in a 1962 issue of the magazine Datamation as: "an ill-assorted collection of poorly-matching parts, forming a distressing whole." He further explained that it was derived from the German word klug, meaning "smart" or "witty." Why Granholm included a "d" in his spelling is not known. What we do know is that speakers of American English have agreed to keep it silent, making the vowel pronunciation of
kludge reflect the pronunciation of German
klug (KLOOK). We can also tell you that not everyone agrees with Granholm on the "d" matter: the spelling "kluge" is also popularly used."
Seems like adding too much "klug" stuff together makes "sludge", = kludge?
Anyways, I'm working on a similar problem, and have solved all the simple stuff, inserting my constants and variables where none were given.
House loses 160 watts/∆°C (common to both houses)
∆T = 44°C (OP, worst case. T_hot: 20°C, T_cold: -24°C)
power required = 7000 watts (OP, worst case)
area of floor = 84 m^2 (my house)
required temperature of floor = 34°C (my house in Norway)
But I'm afraid my knowledge of thermodynamics & combustion of wood are too weak to be able to handle the details of this problem.
Example:
A $15,000 Woodmaster 6500, fully loaded, would "theoretically" heat my house in Norway for 2 weeks. But it's only rated for 12 hours. So this raises the question: How slowly can you burn wood?
According to
this news account;
"Trees can retain burning embers throughout the winter, she said, through snow and ice."
Ok then. A novel, well designed wood burning outhouse
will work.
But from here, as before, I'm finding the maths involved to be a bit tricky.
I'm used to thermal conduction solutions where the specific heats of the conductors are ignored.
But once I include them, I get quite confused.
I'm guessing this is a partial differential equations type thing.
Never did like them.
anorlunda said:
Prudent engineers always work in this order.
- Requirements
- Design
...
I'm thinking we may have different definitions of "Design".
My definition would be; "Solve all the maths involved, down to the last partially differentiated detail."
But, I may be overthinking the problem.
Here's another problem I haven't worked out:
What's the optimal way to not have hot spots on the floor?
I'm guessing the initial high differential temperature at entry is going to resolve itself because less heat is going to flow when that section of floor mass warms up.