Heat Allocator in Germany: Reading Interpretation, Verbrauch, Radiator & Temperature Difference

Hi
I recently changed my flat in Germany and I have this contraption on the radiator. Am I able to somehow tell if I have used a lot? (yes, I know, they do not measure the actual consumption, only the temperature difference, if I understand correctly)
I get 3 readings over and over there
The first one is verbrauch, i.e. wear (at the beginning I had 302). Do you know if it's a lot or a little?

And I don't understand this reading.

There was a third one with the device number.

Regards and thank you for your help.

The indications on which there is a drawing and a pencil are archival indications (from last year). The latter is the current consumption in a given year. The third indicated is actually the device number. It is difficult to judge whether high or low consumption. If the archives for the whole last year were 490 and now for January (3 weeks) you already have 165, it is not known how much will be until the end of this winter and at the end of the year.

Izusek wrote:

(at the beginning I was 302)

I don't understand that. At the beginning of what, what period or when. I do not know if your accounting period is also "calendar year" but you have to find out for yourself. We have a "calendar year" to be settled.
And one more thing

Izusek wrote:

yes, I know, they do not measure the actual consumption, only the temperature difference, if I understand correctly)

No - this is a normal cost allocator with units. Come in here Link and you will read how it is accounted for.

In short, the cost allocator breaks down the heating costs.
A heat energy meter is installed for the whole house, which shows the consumption in kWh (or GJ). This value is countable, i.e. 1000 kWh = 6000 PLN
In the house, for example, there are 4 apartments and each of them has 1 heater. In order to be able to divide the cost of the main meter honestly, i.e. like a heater heater (household members have a different sense of heat comfort, one prefer 23 * C, the other 19 * C), a cost sharing system, i.e. a divider, was invented. This system allows you to roughly estimate how much the tenant should pay for his radiator based on the indications of the main meter. The system takes into account the programming of the radiator, ie. Depending on its power (size, type), loading the units during heating is faster or slower.
Of course, the allocation companies that deal with the settlement, depending on the arrangements with the administration, introduce correction factors for apartments in the gables, on the ground floor or in the attic (the apartments need more heat than the middle ones). All this to be fair ... I have not mentioned the so-called fixed costs resulting from losses in heat transfer or heating common parts of the building, e.g. staircases.

To sum up, you need to heat at home, but remember:
- the thermostatic head (knob) on the radiator is used to set the room temperature - lower it if you have too much heat
- when you open the window, turn the heater in the head so that it does not heat it up, sensing the cold, because these are the biggest losses
- you are leaving for a long period of time (are you not at home for a few hours) - reduce the temperature in the rooms, i.e. turn 1-2 scales on the head - but do not turn the radiator to the maximum because you will cool the room too much and it will have to heat up longer to reach the desired temperature for your comfort.

On completion, the 4 tenants used up 2,300 units in total
wherein
1 tenant and its heater 700
2 tenant and his heater 400
3 tenant and his heater 800
3 tenant and his heater 400
6,000 PLN / 2,300 units gives the price of PLN 2.60 per 1 unit
Multiplying the consumption units by the price shows how much the tenant has to pay for heating.
One should also remember about the correction factors, but these may already be programmed in the allocator - it all depends on the settlement company.

greetings

Chołek wrote:

Multiplying the consumption units by the price shows how much the tenant has to pay for heating.

Not quite like that. You need to know the billing rules. Because as you wrote here

Chołek wrote:

I have not mentioned the so-called fixed costs resulting from losses in heat transfer or heating common parts of the building, e.g. staircases.

it may turn out that the regulations (like me, for example) say that 40% of the costs are divided according to divisors and 60% equally according to the regulations. I used to have a division of 50 by 50, but when they insulated the block, they changed the regulations because there were not enough of these units in the divisors.

Yes, of course, the ratio of fixed to variable costs is of great importance, that's why I mentioned it. I meant the idea, hence a large abbreviation in my description that the description would be fairly legible.

Therefore, in the link I gave in post # 2, it is explained how Techem settles the costs, I will give here a fragment of it.

ta_tar wrote:

The indications on which there is a drawing and a pencil are archival indications (from last year). The latter is the current consumption in a given year. The third indicated is actually the device number. It is difficult to judge whether high or low consumption. If the archives for the whole last year were 490 and now for January (3 weeks) you already have 165, it is not known how much will be until the end of this winter and at the end of the year.

Izusek wrote:

(at the beginning I was 302)

I don't understand that. At the beginning of what, what period or when. I do not know if your accounting period is also "calendar year" but you have to find out for yourself. We have a "calendar year" to be settled.
And one more thing

Izusek wrote:

yes, I know, they do not measure the actual consumption, only the temperature difference, if I understand correctly)

No - this is a normal cost allocator with units. Come in here Link and you will read how it is accounted for.

At the beginning, i.e. when I moved in in October 2018, the reading from the counter which is now 490 was 302 (this reading was entered when taking over the apartment as consumption) ".

And the one from the second display, which is 165, was not saved at all. I wrote it down myself and it was 689.

Izusek wrote:

October 2018 is the reading from the counter, which is now 490, it was 302

If so, it means that from October 2018 to the end of December it gained 188 units (490-302). This state (490) is saved in the memory at the end of 2018.

Izusek wrote:

And the one from the second display, which is 165, was not saved at all. I wrote it down myself and it was 689.

So this is a different factor (not the one from the first photo). You saved 689 in October, now wait for it to display the year-end status. Write down the indications as the pencil appears (this upper mark).

ta_tar wrote:

Izusek wrote:

October 2018 is the reading from the counter, which is now 490, it was 302

If so, it means that from October 2018 to the end of December it gained 188 units (490-302). This state (490) is saved in memory at the end of 2018.

Izusek wrote:

And the one from the second display, which is 165, was not saved at all. I wrote it down myself and it was 689.

So this is a different factor (not the one from the first photo). You saved 689 in October, now wait for it to display the year-end status. Write down the indications as the pencil appears (this upper mark).

These are readings from one factor, I used the wrong words when I wrote "from the second display" I meant the picture, sorry.

Then write it again one by one. You get the reading from one factor.
1. When you had 302. Historical record is 490 at the end of 2018 (1 photo).
2. When did you save 689.
3. From the current recording it appears that you already have 165 (2nd photo).
Because otherwise we will not come to an agreement. As you write, there cannot be three different indications from one divisor.
Here you have a word mismatch. You write that once

Izusek wrote:

At the beginning, i.e. when I moved in in October 2018, the reading from the counter which is now 490 was 302 (this reading was entered when taking over the apartment as consumption) ".

and the second time you write

Izusek wrote:

And the one from the second display, which is 165, was not saved at all. I wrote it down myself and it was 689.

And later

Izusek wrote:

These are readings from one factor

ta_tar wrote:

Then write it again one by one. You get the reading from one factor.
1. When you had 302. Historical record is 490 at the end of 2018 (1 photo).
2. When did you save 689.
3. The current recording shows that you already have 165 (2nd photo).
Because otherwise we will not come to an agreement. As you write, there cannot be three different indications from one divisor.
Here you have a word mismatch. You write that once

Izusek wrote:

At the beginning, i.e. when I moved in in October 2018, the reading from the counter which is now 490 was 302 (this reading was entered when taking over the apartment as consumption) ".

and the second time you write

Izusek wrote:

And the one from the second display, which is 165, was not saved at all. I wrote it down myself and it was 689.

And later

Izusek wrote:

These are readings from one factor

So these readings I gave are from one device.

1. When taking over the apartment, only the reading that is now "490" was written down (with the entry it was "302")
2. And the one from the second photo is not recorded in the documents of the takeover and WAS "689", and IS now "165" (weirdly either goes backwards or circled, I don't understand this measurement)

In the living room, I also have such a device (living room with kitchen), the readings are as follows:

1. And there was also one reading, i.e. consumption IS "1163" ... WAS "1157" (they were not unscrewed at all, change from cooking in the kitchen)
2. And the second reading, which was also not written and I don't understand it IS "1" ... WAS "2676"

By the way, thank you for your commitment and for trying to help.

I still don't understand your records. Briefly write like this:
First condition allocator ...... date ........., archival entry (a stamp with a pencil) ........, present indications .......
Second state allocator ........ date ........., archival entry (a stamp with a pencil) ......., present indications ..........
Third condition allocator ........ date .........., archival entry (a stamp with a pencil) ......., present indications .........
Cost allocator ..........
Indications with a mark is the entry at the end of 2018, indications without a mark (pencil) are the current entry.
The data recorded in this way can tell me more than your description.

ta_tar wrote:

I still don't understand your records. Briefly write like this:
First condition allocator ...... date ........., archival entry (a stamp with a pencil) ........, present indications .......
Second state allocator ........ date ........., archival entry (a stamp with a pencil) ......., present indications ..........
Third condition allocator ........ date .........., archival entry (a stamp with a pencil) ......., present indications .........
Cost allocator ..........
Indications with a mark is the entry at the end of 2018, indications without a mark (pencil) are the current entry.
The data recorded in this way can tell me more than your description.

I thought about what you wrote earlier and I think it is correct.

Number one allocator. For 2017 it was 689, for 2018 it is 490 (with a pencil), and the current state (without a pencil) is 165

At the introduction on 10.2018, I had 302, i.e. it increased by 490-302 = 188. So I got these 188 from 10.2018 to 2019. Then the counter reset, if I think correctly. And to these 188 I have to add the current entry 188 + 165

So the number that the pencil is at will be the same by the end of the year? And in its place will be how much is currently on the meter without a pencil?

Number two. For 2017 it was 2676, for 2018 it is 1663 (with a pencil), and the current state is 1
With the introduction on 10.2018, I had 1157, i.e. it increased by only 6 because it was turned off.

Your reflection is correct. So I hope that I helped you solve the puzzle with the displayed numbers on the divisor.

ta_tar wrote:

Your reflection is correct. So I hope that I helped you solve the puzzle with the displayed numbers on the divisor.

welcome back

I have one more question.

1. Do these allocators start even when the radiator is cold? It is enough for the room to reach the right temperature from the sun, let's give 23 degrees and it will start to pump impulses?

2. If, for example, after airing the apartment and cooling it down (of course with the radiator turned off), the windows are closed and the apartment starts to heat up without the use of a heater, does such a process cause some double / faster pulse counting? (So with a temperature of 13 degrees it slowly warms up to 22)

Thank you and best regards.

1. No.
2. No. The system is built so that it has two sensors. the internal one measures the temperature of the radiator and the other sensor measures the ambient temperature. I don't know the algorithm completely, but that's what it looks like. There must be some temperature on the radiator.

ta_tar wrote:

1. No.
2. No. The system is built so that it has two sensors. the internal one measures the temperature of the radiator and the other sensor measures the ambient temperature. I don't know the algorithm completely, but this is what it looks like. There must be some temperature on the radiator.

Apparently, something is counted a little, but always something. Nothing in the bedroom, but it is cooler there because the block is in the shade on this side, and the living room is on the sunny side and there is something wrong with it, but the radiator is cold.

Hi,
This divider has a diode for RFID transmission. Does anyone know how to download data from it remotely? Reading from this small display is not a pleasant task.
Regards

Moderated By ArturAVS:

3/1/19. Do not send messages in archived topics if it is another question, especially a different one from the person asking. Out of respect for the questioner, start your own topic. You can only add a way to solve the problem.

My divider is different. I once came across information about him.
The allocator operates for 5 years. The battery is expected to last a total of 7 years, during which time readings are possible from it.
The divider has an internal calendar. No units are charged from June to August. In May and September, it counts half of the units it counts in full in the remaining months.
The counting of units starts from the temperature of +19.5°C measured on the radiator and at the same time the difference between the radiator temperature and the ambient temperature measured according to the allocator is above 3.5°C. Of course, the greater the difference in these temperatures, the faster the heat consumption units are added. The rate of growth of the measured units is not constant, i.e. linear, but there were no specifics here.
Therefore, you should close the radiator valve when airing, because then the temperature difference with an open window, especially during frost, especially severe frost, will be so large that the units will increase before your eyes. The smaller the temperature difference, the fewer units, so it is good not to cool the rooms. You need to find a reasonable compromise between the method of airing/ventilation and heating costs, because if you don't think it through, you can end up with very high costs. After the introduction of these allocators, previously there were evaporators, many residents in the block began to lose their minds due to the sudden increase in heating costs.
The readings are made remotely by an administration employee. The read values are processed by the company that handles it. The administration has released parameters for each radiator, including its size and the area of the room it heats. There is probably also a factor depending on the location of the room in the block. Only all this together affects the calculation of heat consumption in one apartment and this is added to the heat consumption in the block, and therefore to the final settlement.

We have infrared allocators, some phone models have an IRDA module, there is probably also a reading program, I would have better knowledge when, for example, during ventilation, the charging of values increases quickly...

Certainly, the greater the temperature difference between the temperature of the place on the radiator to which the allocator is attached and the temperature at the allocator on the room side (it is possible that the allocator has an air inlet from the room at the bottom), the faster it counts the units. Taking into account the faster cooling of a hot element (here: a radiator) in cold air (here: in a room), the scale, i.e. the speed of calculation, should be higher, i.e. it will be a non-linear increasing function. Maintaining the smallest temperature difference between the allocator sensors is the only way to reduce heating costs. Even minor changes, such as airing for 1-2 minutes, especially in frosty weather, and the air from an open window flows onto the allocator (because cooler air always flows down as more dense, i.e. with a higher specific weight), result in additional units being added immediately, which is not equivalent to the heat consumption of the radiator. This is an imperfection of this method of "measuring" heat consumption. Therefore, common sense suggests avoiding such situations so as not to be burdened with additional costs that do not have an equivalent in the heat consumed.

If I added an additional heat source to the premises, which would maintain a constant temperature in the premises at 28-30 degrees, while having two radiators turned off at all times, which are set to zero in this premises, would the TECHEM allocator not charge any units at all? "being aware" that someone else is generating the heat, not the radiator on which it is located?

I don't know whether the TECHEM allocator is "aware" of this. However, mine, probably manufactured in the southern part of Poland (or China), according to a description I once found in one of the companies that install them, would not charge heat in such a situation. The counting starts when the temperature received from the radiator, i.e. from the mounting welded during installation to the radiator, must be 3.5°C higher than the air temperature in the housing opening at the bottom front, looking at the radiator. I think this is the general principle of operation of this type of devices, although they probably differ slightly, e.g. in terms of temperature thresholds or the speed of counting units, which depends on this difference. And I suspect that the increase in units is not directly proportional to this difference, i.e. the larger the difference, the more it counts. The radiator accepts heat from an external source, but when the valve is closed it will not have a temperature higher than the surrounding air. So no divisor should charge anything. Of course, we assume that the heat source does not directly heat the radiator. If the sensor on the room side (hole in the casing) is warmer than the sensor connected to the radiator by a thermal bridge (mounting), the situation is as in summer, so there is no basis for calculating heat consumption. It seems so obvious that probably every allocator manufacturer accepts it as the basis for the operation of the device.

pdusp wrote:

the allocator has a diode for RFID transmission

The diode has nothing to do with RFID.