On Dec 22, 9:42*am, wrote:
On Dec 22, 9:40*am, hvacrmedic wrote:





On Dec 22, 8:33*am, wrote:

On Dec 22, 9:16*am, hvacrmedic wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:03*am, wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:04*pm, Some Guy wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has replaced their conventional furnace
/ HVAC fan motor (PSC, single phase, etc) with one of the new
ECM motors to realize a reduction in your electricity bill.
Don't even bother. It is DC servorized motor with matching control
logic board. High efficiency furnaces are made to take advantage
of this variable speed motor.

Everything you're saying is true, but it doesn't mean that
fundamentally ECM motors are more efficient regardless in what type of
furnace they're used in.

Even if all I do is use it as a constant-speed replacement for a 50%
efficient PSC motor, it will use less electricity.

The question is - how much, and what is the over-the-counter cost of a
suitable ECM motor (not the HVAC-contractor-installed price).

Also they are not as reliable as ordinary motor.

That is probably true, and along the lines of planned obsolescence
that's designed into modern residential HVAC systems.

I've worked at and with a lot of companies engaged in all kinds of
product design during my career. *But I never heard any discussion of
planned obsolence, which IMO is largely an urban legend. * * There is
a real tradeoff between what it costs to make, how much you can sell
it for, and longevity. *In my experience, that is where the tradeoff
is made.
If you made a product that deliberately lasted 10 years, while it
could last 20, it wouldn't be long before a competitor whose product
did last 20 would start eating your market share because their product
was superior. * That's how free markets work.

The typical funace lasts 20 years. * Given the cost, that seems a
reasonable lifespan. * How many customers would be willing to pay say
30% more for one that lasted another 5 years? *Or 50% more for one
that lasted another 10? * Most people don't even plan to be in their
homes that long today. *Given that the energy situation and technology
is constantly evolving, I don't see a problem with the lifespan or
value proposition presented by today's furnaces.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Not designed to last 30 years" is logically equivalent to "Designed
to last no more than 30 years". Like I said, it isn't necessarily a
concious desicion, but planned obselesence is precisely what it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The notion of something being planned without it being a conscious
decision defies all logic. * My main point is that Some Guy referred
to planned obsolescence designed into today's products. * Which to
most people implies there is some specific planning on the part of
manufacturers that is different today to make sure the product only
lasts a given number of years and then fails so they have to buy
another one.

In reality, it's no different today than it ever was. * Manufacturer's
are competing in a free economy and reacting to it. * That includes
making trade-offs, as has always been done, about how long it makes
sense for a product to last vs how much it costs to build it and how
much people are willing to pay for it. * *If you want to call that
planned obsolescence, then we agree, but I think it's a poor choice of
words and it's nothing specific to today's products.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again you're fooling yourself. Evaporator coils, a good example again,
are known by the manufacturers to be inferior to older versions. The
decision to market them despite this defect is a conscious decision.

That may be true, but it's doesn't qualify as planned obsolescence by
my definition. * My definition of planned obsolescence is a product
deliberately built to only last X years and then require replacement,
when it could have been built for the same cost to last longer.
Perhaps you should share exactly what you mean by planned
obsolescence.

While the logic may not in fact have been "Well lets design them to be
inferior so that they won't last as long", nevertheless that is
precisely what they are doing. *The objective is profits, and since
this practice increases them, that is why they make the desision.

The idea that manufacturers seek to maximize profits is nothing new.
It's one of the basic principles of micro-economics. * In free
markets, everyone tries to maximize profits. *It's been going on for
thousands of years. * When you put something up on EBay, what do you
do? * How about when you are selling a used car or renting out a
house?

Taking these two factors as premises yeilds the conclusion "planned
obsolescence". *It is a subconcious desicion, but only because they've
either rationalized it as something else, or they have fooled
themselves into believing that their view isn't equivalent to the
latter, when in fact it is PRECISELY equivalent.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, my point, is that this process of taking all the market factors
into account, and maximizing profits is nothing new, which is what
SomeGuy implied. * *All through history, manufacturers have had to
take into account many factors. * Those include how much it costs to
make, what they can sell it for, and how much people are willing to
pay. * And how technology may change in an uncertain future, so it may
mean that people would prefer to have a less expensive product that
can be cost justified in a shorter time frame and then replaced with
something newer and better, rather than have a more costly 50 year old
product built to last forever.

So, I'd say the fact that today's HVAC systems don't last as long is a
reaction to market expectations and consumer preferences, not a focus
on planned obsolescence. * I wouldn't pay much more for a system that
was gonna last 30 yrs or 50 yrs. * If you bought a system in 1985 that
only lasted 15 years, you may have been better off than if you bought
one that lasted 25, because of the energy savings of going to a new
unit. *Some people might call that planned obsolescene, but I think
it's a poor choice of words.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

What you're doing is arguing that planned obsolescence isn't planned.
As I've said, it isn't necessarily a concious descision, but that
doesn't make it something benevolent, the end result is equivalent and
thus it is you who are playing on words. Planned obsolescence isn't
defined as a deliberate scam, although the latter does qualify as a
subset of the former.

Planned obsolescence isn't a thing, it's a group of practices all of
which have the end result that the lifetime of a product is
effectively reduced. There can be many reasons for this, as the wiki
article explains.

On Dec 22, 11:38*am, hvacrmedic wrote:
On Dec 22, 9:42*am, wrote:





On Dec 22, 9:40*am, hvacrmedic wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:33*am, wrote:

On Dec 22, 9:16*am, hvacrmedic wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:03*am, wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:04*pm, Some Guy wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has replaced their conventional furnace
/ HVAC fan motor (PSC, single phase, etc) with one of the new
ECM motors to realize a reduction in your electricity bill..
Don't even bother. It is DC servorized motor with matching control
logic board. High efficiency furnaces are made to take advantage
of this variable speed motor.

Everything you're saying is true, but it doesn't mean that
fundamentally ECM motors are more efficient regardless in what type of
furnace they're used in.

Even if all I do is use it as a constant-speed replacement for a 50%
efficient PSC motor, it will use less electricity.

The question is - how much, and what is the over-the-counter cost of a
suitable ECM motor (not the HVAC-contractor-installed price).

Also they are not as reliable as ordinary motor.

That is probably true, and along the lines of planned obsolescence
that's designed into modern residential HVAC systems.

I've worked at and with a lot of companies engaged in all kinds of
product design during my career. *But I never heard any discussion of
planned obsolence, which IMO is largely an urban legend. * * There is
a real tradeoff between what it costs to make, how much you can sell
it for, and longevity. *In my experience, that is where the tradeoff
is made.
If you made a product that deliberately lasted 10 years, while it
could last 20, it wouldn't be long before a competitor whose product
did last 20 would start eating your market share because their product
was superior. * That's how free markets work.

The typical funace lasts 20 years. * Given the cost, that seems a
reasonable lifespan. * How many customers would be willing to pay say
30% more for one that lasted another 5 years? *Or 50% more for one
that lasted another 10? * Most people don't even plan to be in their
homes that long today. *Given that the energy situation and technology
is constantly evolving, I don't see a problem with the lifespan or
value proposition presented by today's furnaces.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Not designed to last 30 years" is logically equivalent to "Designed
to last no more than 30 years". Like I said, it isn't necessarily a
concious desicion, but planned obselesence is precisely what it is..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The notion of something being planned without it being a conscious
decision defies all logic. * My main point is that Some Guy referred
to planned obsolescence designed into today's products. * Which to
most people implies there is some specific planning on the part of
manufacturers that is different today to make sure the product only
lasts a given number of years and then fails so they have to buy
another one.

In reality, it's no different today than it ever was. * Manufacturer's
are competing in a free economy and reacting to it. * That includes
making trade-offs, as has always been done, about how long it makes
sense for a product to last vs how much it costs to build it and how
much people are willing to pay for it. * *If you want to call that
planned obsolescence, then we agree, but I think it's a poor choice of
words and it's nothing specific to today's products.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again you're fooling yourself. Evaporator coils, a good example again,
are known by the manufacturers to be inferior to older versions. The
decision to market them despite this defect is a conscious decision.

That may be true, but it's doesn't qualify as planned obsolescence by
my definition. * My definition of planned obsolescence is a product
deliberately built to only last X years and then require replacement,
when it could have been built for the same cost to last longer.
Perhaps you should share exactly what you mean by planned
obsolescence.

While the logic may not in fact have been "Well lets design them to be
inferior so that they won't last as long", nevertheless that is
precisely what they are doing. *The objective is profits, and since
this practice increases them, that is why they make the desision.

The idea that manufacturers seek to maximize profits is nothing new.
It's one of the basic principles of micro-economics. * In free
markets, everyone tries to maximize profits. *It's been going on for
thousands of years. * When you put something up on EBay, what do you
do? * How about when you are selling a used car or renting out a
house?

Taking these two factors as premises yeilds the conclusion "planned
obsolescence". *It is a subconcious desicion, but only because they've
either rationalized it as something else, or they have fooled
themselves into believing that their view isn't equivalent to the
latter, when in fact it is PRECISELY equivalent.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, my point, is that this process of taking all the market factors
into account, and maximizing profits is nothing new, which is what
SomeGuy implied. * *All through history, manufacturers have had to
take into account many factors. * Those include how much it costs to
make, what they can sell it for, and how much people are willing to
pay. * And how technology may change in an uncertain future, so it may
mean that people would prefer to have a less expensive product that
can be cost justified in a shorter time frame and then replaced with
something newer and better, rather than have a more costly 50 year old
product built to last forever.

So, I'd say the fact that today's HVAC systems don't last as long is a
reaction to market expectations and consumer preferences, not a focus
on planned obsolescence. * I wouldn't pay much more for a system that
was gonna last 30 yrs or 50 yrs. * If you bought a system in 1985 that
only lasted 15 years, you may have been better off than if you bought
one that lasted 25, because of the energy savings of going to a new
unit. *Some people might call that planned obsolescene, but I think
it's a poor choice of words.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

What you're doing is arguing that planned obsolescence isn't planned.
As I've said, it isn't necessarily a concious descision, but that
doesn't make it something benevolent, the end result is equivalent and
thus it is you who are playing on words. *Planned obsolescence isn't
defined as a deliberate scam, although the latter does qualify as a
subset of the former.

Planned obsolescence isn't a thing, it's a group of practices all of
which have the end result that the lifetime of a product is
effectively reduced. There can be many reasons for this, as the wiki
article explains.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right save 60$ a year, spend 600 for a motor,, 1000 for the board, get
a 1-2 year warranty on a motor that has a record of lasting 6, and if
you ruin tv reception on your hack freeze when you watch tv this
winter and fry in the summer. it all makes so much sense.

On Dec 22, 12:13*pm, ransley wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:38*am, hvacrmedic wrote:





On Dec 22, 9:42*am, wrote:

On Dec 22, 9:40*am, hvacrmedic wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:33*am, wrote:

On Dec 22, 9:16*am, hvacrmedic wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:03*am, wrote:

On Dec 21, 11:04*pm, Some Guy wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has replaced their conventional furnace
/ HVAC fan motor (PSC, single phase, etc) with one of the new
ECM motors to realize a reduction in your electricity bill.
Don't even bother. It is DC servorized motor with matching control
logic board. High efficiency furnaces are made to take advantage
of this variable speed motor.

Everything you're saying is true, but it doesn't mean that
fundamentally ECM motors are more efficient regardless in what type of
furnace they're used in.

Even if all I do is use it as a constant-speed replacement for a 50%
efficient PSC motor, it will use less electricity.

The question is - how much, and what is the over-the-counter cost of a
suitable ECM motor (not the HVAC-contractor-installed price)..

Also they are not as reliable as ordinary motor.

That is probably true, and along the lines of planned obsolescence
that's designed into modern residential HVAC systems.

I've worked at and with a lot of companies engaged in all kinds of
product design during my career. *But I never heard any discussion of
planned obsolence, which IMO is largely an urban legend. * * There is
a real tradeoff between what it costs to make, how much you can sell
it for, and longevity. *In my experience, that is where the tradeoff
is made.
If you made a product that deliberately lasted 10 years, while it
could last 20, it wouldn't be long before a competitor whose product
did last 20 would start eating your market share because their product
was superior. * That's how free markets work.

The typical funace lasts 20 years. * Given the cost, that seems a
reasonable lifespan. * How many customers would be willing to pay say
30% more for one that lasted another 5 years? *Or 50% more for one
that lasted another 10? * Most people don't even plan to be in their
homes that long today. *Given that the energy situation and technology
is constantly evolving, I don't see a problem with the lifespan or
value proposition presented by today's furnaces.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Not designed to last 30 years" is logically equivalent to "Designed
to last no more than 30 years". Like I said, it isn't necessarily a
concious desicion, but planned obselesence is precisely what it is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The notion of something being planned without it being a conscious
decision defies all logic. * My main point is that Some Guy referred
to planned obsolescence designed into today's products. * Which to
most people implies there is some specific planning on the part of
manufacturers that is different today to make sure the product only
lasts a given number of years and then fails so they have to buy
another one.

In reality, it's no different today than it ever was. * Manufacturer's
are competing in a free economy and reacting to it. * That includes
making trade-offs, as has always been done, about how long it makes
sense for a product to last vs how much it costs to build it and how
much people are willing to pay for it. * *If you want to call that
planned obsolescence, then we agree, but I think it's a poor choice of
words and it's nothing specific to today's products.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again you're fooling yourself. Evaporator coils, a good example again,
are known by the manufacturers to be inferior to older versions. The
decision to market them despite this defect is a conscious decision.

That may be true, but it's doesn't qualify as planned obsolescence by
my definition. * My definition of planned obsolescence is a product
deliberately built to only last X years and then require replacement,
when it could have been built for the same cost to last longer.
Perhaps you should share exactly what you mean by planned
obsolescence.

While the logic may not in fact have been "Well lets design them to be
inferior so that they won't last as long", nevertheless that is
precisely what they are doing. *The objective is profits, and since
this practice increases them, that is why they make the desision.

The idea that manufacturers seek to maximize profits is nothing new.
It's one of the basic principles of micro-economics. * In free
markets, everyone tries to maximize profits. *It's been going on for
thousands of years. * When you put something up on EBay, what do you
do? * How about when you are selling a used car or renting out a
house?

Taking these two factors as premises yeilds the conclusion "planned
obsolescence". *It is a subconcious desicion, but only because they've
either rationalized it as something else, or they have fooled
themselves into believing that their view isn't equivalent to the
latter, when in fact it is PRECISELY equivalent.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, my point, is that this process of taking all the market factors
into account, and maximizing profits is nothing new, which is what
SomeGuy implied. * *All through history, manufacturers have had to
take into account many factors. * Those include how much it costs to
make, what they can sell it for, and how much people are willing to
pay. * And how technology may change in an uncertain future, so it may
mean that people would prefer to have a less expensive product that
can be cost justified in a shorter time frame and then replaced with
something newer and better, rather than have a more costly 50 year old
product built to last forever.

So, I'd say the fact that today's HVAC systems don't last as long is a
reaction to market expectations and consumer preferences, not a focus
on planned obsolescence. * I wouldn't pay much more for a system that
was gonna last 30 yrs or 50 yrs. * If you bought a system in 1985 that
only lasted 15 years, you may have been better off than if you bought
one that lasted 25, because of the energy savings of going to a new
unit. *Some people might call that planned obsolescene, but I think
it's a poor choice of words.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

What you're doing is arguing that planned obsolescence isn't planned.
As I've said, it isn't necessarily a concious descision, but that
doesn't make it something benevolent, the end result is equivalent and
thus it is you who are playing on words. *Planned obsolescence isn't
defined as a deliberate scam, although the latter does qualify as a
subset of the former.

Planned obsolescence isn't a thing, it's a group of practices all of
which have the end result that the lifetime of a product is
effectively reduced. There can be many reasons for this, as the wiki
article explains.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right save 60$ a year, spend 600 for a motor,, 1000 for the board, get
a 1-2 year warranty on a motor that has a record of lasting 6, and if
you ruin tv reception on your hack freeze when you watch tv this
winter and fry in the summer. it all makes so much sense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like I said, it isn't practical. There will be no payback with that
sort of retrofit. And even the greenies who have one installed because
their looking at the environmental aspect (less energy), they should
take into account that the old motor becomes trash in the landfill,
which is also an environmental concern. The only reasonable time to
even contemplate such a retrofit would be when the old motor dies, in
which case it has to be replaced anyway. For those who simply "want"
an ECM, it can certainly be done, but there is no practical advantage
in this case, nor is there any benifit to the environment because
eventually it will die too, and it contains more than scrap steel and
copper in it. Moreover more energy and waste is involved in their
manufacture. And to top it all off, it won't last half as long as
another PSC motor.

Would it kill you guys to trim your posts and not full-quote?

Full-quoter hvacrmedic wrote:

Right save 60$ a year, spend 600 for a motor,, 1000 for the board,
get a 1-2 year warranty on a motor that has a record of lasting 6,

Again, what is the over-the-counter cost for an ECM motor?

You won't need to spend $1000 for a controller either.

Look. An ECM retrofit probably doesn't make sense now that I've done
the math. But don't add to the hyperbole by saying that $1600 is the
price of admission for an ECM motor.

And even the greenies who have one installed because their looking
at the environmental aspect (less energy), they should
take into account that the old motor becomes trash in the landfill,

Wrong. The old motor would be set aside, and used as a backup when
(or if) the ECM motor dies. In fact, if the ECM motor does indeed die
after only 3 to 6 to 10 years, then most probably the old motor would
go back in and never again be replaced with an ECM motor.

For those who simply "want" an ECM, it can certainly be done,
but there is no practical advantage in this case,

Again it all depends on what the over-the-counter cost is of an ECM
motor.

The only price we've heard so far is $600, which if I understand the
context was a HVAC contractor repair price, which represents a markup
of at least 100%.

On Dec 22, 10:26*am, HVAC Guy wrote:
wrote:
If you made a product that deliberately lasted 10 years, while it
could last 20, it wouldn't be long before a competitor whose
product did last 20 would start eating your market share because
their product was superior. * That's how free markets work.

The problem is that nothing purchased by *anybody* will be kept for 20
years. *That time-frame is too long.

It doesn't matter if it's a car, or roofing shingles, or furnaces, or
cell phones or TV's.

Once you get beyond 5 years, it's irrelevant if you could design it to
last 10 years or 20 years. *It won't matter.

Most home owners putting a new furnace in a house today will not be
the same people living in the same house 10 years from now when the
furnace breaks down.

All of that I agree with. Which is exactly what I've been saying.
Manufacturers are simply reacting to what the market needs are.



The HVAC industry is, and has been, working toward a goal of making
sure that just as each owner of a given house will probably have to
replace the roof once during the ownership of the house, he will also
have to replace the furnace too.

Now that I'd like to see proof of.




That is a different situation compared to 20 or 30 years ago, when the
original furnace installed in a new house back in 1965 - 1980 would
easily last 30+ years and the house would pass through the hands of 3
or 4 owners without needing a new furnace.

The typical funace lasts 20 years.

My parent's house was built in 1955 and they replaced it's original
forced-air natural gas furnace about 5 years ago. *That's 45 years
with the same furnace.

My house was built in 1976 and has it's original natural gas furnace.
That's 32 years and counting.

The typical funace lasts 20 years.

So the HVAC industry is on target at reducing furnace lifespan down to
the time frame of the average length of home-ownership - about 7
years. *Good for them.


I'd like to see proof that the goal is to get lifespan down to 7
years.




Given the cost, that seems a reasonable lifespan. *

It's a waste of energy and resources for an industry to design such a
product with an intentionally short lifespan. *It runs counter to the
national interests on such scales as energy usage (to build it in the
first place) and environmental impact when it's taken to the landfill
when it's discarded.

What short lifespan are you referring to? 20 years for a furnace
seems like a reasonable compromise in terms of lifespan. And you
choose to totally ignore the energy usage that a 45 year old furnace
will waste compared to a new one? I'd say that will easily outweigh
the energy wasted by recycling it back to the scrap yard. Look at all
the environmental programs out there to encourage precisely this kind
of action. Utilities and govts are offering rebates for consumers to
encourage them to get a new furnace or AC system that is energy
efficient. That surely leads to more of the old ones going to the
metal scrap yard

And how many customers are going to be willing to pay significantly
more for a furnace that will last 45 years, without knowing how
improvements, energy sources, convenience features, etc will play out
over decades? I'll pay more for something if I think it's going to be
worth it and economically makes sense. And for me, 20-25 years is
the sweet spot for an HVAC system. I'm not going to shell out much,
if anything more for one that is supposed to last 45 years.



You could make the same argument for other items, like wiring,
plumbing, fixtures, the bricks and 2x4 studs in the walls. *Why do
they need to last 50+ years? *Why not design the entire house and
every structural and functional element inside it so that it only
lasts 10 to 15 years? *After all, I'm not going to live in the house
for more than 10 years - right?

Now this is just plain silly. Historically, there haven't been a lot
of improvements or changes in 2X4's, bricks, or the basic plumbing
system. There has been in HVAC though. Nor can they be replaced
with even remotely the ease of an HVAC system. As for things like
fixtures, I'd submit that few people today expect any of them to last
for 50+ years. People are used to dishwashers, ovens, etc lasting 15
years or so. Even faucets and sinks get changed long before 50
years. I wouldn't want the same style sink or faucet I had 50 years
ago. I just replaced my own kitchen sink which was 20 years old for
convenience and changing needs.


And then watch the landfills get filled up when all those houses get
torn down and rebuilt every 15 or 20 years. *That makes real good
sense - doesn't it?

Not an issue because it isn't happening and isn't going to.



How many customers would be willing to pay say 30% more for
one that lasted another 5 years? *Or 50% more for one
that lasted another 10? *

That's the crock - that thinking that it costs so much more to make it
last another 5 or 10 years.

You don't want it to last 5 more years. You keep referring to 45 or
50 years. And without knowing what it costs to manufacture specific
items, there is no way for you to know how much more anything costs to
build, it's pure speculation.



It's the electronic items that fail and become absurdly (criminally)
expensive to fix that forces the removal of a furnace - not because
it's suffered an irreparable structural or mechanical failure. *And as
home owners become dumber and dumber about how things work or how to
fix things for themselves, they will be at the mercy of contractors
and repair men.

Welcome to the modern world. Try going down to the dealer and seeing
how much a new computer or similar module costs for your car. Or some
parts for a refrigerator or stove.



Given that the energy situation and technology is
constantly evolving,

There's very little new in furnace design that wasn't known 50 years
ago. *

So, they had 95% efficient furnaces 50 years ago? I must have missed
that. Plus in many cases, people are using AC systems today as
opposed to 1957, aren't they? I suppose any old AC system that is
part of the whole picture and that is of similar age is peachy keen
too?


There is no constant evolution (at least not in North America).
In Japan, they have furnaces with built-in 1 kw electric generators to
provide some electrical co-generation that can supplement the
electricity supply for the house - and keep the blower running in the
case of complete power outages (like what's happening to thousands in
the central USA right now).

On Dec 22, 12:56*pm, Some Guy wrote:
Would it kill you guys to trim your posts and not full-quote?

Full-quoter hvacrmedic wrote:
Right save 60$ a year, spend 600 for a motor,, 1000 for the board,
get a 1-2 year warranty on a motor that has a record of lasting 6,

Again, what is the over-the-counter cost for an ECM motor?

You won't need to spend $1000 for a controller either.

Look. *An ECM retrofit probably doesn't make sense now that I've done
the math. *But don't add to the hyperbole by saying that $1600 is the
price of admission for an ECM motor.

And even the greenies who have one installed because their looking
at the environmental aspect (less energy), they should
take into account that the old motor becomes trash in the landfill,

Wrong. *The old motor would be set aside, and used as a backup when
(or if) the ECM motor dies. *In fact, if the ECM motor does indeed die
after only 3 to 6 to 10 years, then most probably the old motor would
go back in and never again be replaced with an ECM motor.

For those who simply "want" an ECM, it can certainly be done,
but there is no practical advantage in this case,

Again it all depends on what the over-the-counter cost is of an ECM
motor.

The only price we've heard so far is $600, which if I understand the
context was a HVAC contractor repair price, which represents a markup
of at least 100%.

If you can obtain one wholesale than that would be an advantage for
you. If you could install it yourself that would mean even more
savings. People do this, and even though they've bypassed me (the
contractor) I don't care. More often than not they screw something up
and that means I get to charge them even more for the repairs when
they finally do call. Some get it right the first time. Good for them.
I can't criticize because I've never once taken one of my vehicles to
a shop for repairs, I've always managed to repair them myself. If I
ever do cause an engine to blow up I suppose that'll make the repair
shop owner happy. I don't expect that'll happen though, since I could
have just as well walked into an auto shop and filled out an
application as into an hvac shop. The only difference between most
auto mechanics an me is that they did walk in and fill out that
application.

The bottom line is, when in doubt don't. It's those that ignore this
advise that tend to make things worse for themselves.

full-quoter hvacrmedic wrote:

(nothing useful)

All you've said was that you can either buy it yourself, install it
yourself, and maybe do it right or maybe do it wrong. Wow.

And if I flip a coin, it will land heads up or tails up.

Why don't you tell us what the wholesale price is of an ECM motor?
That would be a useful piece of information to this thread that you
can contribute.

People do this, and even though they've bypassed me (the contractor)
I don't care.

This isn't about whether you care or not. This thread isin't about
you.

On Dec 22, 1:24*pm, Some Guy wrote:
full-quoter hvacrmedic wrote:

(nothing useful)

All you've said was that you can either buy it yourself, install it
yourself, and maybe do it right or maybe do it wrong. *Wow.

And if I flip a coin, it will land heads up or tails up. *

Why don't you tell us what the wholesale price is of an ECM motor?
That would be a useful piece of information to this thread that you
can contribute.

People do this, and even though they've bypassed me (the contractor)
I don't care.

This isn't about whether you care or not. *This thread isin't about
you.

I asked my lennox installer what it would cost to retrofit to vsdc, he
said about 1600, the electric savings are mimimal, without the low
speed option it whats the point, GE vsdc were at one point lasting
only 6 or so years, buy a new furnace if you have to have one and get
the 10 yr warranty and all the benefits

On Dec 22, 1:24*pm, Some Guy wrote:
full-quoter hvacrmedic wrote:

(nothing useful)

All you've said was that you can either buy it yourself, install it
yourself, and maybe do it right or maybe do it wrong. *Wow.

And if I flip a coin, it will land heads up or tails up. *

Why don't you tell us what the wholesale price is of an ECM motor?
That would be a useful piece of information to this thread that you
can contribute.

People do this, and even though they've bypassed me (the contractor)
I don't care.

This isn't about whether you care or not. *This thread isin't about
you.

This thread isn't about anything. It's a figment of your imagination.

Full-Quoter wrote:

The HVAC industry is, and has been, working toward a goal of
making sure that just as each owner of a given house will
probably have to replace the roof once during the ownership
of the house, he will also have to replace the furnace too.

Now that I'd like to see proof of.

You've admitted that furnace life-spans are getting shorter today vs
years ago.

Isin't that proof? Isin't that an example of how they are coming down
to match (but never fall below) the average length of home ownership?

I'd like to see proof that the goal is to get lifespan down to 7
years.

If in 5 years we observe that the lifespan of the average new furnace
is 7 years, does it matter if we call that a "goal" ?

And you choose to totally ignore the energy usage that a 45 year
old furnace will waste compared to a new one?

Any old furnace that's 25+ years old can have it's efficiency raised
easily by 10 to 20% simply by turning down the burners. The design
goal for those old furnaces was to blast out the heat in those
un-insulated homes. They had no concept of constant heat. They had
crappy mechanical thermostats and couldn't achieve constant
(comfortable) heat output.

Now those homes have added insulation, and if you turn down the
burners so the furnace runs longer (but cooler) you've just raised
their efficiency and probably increased their lifespan too. Adjust
the burner primary air baffles too so that you're not blasting the
flames straight through to the flue (ie - increase flame residency
time within the heat exchanger to extract more heat from the flames -
slow the flames down).

And I think it's a crock that your only choice is to replace a
45-year-old furnace with one with an expected lifespan of 20 years. I
don't give a damn about how much fuel savings there will be. There is
no logical reason why lifespan needs to go down when efficiency goes
up.

And how many customers are going to be willing to pay
significantly more for a furnace

Back in 1955, what was the inflation-adusted price of a furnace?

Were people paying a fortune back then for furnaces?

Are furnaces today less expensive (in real dollars) compared to 10,
20, 30, 40 years ago?

What good is it if you pay less for a furnace today vs 30 years ago,
but you have to buy it twice as often?

You're telling me it's a good thing for the environment to have to buy
a furnace every 20 years vs every 40 years? Do you know how many more
households there are now, compared to 40 years ago?

We have 95% efficient furnaces today. You're saying it's a bad thing
if they last 45 years - because we want people to replace them more
often. So I suppose we want them to last only 20 years - because 20
years from now we'll have a 98% efficiency? So for the sake of a few
extra percent we want people to buy new furnaces? What the hell kind
of logic is that?

And for me, 20-25 years is the sweet spot for an HVAC system.

Who are you?

A home owner?

Or an HVAC reseller/installer?

If the energy-saving argument is correct, reliable, proven or
garanteed, then I don't have to wait for my 45 or 30 or 20 year old
furnace to break down. I can choose to replace my furnace at my
conveinence. Or not.

Saying that it's a good thing that furnaces last only 20 or 25 years
is a crock. If that's what you rely on to make the case to buy a new
furnace, then that's a bull**** argument.

As for things like fixtures, I'd submit that few people today
expect any of them to last for 50+ years.

Do you know how many old fixtures, tiles, railings, etc, are being
torn out of old homes to be installed in new or renovated homes?

Don't confuse style with function. Those old fixtures went out of
style 30 years ago, but they still function, and now they're back in
style.

I wouldn't want the same style sink or faucet I had 50 years ago.

Many people do.

There's very little new in furnace design that wasn't known
50 years ago.

So, they had 95% efficient furnaces 50 years ago?

I've got a news bulletin for you.

You don't need a furnace full of electronics, sensors and computers to
get 95% efficiency. We have 95% efficiency because we have more heat
exchangers, essentially more "plumbing" inside furnaces. Closed
combustion, intake air pre-heating, etc. Not even electronic ignition
is needed (that is another gimic that saves very little energy, and
certainly saves no energy when the burners are running).

Of course they knew what it took 50 years ago to build a 95% efficient
furnace. There just was no demand for it.

Plus in many cases, people are using AC systems today as
opposed to 1957, aren't they?

We're not talking about AC. That's another matter.

And if you want to know how "plumbing" can help even more - I'll tell
you.

Ductwork should be gated such that in the winter, air can flow around
the A-frame instead of being forced through it. And in the summer,
air should be ducted so it doesn't have to flow through the furnace
heat exchanger.

Take those resistances out of the picture and you've just raised the
efficiency of the system. No fancy electronics required.

And you've got no comment about this eh?

| In Japan, they have furnaces with built-in 1 kw electric
| generators to provide some electrical co-generation that
| can supplement the electricity supply for the house - and
| keep the blower running in the case of complete power
| outages (like what's happening to thousands in the central
| USA right now).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...pushes_in.html

http://www.energyefficienthomearticl...or-homes-/2039

The biggest crock of **** about furnaces today is that they can't
generate their own electricity to run their friggin internal mainframe
computer - and their blower motor during a power outage. I bet the
electronics in today's furnaces consumes more electricity than the ECM
fan motor does.

ransley wrote:

Why don't you tell us what the wholesale price is of an ECM
motor?

I asked my lennox installer what it would cost to retrofit to
vsdc, he said about 1600,

Wrong question.

Ask him what he pays - for motor only.

The now-proven usenet troll hvacrmedic wrote:

This thread isn't about anything. It's a figment of your
imagination.

Welcome to my imagination.

Now get lost.

On Dec 22, 1:24*pm, Some Guy wrote:
full-quoter hvacrmedic wrote:

(nothing useful)

All you've said was that you can either buy it yourself, install it
yourself, and maybe do it right or maybe do it wrong. *Wow.

And if I flip a coin, it will land heads up or tails up. *

Why don't you tell us what the wholesale price is of an ECM motor?
That would be a useful piece of information to this thread that you
can contribute.

People do this, and even though they've bypassed me (the contractor)
I don't care.

This isn't about whether you care or not. *This thread isin't about
you.

What does it matter wholesale price, you pay retail, what a wasted
thread this has become

Some Guy wrote:


The first owner of a new home, if given the opportunity, is more
likely to pay attention to ANYTHING going into the house's
construction vs any future owner of the house.

I generally get the opposite impression, both from my experience
remodeling, and from people who have built homes.

You get overwhelmed with details and choices that have to be made, often in
abstract ways over 2D drawings or worse, over long lists of material
choices. The builders want quick, up-front decisions since there's a
supply chain delay as the materials are ordered and they want to be able to
schedule projects as efficiently as possible without having to stop and
wait for stuff to come in.

HVAC is way outside of nearly everyone's area of expertise and the sources
for consumer education are few and far between. Among the zillion other
choices being made by people building a home, HVAC is the last thing they
want to make decisions about and chances are the builder isn't giving them
the choice and often has just told the HVAC sub to get whatever is
absolutely cheapest, meets new-home code and will last just long enough
that the builder can avoid having to warranty it.

I like to think I'm much better informed than most, but HVAC I find deeply
frustrating -- there's no good information and when I chat up commercial
HVAC guys when I do work in a large data center, they usually laugh at my
problems and tell me how bad I'm being raped by the residential contractors
-- which I suspect all along, but I love air conditioning too much, and
thanks to Minnesota's winters, I *need* heat too much to complain, so I
just pay. And pay.

wrote:

Again, what is the over-the-counter cost for an ECM motor?

You won't need to spend $1000 for a controller either.

Without the controller to vary the speed based on optimum air
flow under a given circumstance the ECM probably won't save
you a dime.

ECM motors have a broader and flatter efficiency profile across their
load range vs fractional HP PSC motors. While it is true that
multi-speed PSC motors are very inefficient at low speeds, PSC motors
are not. Then again, many older furnaces have PSC motors with only 1
speed, so replacing them with single-speed ECM motors would make no
difference on apparent furnace functionality or comfort, but would
make a difference on running cost.

This document is very interesting:

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/fullt.../nrcc38443.pdf

They go so far as to measure the amount of ADDITIONAL gas needed to
heat a home with an ECM motor vs PSC. Why does an ECM furnace use
more gas? Because the PSC motor generates more heat, and a furnace
with an ECM motor must use slightly more gas to make up for the
missing heat source.

In fact, everything else being equal, a furnace with an ECM motor
needed to use 14% more natural gas vs a furnace with a PSC motor.

A furnace with an ECM motor being used during the cooling season will
clearly result in a cooler house because of less heat being dumped
into the house from the motor.

See also:

http://www.caddet.org/infostore/display.php?id=20879

"During the space heating test period, the ECM reduced the
average furnace electrical consumption from 9.29 kWh/day
to 2.38 k Wh/day, a savings of 74 %."

"energy from daily gas consumption rose 14 %, from an
average of 213.7 to 243.3 MJ/day."

Cooling Period Results:

"Using the ECM saved 48 % of the energy to propel the fan,
4 % of the energy for the compressor, 21 % of the energy
for the air conditioner (fan plus compressor), and 14 %
of the electricity used by the entire house.

hvacrmedic wrote:
On Dec 22, 8:33 am, wrote:
On Dec 22, 9:16 am, hvacrmedic wrote:





On Dec 22, 8:03 am, wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:04 pm, Some Guy wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Just wondering if anyone has replaced their conventional furnace
/ HVAC fan motor (PSC, single phase, etc) with one of the new
ECM motors to realize a reduction in your electricity bill.
Don't even bother. It is DC servorized motor with matching control
logic board. High efficiency furnaces are made to take advantage
of this variable speed motor.
Everything you're saying is true, but it doesn't mean that
fundamentally ECM motors are more efficient regardless in what type of
furnace they're used in.
Even if all I do is use it as a constant-speed replacement for a 50%
efficient PSC motor, it will use less electricity.
The question is - how much, and what is the over-the-counter cost of a
suitable ECM motor (not the HVAC-contractor-installed price).
Also they are not as reliable as ordinary motor.
That is probably true, and along the lines of planned obsolescence
that's designed into modern residential HVAC systems.
I've worked at and with a lot of companies engaged in all kinds of
product design during my career. But I never heard any discussion of
planned obsolence, which IMO is largely an urban legend. There is
a real tradeoff between what it costs to make, how much you can sell
it for, and longevity. In my experience, that is where the tradeoff
is made.
If you made a product that deliberately lasted 10 years, while it
could last 20, it wouldn't be long before a competitor whose product
did last 20 would start eating your market share because their product
was superior. That's how free markets work.
The typical funace lasts 20 years. Given the cost, that seems a
reasonable lifespan. How many customers would be willing to pay say
30% more for one that lasted another 5 years? Or 50% more for one
that lasted another 10? Most people don't even plan to be in their
homes that long today. Given that the energy situation and technology
is constantly evolving, I don't see a problem with the lifespan or
value proposition presented by today's furnaces.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Not designed to last 30 years" is logically equivalent to "Designed
to last no more than 30 years". Like I said, it isn't necessarily a
concious desicion, but planned obselesence is precisely what it is.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The notion of something being planned without it being a conscious
decision defies all logic. My main point is that Some Guy referred
to planned obsolescence designed into today's products. Which to
most people implies there is some specific planning on the part of
manufacturers that is different today to make sure the product only
lasts a given number of years and then fails so they have to buy
another one.

In reality, it's no different today than it ever was. Manufacturer's
are competing in a free economy and reacting to it. That includes
making trade-offs, as has always been done, about how long it makes
sense for a product to last vs how much it costs to build it and how
much people are willing to pay for it. If you want to call that
planned obsolescence, then we agree, but I think it's a poor choice of
words and it's nothing specific to today's products.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again you're fooling yourself. Evaporator coils, a good example again,
are known by the manufacturers to be inferior to older versions. The
decision to market them despite this defect is a conscious decision.
While the logic may not in fact have been "Well lets design them to be
inferior so that they won't last as long", nevertheless that is
precisely what they are doing. The objective is profits, and since
this practice increases them, that is why they make the desision.
Taking these two factors as premises yeilds the conclusion "planned
obsolescence". It is a subconcious desicion, but only because they've
either rationalized it as something else, or they have fooled
themselves into believing that their view isn't equivalent to the
latter, when in fact it is PRECISELY equivalent.



Actually it is known as, "Americans want cheap." When the cost to
manufacture a product rises, the logical reaction would be to raise
prices to cover those increased costs, so the company can remain viable
to provide income for all concerned and to continue to provide a quality
product for the consumer.
But the "Wal Mart" syndrome has taken us all in.
The manufacturer can't raise prices because the customer won't pay. The
first to cut costs, mostly by removing jobs from America and using
inferior materials, gets the sale. The price and quality are forced
down, so we now get people complaining about, "planned obsolescence".
But, you probably aren't willing to pay more for real quality, are you?


This is a very simplified example but I hope you all get the point.

Some Guy wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:


This type motor is known for failure mode for motor and
controller going out together. Most people who has this
thing in their furnace, they take out 10 year warranty
for that part.


That is all probably true.


If you buy and use it as constant speed blower at an
expense, that is fine for the purpose of experiment
but economy wise I don't think you'll recover initial
cost and if it fails......


In a previous post, I've already roughly calculated that I'd probably
save $40, possibly $60 per year if I changed my PSC motor for an ECM
motor.

The question that I continue to ask is: What is the
"over-the-counter" price of an ECM motor?

I can walk into any hardware or farm supply store and buy a 120v, 1/3
hp PSC motor (for $75 to $150).

Where do go when I want to pick up an ECM motor?

Who sells them "over the counter" ?
Hi,
Lennox is known for selling parts only to trade people. You can contact
other brand supply house or try on-line search. Another issue maybe
mechanically fitting it into your existing set up. Prepare to pay
over a grand for motor and controller. How much is electricity cost
where you are? I have locked in rate of 7 cents per KWH for next 5 years.

On Dec 22, 3:07*pm, Some Guy wrote:
Full-Quoter wrote:
The HVAC industry is, and has been, working toward a goal of
making sure that just as each owner of a given house will
probably have to replace the roof once during the ownership
of the house, he will also have to replace the furnace too.

Now that I'd like to see proof of.

You've admitted that furnace life-spans are getting shorter today vs
years ago.

Isin't that proof? *Isin't that an example of how they are coming down
to match (but never fall below) the average length of home ownership?

In a word, no. That's like saying because the average power tool one
buys today lasts
for a shorter time, the goal of all the power tool manufacturer's is
to reduce the lifetime
of their power tool products to two weeks worth of use.

In other words, yes, I agree a furnace doesn't last as long today.
But that is a reaction
to market forces, ie what customers want and what they are willing to
pay, just as it
has always been. There is no master plan to reduce furnace life to 7
years.




I'd like to see proof that the goal is to get lifespan down to 7
years.

If in 5 years we observe that the lifespan of the average new furnace
is 7 years, does it matter if we call that a "goal" ?

Yes, it does. Because you claimed it was an intentional plan by all
HVAC companies
to do exactly that and I see no proof of it.



And you choose to totally ignore the energy usage that a 45 year
old furnace will waste compared to a new one?

Any old furnace that's 25+ years old can have it's efficiency raised
easily by 10 to 20% simply by turning down the burners. *The design
goal for those old furnaces was to blast out the heat in those
un-insulated homes. *They had no concept of constant heat. *They had
crappy mechanical thermostats and couldn't achieve constant
(comfortable) heat output.

Now those homes have added insulation, and if you turn down the
burners so the furnace runs longer (but cooler) you've just raised
their efficiency and probably increased their lifespan too. *Adjust
the burner primary air baffles too so that you're not blasting the
flames straight through to the flue (ie - increase flame residency
time within the heat exchanger to extract more heat from the flames -
slow the flames down).

And I think it's a crock that your only choice is to replace a
45-year-old furnace with one with an expected lifespan of 20 years. *I
don't give a damn about how much fuel savings there will be. *There is
no logical reason why lifespan needs to go down when efficiency goes
up.


I'd like to see you take any old 45+ year old furnace and make it 95%
efficient.





And how many customers are going to be willing to pay
significantly more for a furnace

Back in 1955, what was the inflation-adusted price of a furnace?

Were people paying a fortune back then for furnaces?

Are furnaces today less expensive (in real dollars) compared to 10,
20, 30, 40 years ago?

I would wager that just like most other things, the answer to your
question is yes.
I'll bet if you look at what a furnace 40 years ago cost and adjusted
for inflation,
you're getting a new far more efficient, lighter, easier to install
furnace today for
a whole lot less.





What good is it if you pay less for a furnace today vs 30 years ago,
but you have to buy it twice as often?

Well for starters, if it cost about 1/2 as much you'd be way ahead.
And that's because
you wouldn't have to shell out the extra money decades ago for a
product that cost more
so that it would last 40 years. Plus, it's obvious today's furnaces
are far more efficient
so you're going to save on fuel. Plus, they have new convenience
features, like a variable
speed motor. Didn't this thread start because the OP wanted to save
energy by trying
to retrofit an ECM motor into an old furnace? If he paid a
reasonable price for the furnace
and it's near the end of it's life, then he can buy a whole new more
efficient furnace that
includes that feature. He could even consider switching fuels, maybe
going to a heat pump,
etc, depending on his location.

That's what customers want. Say a new HVAC system costs $6K and lasts
20 years.
That works out to a whopping $300 a year. Consumers are spending way
more than that
for energy. Way more than that for all kinds of entertainment
items. So, spending that
per year for a HVAC system, seems very reasonable to me. And of
course if you limit
it to only a furnace, it's even less.

That's what manufacturers are reacting to and building for.





You're telling me it's a good thing for the environment to have to buy
a furnace every 20 years vs every 40 years? *Do you know how many more
households there are now, compared to 40 years ago?

Yes, I think it is and as I pointed out, environmentalists, govts, and
utilities agree.
Which is why they offer rebates to encourage people to replace old
inefficient
furnaces with new ones.

Again, you focus on the energy used to make the furnace, but
completely ignore
the bigger amount of energy used to run an old inefficient one.

I'd like to see one credible referrence to anyone that agrees it's
better for the envrionment
to continue to use a 40 year old furnace or HVAC system instead of a
new one.




We have 95% efficient furnaces today. *You're saying it's a bad thing
if they last 45 years - because we want people to replace them more
often. *

No, I'm saying if a manufacturer built such an HVAC system today, it
would cost
so much that few customers would want to buy it. Manufacturer's for
the
most part, aren't stupid. If they saw a market segment opportunity
for such
a product, they would offer it.


So I suppose we want them to last only 20 years - because 20
years from now we'll have a 98% efficiency? *So for the sake of a few
extra percent we want people to buy new furnaces? *What the hell kind
of logic is that?

I'm saying if you look at the cost/benefit and value proposition,
around 20-25 years
is the sweet spot. It means customers don't have to shell out extra
money upfront
and that in 20 years, the furnace is depreciated and they can look at
whatever energy
alternatives are available then. Are you clairvoyant enough to know
that in 20 years
the same fuel will be the best choice? By then, the energy
situation could be entirely
different and then maybe a different system would be better instead of
being locked into
a more expensive system that lasts 40 years.




And for me, 20-25 years is the sweet spot for an HVAC system.

Who are you?

A home owner?

A homeowner. A homeowner with a 23 year old HVAC system that is
nearing the end of
it's life. It doesn't owe me a thing. And I'll be happy replacing
it with a new, more efficient
system that lasts about as long.



Or an HVAC reseller/installer?

If the energy-saving argument is correct, reliable, proven or
garanteed, then I don't have to wait for my 45 or 30 or 20 year old
furnace to break down. *I can choose to replace my furnace at my
conveinence. *Or not.

Saying that it's a good thing that furnaces last only 20 or 25 years
is a crock. *If that's what you rely on to make the case to buy a new
furnace, then that's a bull**** argument.

That ignores the fact that it's going to cost significantly more for a
40 year
old system upfront. Factor in paying more upfront and the time
factor
of money over 20 years, ie interest that could be earned, and the 40
year
furnace is what's a crock.




As for things like fixtures, I'd submit that few people today
expect any of them to last for 50+ years. *

Do you know how many old fixtures, tiles, railings, etc, are being
torn out of old homes to be installed in new or renovated homes?

Do you know how many HVAC systems are being torn out of old homes
and being installed in new ones? Zero.

Do they take some special old fixtures out of some old homes for
resale?
Sure. What percent of times does this happen? So small it's not
worth
talking about as applied to the broad market.


Don't confuse style with function. *Those old fixtures went out of
style 30 years ago, but they still function, and now they're back in
style.

I've been through dozens of new construction homes in the last year.
I've
yet to see one with a 40 year old toilet, rail, or anything else.
Sure it
happens in some cases, but it's a niche market. In fact, if you want
to talk
style, most people looking for that old look style typically buy a new
version of that
product, ie they go down to the plumbing supply and buy a new claw
foot tub.


I wouldn't want the same style sink or faucet I had 50 years ago.

Many people do.

There's very little new in furnace design that wasn't known
50 years ago.

So, they had 95% efficient furnaces 50 years ago?

I've got a news bulletin for you.

You don't need a furnace full of electronics, sensors and computers to
get 95% efficiency. *We have 95% efficiency because we have more heat
exchangers, essentially more "plumbing" inside furnaces. *Closed
combustion, intake air pre-heating, etc. *Not even electronic ignition
is needed (that is another gimic that saves very little energy, and
certainly saves no energy when the burners are running).

That doesn;t answer the simple question of whether 95% efficient
furnaces
were available 50 years ago. And you missed the elephant in the room.
For whatever reason, that 50 year old furnace is no where near the
efficiency
of one you can buy today. So, what;s your point?



Of course they knew what it took 50 years ago to build a 95% efficient
furnace. *There just was no demand for it.

Plus in many cases, people are using AC systems today as
opposed to 1957, aren't they? *

We're not talking about AC. *That's another matter.

No, it isn;t. Because today most people have both as part of one
system.
Are you telling us that it's also economically sound to run a 30 year
old
AC system that was bolted onto a 50 year old furnace instead of simply
getting a new system? Or that one should just replace a failed 30
year
old AC system on an even older furnace? LOL

But again it shows why 20-25 years is the sweet spot in terms of
system life.





And if you want to know how "plumbing" can help even more - I'll tell
you.

Ductwork should be gated such that in the winter, air can flow around
the A-frame instead of being forced through it. *And in the summer,
air should be ducted so it doesn't have to flow through the furnace
heat exchanger.

Take those resistances out of the picture and you've just raised the
efficiency of the system. *No fancy electronics required.

And you've got no comment about this eh?


Yes, I do. If you're so smart and know the technology and market
environment
so well, why don't you go get venture capital, start a company and
build HVAC
products designed to last 50 years. I'll bet the system will look a
lot like the car Homer Simpson
designed for his brother's car company and have similar success.

On Dec 23, 9:10*am, wrote:
On Dec 22, 3:07*pm, Some Guy wrote:

Full-Quoter wrote:
The HVAC industry is, and has been, working toward a goal of
making sure that just as each owner of a given house will
probably have to replace the roof once during the ownership
of the house, he will also have to replace the furnace too.

Now that I'd like to see proof of.

You've admitted that furnace life-spans are getting shorter today vs
years ago.

Isin't that proof? *Isin't that an example of how they are coming down
to match (but never fall below) the average length of home ownership?

In a word, no. * That's like saying because the average power tool one
buys today lasts
for a shorter time, the goal of all the power tool manufacturer's is
to reduce the lifetime
of their power tool products to two weeks worth of use.

In other words, yes, I agree a furnace doesn't last as long today.
But that is a reaction
to market forces, ie what customers want and what they are willing to
pay, just as it
has always been. * There is no master plan to reduce furnace life to 7
years.



I'd like to see proof that the goal is to get lifespan down to 7
years.

If in 5 years we observe that the lifespan of the average new furnace
is 7 years, does it matter if we call that a "goal" ?

Yes, it does. * Because you claimed it was an intentional plan by all
HVAC companies
to do exactly that and I see no proof of it.







And you choose to totally ignore the energy usage that a 45 year
old furnace will waste compared to a new one?

Any old furnace that's 25+ years old can have it's efficiency raised
easily by 10 to 20% simply by turning down the burners. *The design
goal for those old furnaces was to blast out the heat in those
un-insulated homes. *They had no concept of constant heat. *They had
crappy mechanical thermostats and couldn't achieve constant
(comfortable) heat output.

Now those homes have added insulation, and if you turn down the
burners so the furnace runs longer (but cooler) you've just raised
their efficiency and probably increased their lifespan too. *Adjust
the burner primary air baffles too so that you're not blasting the
flames straight through to the flue (ie - increase flame residency
time within the heat exchanger to extract more heat from the flames -
slow the flames down).

And I think it's a crock that your only choice is to replace a
45-year-old furnace with one with an expected lifespan of 20 years. *I
don't give a damn about how much fuel savings there will be. *There is
no logical reason why lifespan needs to go down when efficiency goes
up.

I'd like to see you take any old 45+ year old furnace and make it 95%
efficient.



And how many customers are going to be willing to pay
significantly more for a furnace

Back in 1955, what was the inflation-adusted price of a furnace?

Were people paying a fortune back then for furnaces?

Are furnaces today less expensive (in real dollars) compared to 10,
20, 30, 40 years ago?

I would wager that just like most other things, the answer to your
question is yes.
I'll bet if you look at what a furnace 40 years ago cost and adjusted
for inflation,
you're getting a new far more efficient, lighter, easier to install
furnace today for
a whole lot less.



What good is it if you pay less for a furnace today vs 30 years ago,
but you have to buy it twice as often?

Well for starters, if it cost about 1/2 as much you'd be way ahead.
And that's because
you wouldn't have to shell out the extra money decades ago for a
product that cost more
so that it would last 40 years. * Plus, it's obvious today's furnaces
are far more efficient
so you're going to save on fuel. * Plus, they have new convenience
features, like a variable
speed motor. * Didn't this thread start because the OP wanted to save
energy by trying
to retrofit an ECM motor into an old furnace? * * If he paid a
reasonable price for the furnace
and it's near the end of it's life, then he can buy a whole new more
efficient furnace that
includes that feature. * He could even consider switching fuels, maybe
going to a heat pump,
etc, depending on his location.

That's what customers want. *Say a new HVAC system costs $6K and lasts
20 years.
That works out to a whopping $300 a year. * Consumers are spending way
more than that
for energy. *Way more than that for all kinds of entertainment
items. * So, spending that
per year for a HVAC system, seems very reasonable to me. * And of
course if you limit
it to only a furnace, it's even less.

That's what manufacturers are reacting to and building for.



You're telling me it's a good thing for the environment to have to buy
a furnace every 20 years vs every 40 years? *Do you know how many more
households there are now, compared to 40 years ago?

Yes, I think it is and as I pointed out, environmentalists, govts, and
utilities agree.
Which is why they offer rebates to encourage people to replace old
inefficient
furnaces with new ones.

Again, you focus on the energy used to make the furnace, but
completely ignore
the bigger amount of energy used to run an old inefficient one.

I'd like to see one credible referrence to anyone that agrees it's
better for the envrionment
to continue to use a 40 year old furnace or HVAC system instead of a
new one.



We have 95% efficient furnaces today. *You're saying it's a bad thing
if they last 45 years - because we want people to replace them more
often. *

No, I'm saying if a manufacturer built such an HVAC system today, it
would cost
so much that few customers would want to buy it. * Manufacturer's for
the
most part, aren't stupid. * If they saw a market segment opportunity
for such
a product, they would offer it.

So I suppose we want them to last only 20 years - because 20

years from now we'll have a 98% efficiency? *So for the sake of a few
extra percent we want people to buy new furnaces? *What the hell kind
of logic is that?

I'm saying if you look at the cost/benefit and value proposition,
around 20-25 years
is the sweet spot. * It means customers don't have to shell out extra
money upfront
and that in 20 years, the furnace is depreciated and they can look at
whatever energy
alternatives are available then. * Are you clairvoyant enough to know
that in 20 years
the same fuel will be the best choice? * *By then, the energy
situation could be entirely
different and then maybe a different system would be better instead of
being locked into
a more expensive system that lasts 40 years.



And for me, 20-25 years is the sweet spot for an HVAC system.

Who are you?

A home owner?

A homeowner. *A homeowner with a 23 year old HVAC system that is
nearing the end of
it's life. * It doesn't owe me a thing. * And I'll be happy replacing
it with a new, more efficient
system that lasts about as long.



Or an HVAC reseller/installer?

If the energy-saving argument is correct, reliable, proven or
garanteed, then I don't have to wait for my 45 or 30 or 20 year old
furnace to break down. *I can choose to replace my furnace at my
conveinence. *Or not.

Saying that it's a good thing that furnaces last only 20 or 25 years
is a crock. *If that's what you rely on to make the case to buy a new
furnace, then that's a bull**** argument.

That ignores the fact that it's going to cost significantly more for a
40 year
old system upfront. * Factor in paying more upfront and the time
factor
of money over 20 years, ie interest that could be earned, and the 40
year
furnace is what's a crock.



As for things like fixtures, I'd submit that few people today
expect any of them to last for 50+ years. *

Do you know how many old fixtures, tiles, railings, etc, are being
torn out of old homes to be installed in new or renovated homes?

Do you know how many HVAC systems are being torn out of old homes
and being installed in new ones? * Zero.

Do they take some special old fixtures out of some old homes for
resale?
Sure. * What percent of times does this happen? * So small it's not
worth
talking about as applied to the broad market.



Don't confuse style with function. *Those old fixtures went out of
style 30 years ago, but they still function, and now they're back in
style.

I've been through dozens of new construction homes in the last year.
I've
yet to see one with a 40 year old toilet, rail, or anything else.
Sure it
happens in some cases, but it's a niche market. * In fact, if you want
to talk
style, most people looking for that old look style typically buy a new
version of that
product, ie they go down to the plumbing supply and buy a new claw
foot tub.







I wouldn't want the same style sink or faucet I had 50 years ago.

Many people do.

There's very little new in furnace design that wasn't known
50 years ago.

So, they had 95% efficient furnaces 50 years ago?

I've got a news bulletin for you.

You don't need a furnace full of electronics, sensors and computers to
get 95% efficiency. *We have 95% efficiency because we have more heat
exchangers, essentially more "plumbing" inside furnaces. *Closed
combustion, intake air pre-heating, etc. *Not even electronic ignition
is needed (that is another gimic that saves very little energy, and
certainly saves no energy when the burners are running).

That doesn;t answer the simple question of whether 95% efficient
furnaces
were available 50 years ago. *And you missed the elephant in the room.
For whatever reason, that 50 year old furnace is no where near the
efficiency
of one you can buy today. *So, what;s your point?





Of course they knew what it took 50 years ago to build a 95% efficient
furnace. *There just was no demand for it.

Plus in many cases, people are using AC systems today as
opposed to 1957, aren't they? *

We're not talking about

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ive been told new furnaces heat exchangers are thinner to transfer
more heat and be more efficent, an old unit I took out weighed alot
more but was real inneficent. Stainless Steel exchangers with a long
warranty maybe 20 years are offered by a few.

Tony Hwang wrote:

Lennox is known for selling parts only to trade people.

That sounds like a crock of ****. I guess the HVAC industry is full
of companies that limit the availability of parts to the general
public. Stone-age thinking these days.

Another issue maybe mechanically fitting it into your existing
set up.

I agree, but that's my problem (if I go down that road).

Prepare to pay over a grand for motor and controller.

Again the controller issue. Has anyone ever seen a data sheet for
these motors?

Has anyone considered that the controller is built into these motors,
and maybe they have just a few control lines for speed selection -
that can easily be rigged up for manual control (or set to run at a
constant speed) ???

While on that topic - are there any electronic thermostats that can
control multi-speed motors?

How much is electricity cost where you are?
I have locked in rate of 7 cents per KWH for next 5 years.

I pay 10.6 cents per KWH. That includes ALL direct and indirect
costs. Indirect costs include taxes, delivery charges, regulatory
charges, etc. The electricity itself is billed at about 5.8 cents per
KWH.

When my meter is read, the reading is multiplied by 1.0421 (some sort
of correction factor for line losses I guess).

Does your cost of 7 cents include ALL miscellaneous charges and taxes?

Full-quoter wrote:

I'd like to see you take any old 45+ year old furnace and make it
95% efficient.

Unless I add a second heat exchanger, no, it's not going to reach
95%. But there's no reason it can't reach 78% efficiency. Without
adding computer controls and electronic sensors.

Are furnaces today less expensive (in real dollars) compared to
10, 20, 30, 40 years ago?

I would wager that just like most other things, the answer to
your question is yes.

If "most other things" are cheaper today (in real dollars) then that
must mean we're all richer today vs years ago.

I suspect that most other "important" things are not cheaper today.

I'll bet if you look at what a furnace 40 years ago cost and
adjusted for inflation, you're getting a (...) furnace today
for a whole lot less.

Well, I welcome some hard numbers here otherwise this is just
speculation.

You're telling me it's a good thing for the environment to have
to buy a furnace every 20 years vs every 40 years?

Yes, I think it is ... Which is why they offer rebates to encourage
people to replace old inefficient furnaces with new ones.

It is not environmentally sound for me to buy a new 95% efficient
furnace that lasts maybe 15 or 20 years (instead of 30 or 35 years)
and replace it with ANOTHER 95% efficient furnace.

I'd like to see one credible referrence to anyone that agrees
it's better for the envrionment to continue to use a 40 year
old furnace or HVAC system instead of a new one.

What if that 40-year-old furnace is a 90+ furnace?

What if it's an 80% furnace?

and they can look at whatever energy alternatives are available
then. Are you clairvoyant enough to know that in 20 years
the same fuel will be the best choice? By then, the energy
situation could be entirely different

It's a no-brainer that natural gas will always be more economical vs
the only real alternative (which is electric heating).

And if we run out of natural gas in 30 or 40 or 50 years, then welcome
to the world of Mad Max and the end of civilization.

So, they had 95% efficient furnaces 50 years ago?

You don't need a furnace full of electronics, sensors and
computers to get 95% efficiency.

That doesn;t answer the simple question of whether 95%
efficient furnaces were available 50 years ago.

Like I already said, they could have made condensing furnaces 50 years
ago. I bet some were available for special situations.

And you missed the elephant in the room. For whatever reason,
that 50 year old furnace is no where near the efficiency
of one you can buy today. So, what;s your point?

I already made my point.

It doesn't take computers and electronic sensors to make a 90+
condensing furnace. It takes more heat exchangers and more "plumbing"
(ducting, etc) inside the furnace. More sealing, a closed combustion
loop, and more work at the job site to install and plumb (duct) it all
into place.

Back when natural gas was cheap, of course the industry and customers
are going to ask why build a more complicated (expensive) furnace when
the fuel is so cheap? Instead they built long-lasting, durable
furnaces.

We're not talking about AC. That's another matter.

No, it isn't. Because today most people have both as part of
one system.

It doesn't matter if the evap coil is built into a furnace or if it's
installed in the plenum above it. The AC unit is a completely
separate system that just happens to share the same ducting and blower
as the furnace. And as I've stated, it's actually inefficient to
combine the two without gating because it does add resistance to air
flow.

Are you telling us that it's also economically sound to run a 30
year old AC system that was bolted onto a 50 year old furnace

The economics of the furnace or the AC unit has got nothing to do with
one being "bolted" to the other.

If the furnace is 50 years old and if the AC unit is 30 years old then
you look at those units separately when analyzing their cost of
operation. The fact that they're "bolted" to each other doesn't
matter - the "bolting together" doesn't affect their relative
efficiencies or costs of operation.

Or that one should just replace a failed 30 year old AC
system on an even older furnace? LOL

LOL yourself.

I don't have the same hang-up that you do where you see the furnace
and the AC unit as inseparable.

But again it shows why 20-25 years is the sweet spot in terms
of system life.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, current 90+
furnaces are struggling to achieve 15 years of service life.

I can totally understand that the average american is so strung-out
(money-wise) that hvac makers are responding by making units that
barely hang together and that builders are putting crap like that into
new construction.

But what I can't understand (if this is the case) that all hvac makers
have changed ALL of their model lines such that they no longer offer
units that absolutely will last 30 - 40 years (and then charge
accordingly for them).

Ductwork should be gated such that in the winter, air can flow
around the A-frame instead of being forced through it. And in
the summer, air should be ducted so it doesn't have to flow
through the furnace heat exchanger.

If you're so smart and know the technology and market environment
so well, why don't you go get venture capital, start a
company and build HVAC products designed to last 50 years.

Changing your ductwork as I described above is not related to changing
the longevity of the HVAC system.

I'll bet the system will look a lot like the car Homer
Simpson designed for his brother's car company and have
similar success.

The AC evap coil (A-frame) is an unneeded resistance for the furnace.
Would you like to argue otherwise?

I'll bet the system will look a lot like ...

I don't know if you've noticed, but most HVAC installations don't look
pretty when all their various lines, connections, and ducting is
finished.

Full-quoter ransley wrote:

I've been told new furnaces heat exchangers are thinner to
transfer more heat and be more efficent, an old unit I took
out weighed alot more but was real inefficient. Stainless
Steel exchangers with a long warranty maybe 20 years are
offered by a few.

It makes sence that a thinner heat exchanger is more efficient.

It also means that the older furnaces get more efficient over time as
the walls of their heat exchanger rust away.

"98 Guy" wrote


Again the controller issue. Has anyone ever seen a data sheet for
these motors?

Has anyone considered that the controller is built into these motors,
and maybe they have just a few control lines for speed selection -
that can easily be rigged up for manual control (or set to run at a
constant speed) ???


http://www.nailor.com/pdf/ECM_1.pdf


http://www.enviro-tec.com/pdf/catalo...ormanceECM.pdf


http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings...ler_app8_7.pdf

"Dr. Hardcrab" wrote:

Again the controller issue. Has anyone ever seen a data sheet
for these motors?

Has anyone considered that the controller is built into these
motors, ...

http://www.nailor.com/pdf/ECM_1.pdf

http://www.enviro-tec.com/pdf/catalo...ormanceECM.pdf

The above two are more like sales sheets or flyers, not really data
sheets with pinouts and wiring diagrams.

But still, they confirm that the controllers are built into the
motors, and they can either be set to run at constant speed, or
constant air flow (not sure how exactly they can sense airflow), or
they can take a control voltage (2-10V) which is trivial to set up
next to a thermostat.

If I had one of those, I'd tinker with it to see if I could get it to
run off a DC supply. A DC battery backup would keep a motor like this
running during winter power failures. I bet there are some in the
plains and mid-west who know all about winter power failures.

"Most variable speed electronic devices, including the ECM
operate with a rectified and filtered AC power. As a
result of the power conditioning, the input current draw
is not sinusoidal; rather, the current is drawn in pulses
at the peaks of the AC voltage. This pulsating current
includes high frequency components called harmonics."

So these motors are likely to radiate RF/EM noise if filtering isin't
used (and given manufacturing price pressure I wouldn't count on these
having proper filtering).

And one more thing - the power utilities really like these non-linear
loads - NOT!

"ECM (tm)"

Someone trademarked "ECM" ? Are you kidding?

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings...ler_app8_7.pdf

Yea, I've seen that one before.

"Some Guy" wrote in message ...
ransley wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has replaced their conventional
furnace / HVAC fan motor (PSC, single phase, etc) with one
of the new ECM motors to realize a reduction in your
electricity bill.

you need the electronics to run it, you cant just replace it my
Lennox guy said

I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

From what I can tell, all the electronics are inside the motor. You
hook up the main AC supply directly to the motor, just like a
conventional AC motor.

I don't think he was talking about the electronics of the motor.
Conventional motors were either ON or OFF and coincided with heat or cooling
on or off with a thermostatic delay. The newer ECM motors have a control
panel that changes the speed of the blower but at the same time controlling
the furnace heat output or the A/C compressor speed. Usually it is just a
two stage where there is a low and a high heat or A/C. I don't think you'd
get the full benefit by just switching motors if it didn't match the control
panel, burner and compressor.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA

Alan Sung wrote:

From what I can tell, all the electronics are inside the motor.
You hook up the main AC supply directly to the motor, just like
a conventional AC motor.

I don't think he was talking about the electronics of the motor.
Conventional motors were either ON or OFF and coincided with heat
or cooling on or off with a thermostatic delay. The newer ECM motors
have a control panel

As part of OEM equipment built into a furnace, an ECM motor will be
connected to a control panel.

As a replacement part bought over-the-counter, they most probably will
not come with any such panel.

There will most certainly be more connections on them for wires other
than household 120 AC power.

There may also be dip-switches or jumpers on them. Presumably it
would also come with a data sheet or wiring diagram.

that changes the speed of the blower but at the same time
controlling the furnace heat output or the A/C compressor
speed.

An HVAC maker can choose to use an ECM motor as a single-speed, or
maybe 2 speed, or continuously variable speed while at the same time
altering the heat output of the furnace (or changing the speed of the
compressor for AC) if they want to modulate the heat output of the
furnace and modulate the blower fan speed at the same time.

But it's still the case that an ECM motor is touted as being more
efficient *at all speeds and loads* compared to a PSC motor.

So even if I just use an ECM motor as a drop-in replacement for a PSC
motor, and wire the ECM motor for single-speed operation (which
theoretically shouldn't require an external controller board), then I
should realize some savings on my electrical bill.

And if I have the knowledge, I can rig my own control method such that
I can vary the fan speed at will. I could, for example, rig a pot or
a switch beside my thermostat so when I'm running the fan only for
circulation, I can turn down the speed (and realize even more savings
when compared to my PSC motor).

I don't think you'd get the full benefit by just switching motors
if it didn't match the control panel, burner and compressor.

If my current HVAC setup is operating such that I would not gain any
increase in "comfort" by having a variable-speed blower fan, then a
variable-speed motor would not be of any interest to me.

However, ECM refers to a particular type of motor technology. ECM
does not defacto mean variable speed. PSC motors can also be rigged
for variable speed operation too (with the appropriate external
controller).

The issue of a controller board keeps cropping up in this thread, and
it's a red herring.

"Some Guy" wrote in message ...
Alan Sung wrote:

From what I can tell, all the electronics are inside the motor.
You hook up the main AC supply directly to the motor, just like
a conventional AC motor.

I don't think he was talking about the electronics of the motor.
Conventional motors were either ON or OFF and coincided with heat
or cooling on or off with a thermostatic delay. The newer ECM motors
have a control panel

As part of OEM equipment built into a furnace, an ECM motor will be
connected to a control panel.

As a replacement part bought over-the-counter, they most probably will
not come with any such panel.

There will most certainly be more connections on them for wires other
than household 120 AC power.

There may also be dip-switches or jumpers on them. Presumably it
would also come with a data sheet or wiring diagram.

that changes the speed of the blower but at the same time
controlling the furnace heat output or the A/C compressor
speed.

An HVAC maker can choose to use an ECM motor as a single-speed, or
maybe 2 speed, or continuously variable speed while at the same time
altering the heat output of the furnace (or changing the speed of the
compressor for AC) if they want to modulate the heat output of the
furnace and modulate the blower fan speed at the same time.

But it's still the case that an ECM motor is touted as being more
efficient *at all speeds and loads* compared to a PSC motor.

So even if I just use an ECM motor as a drop-in replacement for a PSC
motor, and wire the ECM motor for single-speed operation (which
theoretically shouldn't require an external controller board), then I
should realize some savings on my electrical bill.

And if I have the knowledge, I can rig my own control method such that
I can vary the fan speed at will. I could, for example, rig a pot or
a switch beside my thermostat so when I'm running the fan only for
circulation, I can turn down the speed (and realize even more savings
when compared to my PSC motor).

I don't think you'd get the full benefit by just switching motors
if it didn't match the control panel, burner and compressor.

If my current HVAC setup is operating such that I would not gain any
increase in "comfort" by having a variable-speed blower fan, then a
variable-speed motor would not be of any interest to me.

However, ECM refers to a particular type of motor technology. ECM
does not defacto mean variable speed. PSC motors can also be rigged
for variable speed operation too (with the appropriate external
controller).

The issue of a controller board keeps cropping up in this thread, and
it's a red herring.
There is obviously a lot of variation in ECM systems. My son's furnace uses
an ECM motor which is first rotated at a slow speed, then powered off and
the coast-down is timed to determine the air resistance of the duct system.
From that information the controller determines the RPM necessary for the
desired airflow and controls the motor at that airflow. The programmable
parameter is CFM instead of RPM.

When it went bad, the wholesale cost of the complete motor was about
$900.00. We located a replacement control module (which was a part of the
motor) for about $400.00. This controller board (and motor) is absolutely
required for this system to function as designed. Replacing the motor with a
different type would also require replacement of the entire furnace
controller board since the furnace controller depends on the RPM data from
the motor for its operation.

Don Young