On Aug 9, 8:29*pm, (Charles Bishop) wrote:
I've been looking ar room air cons and have a question, or two.

There are two types that I've looked at-window units, and in-wall units.
The window units fit into a window, with "ears" at the sides to fill in
any empty space. The in-wall units are fitted into a space in a wall, and
usually have a sleeve that they slide into. The sleeve is mounted through
the wall, supported on the outside and the unit slides in.

Both types are available in 8K and 10K units and with 110V power.

Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles

in wall units cost far more because their sales volume is low. you can
frame out a standard unit for in the wall.

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

the best money i ever spent was replacing my old furnace 60% efficent
with a 90+ goodman furnace with air.

theres another type of air probably around 1500 bucks a split ac.....

but central AC is the best way to go

On Aug 9, 8:00*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Aug 9, 8:29*pm, (Charles Bishop) wrote:





I've been looking ar room air cons and have a question, or two.

There are two types that I've looked at-window units, and in-wall units..
The window units fit into a window, with "ears" at the sides to fill in
any empty space. The in-wall units are fitted into a space in a wall, and
usually have a sleeve that they slide into. The sleeve is mounted through
the wall, supported on the outside and the unit slides in.

Both types are available in 8K and 10K units and with 110V power.

Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles

in wall units cost far more because their sales volume is low. you can
frame out a standard unit for in the wall.

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

the best money i ever spent was replacing my old furnace 60% efficent
with a 90+ goodman furnace with air.

theres another type of air probably around 1500 bucks a split ac.....

but central AC is the best way to go- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd look at the location of any side air vents in the
window unit before figuring out if it can be turned
into a framed type. As long as they are not blocked
and you're ok with the look, I don't see why it would
not work.

Price diff I don't know about, but the sales volume
issue sounds plausible.

I've been looking ar room air cons and have a question, or two.

There are two types that I've looked at-window units, and in-wall units.
The window units fit into a window, with "ears" at the sides to fill in
any empty space. The in-wall units are fitted into a space in a wall, and
usually have a sleeve that they slide into. The sleeve is mounted through
the wall, supported on the outside and the unit slides in.

Both types are available in 8K and 10K units and with 110V power.

Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote:

On Aug 9, 8:29*pm, (Charles Bishop) wrote:
I've been looking ar room air cons and have a question, or two.

There are two types that I've looked at-window units, and in-wall units.
The window units fit into a window, with "ears" at the sides to fill in
any empty space. The in-wall units are fitted into a space in a wall, and
usually have a sleeve that they slide into. The sleeve is mounted through
the wall, supported on the outside and the unit slides in.

Both types are available in 8K and 10K units and with 110V power.

Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles

in wall units cost far more because their sales volume is low. you can
frame out a standard unit for in the wall.

Usually not. Window units often have vents in the sides, too close to the
front to frame through a wall (thicker than a window).

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

Split units are ideal for this application.

the best money i ever spent was replacing my old furnace 60% efficent
with a 90+ goodman furnace with air.

A converted coal furnace. 60% is horrible. Even old 60s junk was ~80%.

theres another type of air probably around 1500 bucks a split ac.....

but central AC is the best way to go

*FAR* more costly for a retrofit.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:29:28 -0800, (Charles
Bishop) wrote:




Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

The in wall unit has a slide in chassis. That makes for easier
service and installation. It also costs more to build. I used to
supply parts to a major AC manufacturer. They build 4000 to 8000
window shakers a day while the thru-wall units were a specialty small
run.



Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

I've seen it done.


Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Ease of use and ease of installation is the big factor. If you are
inclined to build a sleeve, it can work just as well. The heat won't
car how it is removed.




Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

No. The cost of putting in a 240 line is more than the potential
savings.

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:




but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

the best money i ever spent was replacing my old furnace 60% efficent
with a 90+ goodman furnace with air.

theres another type of air probably around 1500 bucks a split ac.....

but central AC is the best way to go

That does not work for everyone though. If you have to install ducts
for AC, it can get costly in many homes. I'd like central, but since
I heat with hot water baseboard, the cost is difficult to justify.

If I had hot air heat, yes, central would be the way to go.

The window units draw outdoor air in the sides, and push the heat out the
back. If you make a sleeve, you need a LOT of space on the sides, to allow
outdoor air to circulate through the condensor.

There is no energy savings to 220 volts. You pay for watts, and it takes
some number of watts to move the heat.

What saves money is to keep the AC clean, and to buy one with a rotary
compressor, instead of a recip.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Charles Bishop" wrote in message
...

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles

On 8/9/2012 8:29 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
I've been looking ar room air cons and have a question, or two.

There are two types that I've looked at-window units, and in-wall units.
The window units fit into a window, with "ears" at the sides to fill in
any empty space. The in-wall units are fitted into a space in a wall, and
usually have a sleeve that they slide into. The sleeve is mounted through
the wall, supported on the outside and the unit slides in.

Both types are available in 8K and 10K units and with 110V power.

Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles


If efficiency is a goal you would want to look at mini split units. As a
bonus they are much less noisier than the typical window shakers and the
only wall penetration is for the refrigerant lines, drain and a control
wiring.

bob haller wrote:

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

I disagree.

Consider a typical usage pattern:

A. 6:00 am - 7:30 am | Usually no need for a/c.
B. 7:30 am - 6:00 pm | a/c off while everybody's at work
C. 6:00 pm -11:00 pm | a/c on
D. 11:00 pm - 6:00 am | Need for a/c while sleeping

If you use only central air, it will be on 12 hours a day (C + D). If you
have a window unit in the bedroom, the central air will be running only five
hours a day (C) and the window unit running seven (D).

The cost difference is between the central air and the window unit for seven
hours a day. Even if the window unit is not particularily efficient, it will
still cost less than cooling the whole house for those seven hours.

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its own
window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the main point
remains: why cool the whole house when only part is occupied?

On Aug 10, 9:58*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
bob haller wrote:

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

I disagree.

Consider a typical usage pattern:

A. 6:00 am - 7:30 am | Usually no need for a/c.
B. 7:30 am - 6:00 pm | a/c off while everybody's at work
C. 6:00 pm -11:00 pm | a/c on
D. 11:00 pm - 6:00 am | Need for a/c while sleeping

If you use only central air, it will be on 12 hours a day (C + D). If you
have a window unit in the bedroom, the central air will be running only five
hours a day (C) and the window unit running seven (D).

It depends where you live. My central AC rarely
runs after 11PM. I'm in the nyc area and typical
night temps are not that high. So, if I want most
of the house cooled off in the evening, then the
whole house is cooled down and it's
costing very little if it comes on some nights a
few times to maintain that.

Now if you're trying to cool the whole house down
all day when it's 95 in the blazing sun vs keeping one room
cool, around here that would make a difference.

It's all a moot point anyway for the OP. I doubt
someone looking at a window unit vs a wall unit
is going to be putting in central AC.






The cost difference is between the central air and the window unit for seven
hours a day. Even if the window unit is not particularily efficient, it will
still cost less than cooling the whole house for those seven hours.

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its own
window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the main point
remains: why cool the whole house when only part is occupied?

On Aug 10, 8:30*am, George wrote:
On 8/9/2012 8:29 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:





I've been looking ar room air cons and have a question, or two.

There are two types that I've looked at-window units, and in-wall units..
The window units fit into a window, with "ears" at the sides to fill in
any empty space. The in-wall units are fitted into a space in a wall, and
usually have a sleeve that they slide into. The sleeve is mounted through
the wall, supported on the outside and the unit slides in.

Both types are available in 8K and 10K units and with 110V power.

Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles

If efficiency is a goal you would want to look at mini split units. As a
bonus they are much less noisier than the typical window shakers and the
only wall penetration is for the refrigerant lines, drain and a control
wiring.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How many years would you have to run it to make
back the 10 to 20X cost differential? I mean better
efficiency is great, but at what cost?

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:58:32 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bob haller wrote:

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

I disagree.

Consider a typical usage pattern:

A. 6:00 am - 7:30 am | Usually no need for a/c.
B. 7:30 am - 6:00 pm | a/c off while everybody's at work
C. 6:00 pm -11:00 pm | a/c on
D. 11:00 pm - 6:00 am | Need for a/c while sleeping

If you use only central air, it will be on 12 hours a day (C + D). If you
have a window unit in the bedroom, the central air will be running only five
hours a day (C) and the window unit running seven (D).

The cost difference is between the central air and the window unit for seven
hours a day. Even if the window unit is not particularily efficient, it will
still cost less than cooling the whole house for those seven hours.

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its own
window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the main point
remains: why cool the whole house when only part is occupied?


I agree with this. Only need A/C for the bedroom to sleep well.
Could probably do without that too, and lay on a tiled floor if it
gets too hot to sleep. Roll over once in a while to a cooler spot.
No need to cool anything else.
My wife disagrees.

--
Vic

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

bob haller wrote:

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

I disagree.

Consider a typical usage pattern:

A. 6:00 am - 7:30 am | Usually no need for a/c.
B. 7:30 am - 6:00 pm | a/c off while everybody's at work
C. 6:00 pm -11:00 pm | a/c on
D. 11:00 pm - 6:00 am | Need for a/c while sleeping

If you use only central air, it will be on 12 hours a day (C + D). If
you have a window unit in the bedroom, the central air will be running
only five hours a day (C) and the window unit running seven (D).

The cost difference is between the central air and the window unit for
seven hours a day. Even if the window unit is not particularily
efficient, it will still cost less than cooling the whole house for
those seven hours.

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its
own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the
main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting. Secondly,
if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the windows and get
natural cooling. Try that with window units. Lastly, it is generally
more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole house A/C unit than 4 or more
window units. Of course, that presumes adequate insultion of the home.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 10 Aug 2012 14:59:30 GMT, Han wrote:



There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its
own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the
main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting. Secondly,
if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the windows and get
natural cooling. Try that with window units. Lastly, it is generally
more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole house A/C unit than 4 or more
window units. Of course, that presumes adequate insultion of the home.

One size certainly does not fit all. Your points are valid, but not
deal breakers for me.

If you only have one window in a room, you are correct. If you have
two or more, makes no difference to open them.

They may eliminate some light, but in a bedroom at night, who cares? I
have one in the dining room on the north side and there is little
light to start with and while it cools other rooms, it does not
detract from their windows at all. Dining room gets plenty of light
from the east side window.

In my house, it is not practical to put a central unit. There are no
ducts so installation would be more costly. If I had hot air heat,
I'd probably go with central. Even then, adapting later is not as
good as a primary design for it.

As for efficiency, window units are generally less efficient to
operate, but not necessarily more costly. Depends on how they are
used. A 6000 BTU bedroom unit uses less juice overnight than keeping
and entire house cooled by a central unit when only a single room
needs to be cooled.

On Aug 10, 5:38*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012 14:59:30 GMT, Han wrote:

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its
own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the
main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting. *Secondly,
if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the windows and get
natural cooling. *Try that with window units. *Lastly, it is generally
more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole house A/C unit than 4 or more
window units. *Of course, that presumes adequate insultion of the home..

One size certainly does not fit all. *Your points are valid, but not
deal breakers for me.

If you only have one window in a room, you are correct. *If you have
two or more, makes no difference to open them.

They may eliminate some light, but in a bedroom at night, who cares? I
have one in the dining room on the north side and there is little
light to start with and while it cools other rooms, it does not
detract from their windows at all. *Dining room gets plenty of light
from the east side window.

In my house, it is not practical to put a central unit. *There are no
ducts so installation would be more costly. *If I had hot air heat,
I'd probably go with central. *Even then, adapting later is not as
good as a primary design for it.

As for efficiency, window units are generally less efficient to
operate, but not necessarily more costly. *Depends on how they are
used. *A 6000 BTU bedroom unit uses less juice overnight than keeping
and entire house cooled by a central unit when only a single room
needs to be cooled.

If you ever decide to add central air, take a look
at the high velocity mini duct systems. They cost
more for the eqpt, but deliver air via hoses that are
maybe 2" inside diameter? Much easier to route/install
in old work. I've only seen one actually in use, but
it seemed pretty cool. Both the temp and the way
it worked.

On 8/10/2012 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:30 am, George wrote:
On 8/9/2012 8:29 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:





I've been looking ar room air cons and have a question, or two.

There are two types that I've looked at-window units, and in-wall units.
The window units fit into a window, with "ears" at the sides to fill in
any empty space. The in-wall units are fitted into a space in a wall, and
usually have a sleeve that they slide into. The sleeve is mounted through
the wall, supported on the outside and the unit slides in.

Both types are available in 8K and 10K units and with 110V power.

Why does the in-wall unit cost ~$150-$200 more than the window unit for
the same specifications?

Would there be a downside to using a window unit as an in-wall unit by
framing my own sleeve and making trim for the outside and inside of walls
of the room?

Or, do I need a sleeve at all? After all, when the window unit is in a
window, the exterior of the unit is exposed to the elements as much as it
would be when it is installed as an in-wall unit?

Is it worth it for energy savings to look into getting a 240V unit even
though I only need 8 or 10K?

charles

If efficiency is a goal you would want to look at mini split units. As a
bonus they are much less noisier than the typical window shakers and the
only wall penetration is for the refrigerant lines, drain and a control
wiring.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How many years would you have to run it to make
back the 10 to 20X cost differential? I mean better
efficiency is great, but at what cost?


The efficiency is a lot better but as a side benefit it really is nice
being in a space with a whisper quiet air conditioner instead of the
typical drumming and loud fan noise of a window shaker.

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

bob haller wrote:

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC.
more comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC,
unusable for anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal
the unit great the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

I disagree.

Consider a typical usage pattern:

A. 6:00 am - 7:30 am | Usually no need for a/c.
B. 7:30 am - 6:00 pm | a/c off while everybody's at work
C. 6:00 pm -11:00 pm | a/c on
D. 11:00 pm - 6:00 am | Need for a/c while sleeping

If you use only central air, it will be on 12 hours a day (C + D). If
you have a window unit in the bedroom, the central air will be
running only five hours a day (C) and the window unit running seven
(D).

The cost difference is between the central air and the window unit
for seven hours a day. Even if the window unit is not particularily
efficient, it will still cost less than cooling the whole house for
those seven hours.

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with
its own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But
the main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting.
Secondly, if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the
windows and get natural cooling. Try that with window units.
Lastly, it is generally more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole
house A/C unit than 4 or more window units. Of course, that presumes
adequate insultion of the home.

You make some good points.

As for the rooms being lighter, that's the problem. I demand that the
bedroom, at any hour, be as dark as the inside of a cow. Others may have a
different view.

Open the window? In the Houston (and other similar) climates? That's crazy
talk.

I agree there's a point of diminishing returns involving the number of
window units and overall cost. With one bedroom, the scale, in my view,
clearly tilts toward the single window unit for sleeping. With FOUR window
units, the scale probably tilts the other direction.

Unless, of course, they stay OFF and are only used when the kids visit.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:45:36 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 10, 5:38*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012 14:59:30 GMT, Han wrote:

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its
own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the
main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting. *Secondly,
if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the windows and get
natural cooling. *Try that with window units. *Lastly, it is generally
more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole house A/C unit than 4 or more
window units. *Of course, that presumes adequate insultion of the home.

One size certainly does not fit all. *Your points are valid, but not
deal breakers for me.

If you only have one window in a room, you are correct. *If you have
two or more, makes no difference to open them.

They may eliminate some light, but in a bedroom at night, who cares? I
have one in the dining room on the north side and there is little
light to start with and while it cools other rooms, it does not
detract from their windows at all. *Dining room gets plenty of light
from the east side window.

In my house, it is not practical to put a central unit. *There are no
ducts so installation would be more costly. *If I had hot air heat,
I'd probably go with central. *Even then, adapting later is not as
good as a primary design for it.

As for efficiency, window units are generally less efficient to
operate, but not necessarily more costly. *Depends on how they are
used. *A 6000 BTU bedroom unit uses less juice overnight than keeping
and entire house cooled by a central unit when only a single room
needs to be cooled.

If you ever decide to add central air, take a look
at the high velocity mini duct systems. They cost
more for the eqpt, but deliver air via hoses that are
maybe 2" inside diameter? Much easier to route/install
in old work. I've only seen one actually in use, but
it seemed pretty cool. Both the temp and the way
it worked.

Wouldn't they be noisy and drafty?

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:20:40 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

bob haller wrote:

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC.
more comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC,
unusable for anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal
the unit great the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

I disagree.

Consider a typical usage pattern:

A. 6:00 am - 7:30 am | Usually no need for a/c.
B. 7:30 am - 6:00 pm | a/c off while everybody's at work
C. 6:00 pm -11:00 pm | a/c on
D. 11:00 pm - 6:00 am | Need for a/c while sleeping

If you use only central air, it will be on 12 hours a day (C + D). If
you have a window unit in the bedroom, the central air will be
running only five hours a day (C) and the window unit running seven
(D).

The cost difference is between the central air and the window unit
for seven hours a day. Even if the window unit is not particularily
efficient, it will still cost less than cooling the whole house for
those seven hours.

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with
its own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But
the main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting.
Secondly, if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the
windows and get natural cooling. Try that with window units.
Lastly, it is generally more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole
house A/C unit than 4 or more window units. Of course, that presumes
adequate insultion of the home.

You make some good points.

As for the rooms being lighter, that's the problem. I demand that the
bedroom, at any hour, be as dark as the inside of a cow. Others may have a
different view.

Sounds like you don't have a view from your bedroom at all.

Open the window? In the Houston (and other similar) climates? That's crazy
talk.

Mine are open for three months in the spring (March-something to
June-something) and three in the fall (September-December).

I agree there's a point of diminishing returns involving the number of
window units and overall cost. With one bedroom, the scale, in my view,
clearly tilts toward the single window unit for sleeping. With FOUR window
units, the scale probably tilts the other direction.

When I lived in Vermont, we had two through the wall (one 2T and one 9000BTU).
We didn't use them much but a cool bedroom is a must for us. We now have two
central units (in each house). Each of them larger than the biggest we had in
VT. OTOH, we pay significantly less for heat/AC. ;-)

Unless, of course, they stay OFF and are only used when the kids visit.

Ours run continuously from June-September and December-March.

in areas with cold winter weather the work and hassle of spring and fall window unit removal can become a major issue....

either remove the unit and store indoors, or leave it in and put up with drafts or the cold conducted indoors by the window unit....

in the summer a window unit means you cant just open the window on a nice day......

and when the weather is very hot and your trying to just run the bedroom window unit while your sleeping you may have to turn it on hours earlier to not only cool down the room but remove the excess moisture / humidity...

I bet anyone here that believes window units are better has never lived with central air.....

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 10 Aug 2012 14:59:30 GMT, Han wrote:



There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with
its own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But
the main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting.
Secondly, if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the
windows and get natural cooling. Try that with window units. Lastly,
it is generally more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole house A/C
unit than 4 or more window units. Of course, that presumes adequate
insultion of the home.

One size certainly does not fit all. Your points are valid, but not
deal breakers for me.

If you only have one window in a room, you are correct. If you have
two or more, makes no difference to open them.

They may eliminate some light, but in a bedroom at night, who cares? I
have one in the dining room on the north side and there is little
light to start with and while it cools other rooms, it does not
detract from their windows at all. Dining room gets plenty of light
from the east side window.

In my house, it is not practical to put a central unit. There are no
ducts so installation would be more costly. If I had hot air heat,
I'd probably go with central. Even then, adapting later is not as
good as a primary design for it.

As for efficiency, window units are generally less efficient to
operate, but not necessarily more costly. Depends on how they are
used. A 6000 BTU bedroom unit uses less juice overnight than keeping
and entire house cooled by a central unit when only a single room
needs to be cooled.

Well, guys. I live in New Jersey 07410. Last year we didn't have the
A/C on much at all. This year it seems to run almost continuously. We
remodeled the house, new to us, but built in 1929, a year after we bought
it, 1998/9, and the walls were open enough for new siding and insulation
to put in ducts and new hot water baseboard heat. I agree that otherwise
it would be expensive to retrofit for AC. But I really like the central
A/C as you might have gathered ... Even more now we have put foam
insulation against the roof so the attic really does stay cool (~$4500
with the other energy audit things, less a 50% state refund).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

George wrote:

How many years would you have to run it to make
back the 10 to 20X cost differential? I mean better
efficiency is great, but at what cost?


The efficiency is a lot better but as a side benefit it really is nice
being in a space with a whisper quiet air conditioner instead of the
typical drumming and loud fan noise of a window shaker.

Ear plugs. Fifty cents.

On 8/10/2012 10:59 AM, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

bob haller wrote:

but energy efficency wise your far better off with a central AC. more
comfy, much more efficent, no window tied up with a AC, unusable for
anything else, no winter air leaks, even if you seal the unit great
the cold from outdoors will be conducted indoors.

I disagree.

Consider a typical usage pattern:

A. 6:00 am - 7:30 am | Usually no need for a/c.
B. 7:30 am - 6:00 pm | a/c off while everybody's at work
C. 6:00 pm -11:00 pm | a/c on
D. 11:00 pm - 6:00 am | Need for a/c while sleeping

If you use only central air, it will be on 12 hours a day (C + D). If
you have a window unit in the bedroom, the central air will be running
only five hours a day (C) and the window unit running seven (D).

The cost difference is between the central air and the window unit for
seven hours a day. Even if the window unit is not particularily
efficient, it will still cost less than cooling the whole house for
those seven hours.

There are obvious exceptions: For example, four bedrooms each with its
own window unit may be more expensive than the central unit. But the
main point remains: why cool the whole house when only part is
occupied?

You are forgetting important advantages of not having window units.
Firstly, the rooms are much lighter, less need for lighting. Secondly,
if it cools a little outside, it is very easy to open the windows and get
natural cooling. Try that with window units. Lastly, it is generally
more comfortable and efficient for 1 whole house A/C unit than 4 or more
window units. Of course, that presumes adequate insultion of the home.

I had two through the wall units in my last house; they came with the
place and I'd never seen any before. At the time I bought, the house
didn't have central air, and those units were really handy. Even after I
installed CAC, I got a lot of use out of the wall units. The CAC didn't
work perfectly in the rowhouse (it was good and cold in the basement,
adequate on the 1st floor and better than nothing on the 2nd). The wall
units were really helpful at helping cool off the bedroom, and also let
me keep the rest of the house set to a warmer temp. (My real estate
agent was worried a potential buyer might want me to remove the wall
units, but fortunately that wasn't a problem).

I liked being able to open the window if I wanted, although to be honest
I didn't very often because they were the old metal casements and
difficult to control... which probably explains why there were no window
units when I bought the house.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I agree there's a point of diminishing returns involving the number
of window units and overall cost. With one bedroom, the scale, in my
view, clearly tilts toward the single window unit for sleeping. With
FOUR window units, the scale probably tilts the other direction.

When I lived in Vermont, we had two through the wall (one 2T and one
9000BTU). We didn't use them much but a cool bedroom is a must for
us. We now have two central units (in each house). Each of them
larger than the biggest we had in VT. OTOH, we pay significantly
less for heat/AC. ;-)

Unless, of course, they stay OFF and are only used when the kids
visit.

Ours run continuously from June-September and December-March.

My electric bill, after paying $150 for the window unit at Walmart and
installing it in a bedroom window, went from $240 in July to $80 in August.
I consider that a big savings. Your situation, of course, will be different.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:45:47 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

I agree there's a point of diminishing returns involving the number
of window units and overall cost. With one bedroom, the scale, in my
view, clearly tilts toward the single window unit for sleeping. With
FOUR window units, the scale probably tilts the other direction.

When I lived in Vermont, we had two through the wall (one 2T and one
9000BTU). We didn't use them much but a cool bedroom is a must for
us. We now have two central units (in each house). Each of them
larger than the biggest we had in VT. OTOH, we pay significantly
less for heat/AC. ;-)

Unless, of course, they stay OFF and are only used when the kids
visit.

Ours run continuously from June-September and December-March.

My electric bill, after paying $150 for the window unit at Walmart and
installing it in a bedroom window, went from $240 in July to $80 in August.
I consider that a big savings. Your situation, of course, will be different.

If you like to be holed up in one room for months, sure I guess you can save
some money. Why not just get an efficiency apartment? You'll save a ton
more.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

My electric bill, after paying $150 for the window unit at Walmart
and installing it in a bedroom window, went from $240 in July to $80
in August. I consider that a big savings. Your situation, of course,
will be different.

If you like to be holed up in one room for months, sure I guess you
can save some money. Why not just get an efficiency apartment?
You'll save a ton more.

About the only time I'm in the house portion of my duplex is for lunch and
to sleep. I spend most of my waking hours in the office side (where the
electric bill has exceeded $400 every once in a while).

But it's true I don't get out much.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:35:58 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

My electric bill, after paying $150 for the window unit at Walmart
and installing it in a bedroom window, went from $240 in July to $80
in August. I consider that a big savings. Your situation, of course,
will be different.

If you like to be holed up in one room for months, sure I guess you
can save some money. Why not just get an efficiency apartment?
You'll save a ton more.

About the only time I'm in the house portion of my duplex is for lunch and
to sleep. I spend most of my waking hours in the office side (where the
electric bill has exceeded $400 every once in a while).

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that it's cheaper to cool one room than an entire
house. Seems like you need a bigger office and smaller apartment.

But it's true I don't get out much.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

About the only time I'm in the house portion of my duplex is for
lunch and to sleep. I spend most of my waking hours in the office
side (where the electric bill has exceeded $400 every once in a
while).

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that it's cheaper to cool one room than an
entire house. Seems like you need a bigger office and smaller
apartment.


No, the house part serves a purpose. Thanks to many of the tips I've
garnered from this newsgroup, it's been turned into something magnificant.
The "living room" has been converted into a "Great Room," with a 13' mural
of a Tuscan countryside on one wall, a large tapestry on another wall,
elegant fireplace, piano, and assorted trappings. The room formerly known as
the "kitchen" is now the "Beast Preparation Area," with all the latest and
finest appliances. One "bedroom" has been converted to a "Library," with
comfy chairs, personal lighting, and grandfather clock. The former "master
bedroom" is now the room of the "Master's Repose." And more.

The purpose of all this re-do is obvious - and rewarding - when a female
first visits.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:39:54 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

About the only time I'm in the house portion of my duplex is for
lunch and to sleep. I spend most of my waking hours in the office
side (where the electric bill has exceeded $400 every once in a
while).

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that it's cheaper to cool one room than an
entire house. Seems like you need a bigger office and smaller
apartment.


No, the house part serves a purpose. Thanks to many of the tips I've
garnered from this newsgroup, it's been turned into something magnificant.
The "living room" has been converted into a "Great Room," with a 13' mural
of a Tuscan countryside on one wall, a large tapestry on another wall,
elegant fireplace, piano, and assorted trappings. The room formerly known as
the "kitchen" is now the "Beast Preparation Area," with all the latest and
finest appliances. One "bedroom" has been converted to a "Library," with
comfy chairs, personal lighting, and grandfather clock. The former "master
bedroom" is now the room of the "Master's Repose." And more.

The purpose of all this re-do is obvious - and rewarding - when a female
first visits.

How does the female respond to having only one room cooled? ...and it's not
the kitchen. ;-)

On Friday, August 10, 2012 8:50:44 PM UTC-5, bob haller wrote:
in areas with cold winter weather the work and hassle of spring and fall window unit removal can become a major issue....



either remove the unit and store indoors, or leave it in and put up with drafts or the cold conducted indoors by the window unit....



in the summer a window unit means you cant just open the window on a nice day......



and when the weather is very hot and your trying to just run the bedroom window unit while your sleeping you may have to turn it on hours earlier to not only cool down the room but remove the excess moisture / humidity...



I bet anyone here that believes window units are better has never lived with central air.....

Here in Texas, when your central A/C fails, invariably the repair company says "It's shot, you need a new one". $5000 for a plain old 3-ton for a 1500 sq ft home. they rape you, because you are sweating and you just wan it cool NOW.
With window units, if one fails, the other 2 or 3 keep working while you go down to Sears of Lowes and spend $300 for a brand new one. Done deal.
I like the idea of the mini-splits, if the cost difference were not so high. they also are a little more technical for a DIY replacement. They are higher quality than most window units, and more efficient. And window units do have that low-rent social status.
I am about to built a 1000-sq ft garage with a guest apartment on a 2nd floor, so I have been considering this question. If I can find a winter deal on a central unit, I'll go that way, but if there is a big difference in price, I'll probably go with mini-splits, but window units are not out of the question. I'd do wall mounts if I use window units.

Monday Aug 13, a caller to the Dave Ramsey show called. His central AC
"froze over". He and Dave were discussing financing to replace.

My advice, which I emailed to Dave. Is that such a system can be serviced
and repaired. No need to pull $6,000 out of the air. I wasn't there to do
the diagnostic work up, but I'm guessing I can repair such a system for a
lot less than six grand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...


I bet anyone here that believes window units are better has never lived
with central air.....

Here in Texas, when your central A/C fails, invariably the repair company
says "It's shot, you need a new one". $5000 for a plain old 3-ton for a
1500 sq ft home. they rape you, because you are sweating and you just wan it
cool NOW.
With window units, if one fails, the other 2 or 3 keep working while you go
down to Sears of Lowes and spend $300 for a brand new one. Done deal.
I like the idea of the mini-splits, if the cost difference were not so
high. they also are a little more technical for a DIY replacement. They are
higher quality than most window units, and more efficient. And window units
do have that low-rent social status.
I am about to built a 1000-sq ft garage with a guest apartment on a 2nd
floor, so I have been considering this question. If I can find a winter deal
on a central unit, I'll go that way, but if there is a big difference in
price, I'll probably go with mini-splits, but window units are not out of
the question. I'd do wall mounts if I use window units.