"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.


Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.
BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
--
EA

"Existential Angst" fired this volley in
:

Cut, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a
water
jacket,

Yeah, but then they wouldn't work with air. There has to be intimate
contact between the condensor tubing and the exchange medium.

If they were to outfit them with "Siamese" condensor tubing, so one line
carried refrigerant, and the other a liquid exchange medium, AND put fins
on the array -- then it would work, but would be quite a bit more
expensive.

On a side note: With a little re-wiring of the controls, a large window
unit AC makes a dandy monster-scale dehumidifier. Just situate the whole
affair inside the conditioned space (instead of through a window or
wall), and run the condensate outside. The wasted energy also heats the
space (some).

I have dehumidified large industrial drying rooms for cheap that way.

Lloyd

On Dec 11, 7:06*am, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
"Existential Angst" fired this volley :



Cut, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a
water
jacket,

Yeah, but then they wouldn't work with air. *There has to be intimate
contact between the condensor tubing and the exchange medium.

If they were to outfit them with "Siamese" condensor tubing, so one line
carried refrigerant, and the other a liquid exchange medium, AND put fins
on the array -- then it would work, but would be quite a bit more
expensive.

On a side note:*With a little re-wiring of the controls, a large
window
unit AC makes a dandy monster-scale dehumidifier. *Just situate the whole
affair inside the conditioned space (instead of through a window or
wall), and run the condensate outside. *The wasted energy also heats
the
space (some).

I have dehumidified large industrial drying rooms for cheap that way.

Does the evaporator still run cold? And if not, does any water
condense inside of the unit (as the inside area's air is on its way
out)?

On Dec 11, 1:11*pm, Transition Zone wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:06*am, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"







lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
"Existential Angst" fired this volley :

Cut, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a
water
jacket,

Yeah, but then they wouldn't work with air. *There has to be intimate
contact between the condensor tubing and the exchange medium.

If they were to outfit them with "Siamese" condensor tubing, so one line
carried refrigerant, and the other a liquid exchange medium, AND put fins
on the array -- then it would work, but would be quite a bit more
expensive.

* On a side note:*With a little re-wiring of the controls, a large
windowunit AC makes a dandy monster-scale dehumidifier. *Just situate the whole
*affair inside the conditioned space (instead of through a window or

*wall), and run the condensate outside. *The wasted energy also heats
the

*space (some).

*I have dehumidified large industrial drying rooms for cheap that way..

Does the evaporator still run cold? And if not, does any water
condense inside of the unit (as the inside area's air is on its way
out)?

Oops, didn't read that. You ran the thing with the windows closed.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
"Existential Angst" fired this volley in
:

Cut, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a
water
jacket,

Yeah, but then they wouldn't work with air. There has to be intimate
contact between the condensor tubing and the exchange medium.

If they were to outfit them with "Siamese" condensor tubing, so one line
carried refrigerant, and the other a liquid exchange medium, AND put fins
on the array -- then it would work, but would be quite a bit more
expensive.

On a side note: With a little re-wiring of the controls, a large window
unit AC makes a dandy monster-scale dehumidifier. Just situate the whole
affair inside the conditioned space (instead of through a window or
wall), and run the condensate outside. The wasted energy also heats the
space (some).

I have dehumidified large industrial drying rooms for cheap that way.

Tried that.... for some reasons the units would ice up. An A/C guy told
me that would be a common problem, forgot what the reason was.
But, if they don't ice up, a useful application of an otherwise old beatup
A/C unit.
Also, if you turn them around in the window during the winter, you have a
heat pump....
--
EA



Lloyd

"Existential Angst" wrote in message ...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.


Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.
BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.


During the summer months, I use a geothermal heat pump to cool the house while simultaniously eating a 45,000 gallon pool; in the fall, I use it to heat the house with up until the point where the pool is colder than our well water at which point I start heating with well water, using surface disposal instead.

Transition Zone fired this volley in news:e1be0a6b-
:

Oops, didn't read that. You ran the thing with the windows closed.

Yeah. The whole unit is inside the room. Both the evaporator and
condensor are operating on the local air. So long as you isolate the two
enough (with a plywood baffle to direct the hot exhaust away from the
unit) so that they don't instantly swap air, it works a treat.

No... the evap doesn't freeze. If anything, it sometimes doesn't get
cool enough -- as the humidity drops, the temp on the evap has to get
lower and lower to condense, and the unit is heating the air at the same
time it's cooling it G.

LLoyd

Existential Angst wrote:



Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.
BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
Adding a water-cooled condenser to an A/C system shouldn't be that big
a deal. The problem is corrosion. I'd expect pool water running through
condenser to shorten its life considerably. But, on the other hand,
it might save enough energy to pay for a replacement condenser coil
every few years. it would make a mess of the pool when it blew oil
into the pool water, though.

Jon

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

"Existential Angst" fired this volley in
:

Cut, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a
water
jacket,

Yeah, but then they wouldn't work with air. There has to be intimate
contact between the condensor tubing and the exchange medium.

If they were to outfit them with "Siamese" condensor tubing, so one line
carried refrigerant, and the other a liquid exchange medium, AND put fins
on the array -- then it would work, but would be quite a bit more
expensive.

The typical water-cooled condenser has the refrigerant tube
threaded inside the coiled water pipe, so it is surrounded by
flowing water.

On a side note: With a little re-wiring of the controls, a large window
unit AC makes a dandy monster-scale dehumidifier. Just situate the whole
affair inside the conditioned space (instead of through a window or
wall), and run the condensate outside. The wasted energy also heats the
space (some).

I have dehumidified large industrial drying rooms for cheap that way.
The only problem is the typical window AC has the condensate rigged
to flow back to the condenser fan and get slung around, to extract
an evaporative cooling effect from the water. It probably wouldn't
be real hard to defeat that, however. But, it would take a little
hacking.

Jon

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:


During the summer months, I use a geothermal heat pump to cool the house
while simultaniously eating a 45,000 gallon pool; in the fall, I use it to
heat the house with up until the point where the pool is colder than our
well water at which point I start heating with well water, using surface
disposal instead.
COOL! (pun intended) I'd like to hear more details about this
system.

Jon

Jon Elson fired this volley in
:

It probably wouldn't
be real hard to defeat that, however. But, it would take a little
hacking.


It's not hard, and takes no hacking. Just tilt the unit a couple of
degrees forward - instead of back - and provide a drain.

Lloyd

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Existential Angst wrote:



Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.
BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
Adding a water-cooled condenser to an A/C system shouldn't be that big
a deal. The problem is corrosion. I'd expect pool water running through
condenser to shorten its life considerably. But, on the other hand,
it might save enough energy to pay for a replacement condenser coil
every few years. it would make a mess of the pool when it blew oil
into the pool water, though.

No good deed goes unpunished.
--
EA



Jon

"Jon Elson" wrote in message ...
Existential Angst wrote:



Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.
BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
Adding a water-cooled condenser to an A/C system shouldn't be that big
a deal. The problem is corrosion. I'd expect pool water running through
condenser to shorten its life considerably. But, on the other hand,
it might save enough energy to pay for a replacement condenser coil
every few years. it would make a mess of the pool when it blew oil
into the pool water, though.



Replace it with a coaxial coil, ( tube in tube, counterflow ) or add one at the point just prior to where refrigerant enters the condensor coil and adjust charge volume accordingly.

http://tinyurl.com/bhbu5tm

Or you can kludge your own out of a piece of copper line set by placing it inside of a coil of black poly pipe.

BTW: You have mail.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message . 3.70...
Transition Zone fired this volley in news:e1be0a6b-
:

Oops, didn't read that. You ran the thing with the windows closed.

Yeah. The whole unit is inside the room. Both the evaporator and
condensor are operating on the local air. So long as you isolate the two
enough (with a plywood baffle to direct the hot exhaust away from the
unit) so that they don't instantly swap air, it works a treat.

No... the evap doesn't freeze. If anything, it sometimes doesn't get
cool enough -- as the humidity drops, the temp on the evap has to get
lower and lower to condense, and the unit is heating the air at the same
time it's cooling it G.


Lower the evaporator temp to the dewpoint by partially restricting mass airflow volume across the coil.

"PrecisionmachinisT" fired this volley in
news:R9udncE02q3BJlrNnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Lower the evaporator temp to the dewpoint by partially restricting
mass airflow volume across the coil.

yep.
But it's a two-edged blade. Restrict it, and you get less
dehumidification when you can use it most, and potentially can freeze
the evaporator, if there's too little flow.

All-in-all, it works fine with no restrictions. There's just a
limitation on how low a humidity you can accomplish.

And, of course, the usual AC doesn't have a humidistat, so it's just a
matter of letting it run continuously, unless you want to do a bit more
engineering.

Lloyd

On Dec 10, 9:25*pm, Robert Neville wrote:
" wrote:
It eliminates the fan in the condenser unit, using the pool
pump instead. *The pool needs to be filtered for 6 - 8 hours
a day anyway, so that pool pump electricity is already paid
for.

It's also more efficient to move heat to a liquid rather than the air, plus most
of the time the water is going to be cooler than the air when the a/c is
running, another reason the a/c will be slightly more efficient.

The fact that it's more efficient to move heat to a liquid is
reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. The existing air
one is much LARGE. The replacment pool water one is much
smaller. As long as the temp of the refrigerant when it
reaches the air handler is the same, you're not gaining
anything in efficiency, except the previously noted issue
of using the pool pump
motor versus the AC condenser motor. And if you feel the
pressure line where it enters the air handler, it's already
close to ambient. At least mine is and I would hope it
is on any relatively modern AC unit.

As to the water being cooler, if the thing is doing what it's
intended to do and claimed to be capable of doing, then
it should be keeping the pool 80 to 80F. That doesn't
sound very much different from average ambient air temp
in locations that need pool heating, in the months when
they need it most.





That said, if you are going into this kind of setup thinking it will save you
money in heating a pool, you need a refresher course in basic thermodynamics.
Then look at what a PITA combo VCR/TVs were and consider what you'd be dealing
with with your average HVAC tech.

Absolutely agree with the last part.

On Dec 10, 12:38*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. *The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. * The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.




*A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. The
existing on is sized based on AIR. The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.



And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. *Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.



Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. *Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

*I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings.

Anybody can give you "estimates". I'd like to see real data
on this pool thing. And as I've said, you do get some savings.
It's due to the fact that you no longer have the fan on the
condenser running. Instead you're using the pool pump
motor, which you can assume is paid for by it having to
run for pool filtering, anyway.



*It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out *The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. *It all gets to payback.

Do you have a pool? Pool heater? What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? In my world, there
is no way this computes.

On Dec 11, 4:19*am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. *The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. * The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. *A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. *Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. *Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. *It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out *The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. *It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C *MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.

No it won't. Because the refrigerant temp coming back
to the air handler is going to be about the same in either
case. The existing condenser is HUGE because it's air
based. But it's sized so that the returning refrigerant is
near ambient when it goes back. The pool water is
going to be typically 80 - 85. At least it would be if this
thing does what it's claimed to do. The refrigerant
can't go lower than the pool temp, even if this small
water based heat exchanger is 100% efficient.
So, in my world, the bulk of the energy savings is
from the AC condenser fan not running and instead
the pool pump being used. The pool pump electricity
isn't counted, because the pump would have to run
6 or 8 hours a day to filter anyway.





BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
--
EA



It ain't gonna do much for SEER, for the reasons noted above.

On Dec 12, 8:19*am, "
wrote:

Do you have a pool? * Pool heater? *What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? * In my world, there
is no way this computes.

No way. An inground pool pump pumps in the vicinity of 40 gpm.

The HVAC line through that tiny heat exchanger seems it would have to
attain a temperature approaching 1000°F to make -any- difference.
-----

- gpsman

wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 4:19 am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.

No it won't. Because the refrigerant temp coming back
to the air handler is going to be about the same in either
case. The existing condenser is HUGE because it's air
based. But it's sized so that the returning refrigerant is
near ambient when it goes back. The pool water is
going to be typically 80 - 85. At least it would be if this
thing does what it's claimed to do. The refrigerant
can't go lower than the pool temp, even if this small
water based heat exchanger is 100% efficient.
So, in my world, the bulk of the energy savings is
from the AC condenser fan not running and instead
the pool pump being used. The pool pump electricity
isn't counted, because the pump would have to run
6 or 8 hours a day to filter anyway.





BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
--
EA



It ain't gonna do much for SEER, for the reasons noted above.
================================================== =======

I think you missed the basic point.

Heat transfer to air is *intrinsically* less efficient (by orders of
magnitude) than it is to water.
Add to that that the water is proly sig'ly cooler than the air to begin
with, water cooling of the outside coils of an A/C is a no-brainer.

So no matter how the condenser is "sized" for air, a water bath would
radically improve (lower) the returning refrigerant temps. And the hotter
the day, the more improvement will be seen.

But, HOW this is actually executed is another story, as Vic implied. He was
just making the thermodynamic point that, all other things being equal, the
A/C efficiency, due to the heat transfer to water instead of air, would
skyrocket. That the A/C exhaust fan is not needed is an added plus, as
well.

OTHER things might negate the idea of water cooling, but that's another
story.

Why do you think IC engines are water-cooled? Despite the fact that
air-cooling technology exists?
They've even gone to water-cooling motorcycle engines.
Yeah, the analogy is not perfect, but it drives the point home.
--
EA

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 4:19 am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.

No it won't. Because the refrigerant temp coming back
to the air handler is going to be about the same in either
case. The existing condenser is HUGE because it's air
based. But it's sized so that the returning refrigerant is
near ambient when it goes back. The pool water is
going to be typically 80 - 85. At least it would be if this
thing does what it's claimed to do. The refrigerant
can't go lower than the pool temp, even if this small
water based heat exchanger is 100% efficient.
So, in my world, the bulk of the energy savings is
from the AC condenser fan not running and instead
the pool pump being used. The pool pump electricity
isn't counted, because the pump would have to run
6 or 8 hours a day to filter anyway.





BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
--
EA



It ain't gonna do much for SEER, for the reasons noted above.
================================================== =======

I think you missed the basic point.

Heat transfer to air is *intrinsically* less efficient (by orders of
magnitude) than it is to water.
Add to that that the water is proly sig'ly cooler than the air to begin
with, water cooling of the outside coils of an A/C is a no-brainer.

So no matter how the condenser is "sized" for air, a water bath would
radically improve (lower) the returning refrigerant temps. And the hotter
the day, the more improvement will be seen.

But, HOW this is actually executed is another story, as Vic implied. He
was just making the thermodynamic point that, all other things being
equal, the A/C efficiency, due to the heat transfer to water instead of
air, would skyrocket. That the A/C exhaust fan is not needed is an added
plus, as well.

OTHER things might negate the idea of water cooling, but that's another
story.

Why do you think IC engines are water-cooled? Despite the fact that
air-cooling technology exists?
They've even gone to water-cooling motorcycle engines.
Yeah, the analogy is not perfect, but it drives the point home.

You claim your return refrigerant is close to ambient....
If that's indeed true, you have a point, water cooling would be moot --
unless water temps were sig'ly below ambient.

But I seem to recall those return lines being perty warm, altho I wouldn't
bet the farm on it.
Also, eff w/ return temp might not be linear.
Inyway, no biggie, all this efficiency/ecology talk is inherently moot, with
7 billion assholes on the planet, every single one of them bucking for a
nice car....
--
EA


--
EA

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:38Â*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. Â*The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. Â* The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.


I never mentioned heating the pool, only AC efficiency.
But even with water and air temps the same, water cooling is a much
more efficient means to remove heat.
Why do you think many commercial enterprises use water cooling for AC?
Building logistics, local electric and water costs, and salesmen.
Cooling towers aren't put up capriciously.



Â*A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. The
existing on is sized based on AIR. The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.


You seem to be denying common precepts of thermodynamic laws.
Energy is being used and transferred in all cases. Water transfers
heat much better than does air. Beside the fan, a bigger condenser
also usually means a bigger compressor, and more energy use.



And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Â*Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.

You keep saying the end result is same, but it's not.
Water cooling will provide lower condensed refrigerant temps
with less electrical energy expended.
You can cut down a tree with a sharp blade or a dull blade.
The tree goes down in either case. But the dull blade will tire you
out more.



Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Â*Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

Â*I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings.

Anybody can give you "estimates". I'd like to see real data
on this pool thing. And as I've said, you do get some savings.
It's due to the fact that you no longer have the fan on the
condenser running. Instead you're using the pool pump
motor, which you can assume is paid for by it having to
run for pool filtering, anyway.


You probably won't find data on residential pool-cooled AC
condensers, because air-cooled AC does the job, electricity is pretty
cheap in most places in the U.S., and residential pools are very small
in number. The southwest U.S. might be the place to look.
Here's a "study" done in Kuwait showing `40% energy savings using
water cooled AC. Click on the pdf link.
http://repository.tamu.edu//handle/1969.1/4621
I don't vouch for it.

Â*It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out Â*The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. Â*It all gets to payback.

Do you have a pool? Pool heater? What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? In my world, there
is no way this computes.

No, I don't have a pool and never wanted one.
And I'm not saying I would cool my AC with pool water.
But if I lived in the right climate and had a pool, I would look into
it. But a hard look at cost vs savings. Chlorine interaction with
the heat exchanger might be the biggest issue,
BTW, I don't know who said it, but I think somebody said the air
handler uses the bulk of the electric energy in the AC system. Not
true from what I've read. Compressor uses `70%.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:24:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 11, 4:19*am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. *The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. * The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. *A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. *Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. *Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. *It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out *The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. *It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C *MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.

No it won't. Because the refrigerant temp coming back
to the air handler is going to be about the same in either
case. The existing condenser is HUGE because it's air
based. But it's sized so that the returning refrigerant is
near ambient when it goes back. The pool water is
going to be typically 80 - 85. At least it would be if this
thing does what it's claimed to do. The refrigerant
can't go lower than the pool temp, even if this small
water based heat exchanger is 100% efficient.
So, in my world, the bulk of the energy savings is
from the AC condenser fan not running and instead
the pool pump being used. The pool pump electricity
isn't counted, because the pump would have to run
6 or 8 hours a day to filter anyway.





BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
--
EA



It ain't gonna do much for SEER, for the reasons noted above.

Another huge problem is the pool chemistry has to be kept Very Rigidly
Controlled or the pool water will rot out the water cooled condenser
REAL FAST - or clog it up with scale to the point it won't work
anymore, same outcome. Most people can't or won't be that anal about
the pool water, and the condensers can rot in a year or two.

This is why water cooled condensers and the water tower used to cool
the water use liberal amounts of some really nasty chemical additives
to keep that from happening - and you sure as hell don't want to swim
in them. And they still dump a lot of water and evaporate even more
on purpose (higher temps) and replace it with fresh every day.

Plus, you need to setup a variable-speed pool pump motor and link the
AC to the Pool - and you'll really need a computer to know when to
shift between the Water Condenser and the regular air condenser coils
on the condensing unit - Or it can't run automatically.

If you go that way, gotta go all the way or don't bother.

-- Bruce --

"Bruce L. Bergman (munged human readable)"
Another huge problem is the pool chemistry has to be kept Very Rigidly
Controlled or the pool water will rot out the water cooled condenser
REAL FAST - or clog it up with scale to the point it won't work
anymore, same outcome. Most people can't or won't be that anal about
the pool water, and the condensers can rot in a year or two.

It's not as huge a problem as you think.

For one, a pool should be kept near neutral.

I have a pool heater and years ago, after 2 years, the water manifold
developed a leak. The first thing the pool guy was asking is "did you
keep the water near neutral?". I did, but was unable to get any kind of
discount on the replacement.

When putting in the replacement, I noticed the interior is coated with
plastic. So, there's no water to metal contact.

I've been running heaters for more than 6 years now and I can tell you
the water in contact with a heated metal unit does not create any
special corrosion problems. A condenser shouldn't be any problem at
all.

I'm not sure what all the controversy is.

If this guy had his AC unit near his pool pump he just did what was
reasonable. The alternative would be to have a big fan roaring near the
pool with hot air being blown around. That's not something you want
near a pool.

Using water cooling is going to be quieter and save blower energy.
I believe other posters are correct, this won't heat the pool much but
it will save energy, be quiet, and not heat the air near the pool.

--
Dan Espen

"Dan Espen" wrote in message ...
"Bruce L. Bergman (munged human readable)"
Another huge problem is the pool chemistry has to be kept Very Rigidly
Controlled or the pool water will rot out the water cooled condenser
REAL FAST - or clog it up with scale to the point it won't work
anymore, same outcome. Most people can't or won't be that anal about
the pool water, and the condensers can rot in a year or two.

It's not as huge a problem as you think.


You are correct, from my actual experience.

For one, a pool should be kept near neutral.

I have a pool heater and years ago, after 2 years, the water manifold
developed a leak. The first thing the pool guy was asking is "did you
keep the water near neutral?". I did, but was unable to get any kind of
discount on the replacement.

When putting in the replacement, I noticed the interior is coated with
plastic. So, there's no water to metal contact.

I've been running heaters for more than 6 years now and I can tell you
the water in contact with a heated metal unit does not create any
special corrosion problems. A condenser shouldn't be any problem at
all.

I'm not sure what all the controversy is.

If this guy had his AC unit near his pool pump he just did what was
reasonable. The alternative would be to have a big fan roaring near the
pool with hot air being blown around. That's not something you want
near a pool.

Using water cooling is going to be quieter and save blower energy.
I believe other posters are correct, this won't heat the pool much but
it will save energy, be quiet, and not heat the air near the pool.

--
Dan Espen

On 12/12/2012 08:19 AM, wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:38 pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.




A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. The
existing on is sized based on AIR. The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.



And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.



Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings.

Anybody can give you "estimates". I'd like to see real data
on this pool thing. And as I've said, you do get some savings.
It's due to the fact that you no longer have the fan on the
condenser running. Instead you're using the pool pump
motor, which you can assume is paid for by it having to
run for pool filtering, anyway.



It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Do you have a pool? Pool heater? What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? In my world, there
is no way this computes.


It seems to me that the real advantage of a setup like this would be
that the pool water would act like a "ground loop" and make the air
conditioner more efficient, as the pool's temperature would likely be
less than ambient air on the hottest days when the A/C is likely to be
wanted most. I never did like the idea of using a big box sitting on a
pad trying to shed heat to 100F air on a hot day when you could shed it
deep underground where the temp is less. Simple thermodynamics tells
you which is going to be more efficient. I suspect that you would still
need some auxiliary method of heating the pool water either solar, gas,
what have you, but overall it still seems like a good idea.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 12/11/2012 2:19 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

Maybe it depends on where you are, but in Phoenix, our pool needed
cooling in the summer just from the heat load from the sun. In July and
August, the water temperature would be 98+ in the evening. We had a
mister hooked up to the filter return that would take a few degrees off
when the pump ran at night. Pumping more heat into the pool would make
it unusable for swimming.

Also, we ran the pump late at night when electric rates were lower.
That would not be possible if you were using the pool as a heat sink.

Boiled,
BobH

On 12/12/2012 5:29 PM, BobH wrote:
On 12/11/2012 2:19 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

Maybe it depends on where you are, but in Phoenix, our pool needed
cooling in the summer just from the heat load from the sun. In July and
August, the water temperature would be 98+ in the evening. We had a
mister hooked up to the filter return that would take a few degrees off
when the pump ran at night. Pumping more heat into the pool would make
it unusable for swimming.

Also, we ran the pump late at night when electric rates were lower. That
would not be possible if you were using the pool as a heat sink.

Boiled,
BobH

Yeah. Central TX here and same thing. Last 2 summers I got "Sun Sails"
and that made quite a difference. HD sells them for $35. I got mine back
when they were cheaper. They hold up remarkably well.

Are you sure they lower the bills at night? Here it just looks like they
do and it fools a lot of people. Even the guys at the pool store thought
it was lower at night but, actually, here, they tier the rates based on
usage, not time of day.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:38 pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.


I never mentioned heating the pool, only AC efficiency.
But even with water and air temps the same, water cooling is a much
more efficient means to remove heat.
Why do you think many commercial enterprises use water cooling for AC?
Building logistics, local electric and water costs, and salesmen.
Cooling towers aren't put up capriciously.



A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. The
existing on is sized based on AIR. The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.


You seem to be denying common precepts of thermodynamic laws.
Energy is being used and transferred in all cases. Water transfers
heat much better than does air. Beside the fan, a bigger condenser
also usually means a bigger compressor, and more energy use.



And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.

You keep saying the end result is same, but it's not.
Water cooling will provide lower condensed refrigerant temps
with less electrical energy expended.
You can cut down a tree with a sharp blade or a dull blade.
The tree goes down in either case. But the dull blade will tire you
out more.



Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings.

Anybody can give you "estimates". I'd like to see real data
on this pool thing. And as I've said, you do get some savings.
It's due to the fact that you no longer have the fan on the
condenser running. Instead you're using the pool pump
motor, which you can assume is paid for by it having to
run for pool filtering, anyway.


You probably won't find data on residential pool-cooled AC
condensers, because air-cooled AC does the job, electricity is pretty
cheap in most places in the U.S., and residential pools are very small
in number. The southwest U.S. might be the place to look.
Here's a "study" done in Kuwait showing `40% energy savings using
water cooled AC. Click on the pdf link.
http://repository.tamu.edu//handle/1969.1/4621
I don't vouch for it.

It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Do you have a pool? Pool heater? What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? In my world, there
is no way this computes.

No, I don't have a pool and never wanted one.
And I'm not saying I would cool my AC with pool water.
But if I lived in the right climate and had a pool, I would look into
it. But a hard look at cost vs savings. Chlorine interaction with
the heat exchanger might be the biggest issue,
BTW, I don't know who said it, but I think somebody said the air
handler uses the bulk of the electric energy in the AC system. Not
true from what I've read. Compressor uses `70%.

All true (proly).
But Trader's point was, if the return refrigerent is already at ambient temp
(and assuming water is at the same ambient temp), adding water cooling to an
existing system will provide no benefit. This is correct.
I don't know if return refridgerant of an air-cooled A/C *is* at ambient
temps, but if it is, ADDING water coolant won't do anything further.

If the pool water is below ambient temp, then better effic would be
realized, but it would remain to be seen if the increased effic was worth
the monkeying around.

But, from an original design pov, water (or whatever the liquid coolant)
will undoubtedly allow the inherent design of the system to be more
efficient.

Energy usage:
In my 5 ton A/C unit, the blower draws about 10 A at 120 V, the
compressor 20 A at 240, for a total of 6,000 W. 4800/6000 = 80%. 6,000
W.... holy ****....

And if the fukn installer -- Yost & Cambpell, Westchester, Bronx, NYC,
NY -- didn't **** up the installation so royally, the blower could have been
under 5 A instead of over 10 A, so the compressor usage ratio would have
been higher. In fact, the original blower WAS under 5 A..... **** Yost &
Campbell, the worst HVAC company I've ever seen.

Inway, I don't know if that ratio holds in commercial buildings, etc, but my
installation supports your figure.
--
EA

On 12/12/2012 5:56 PM, gonjah wrote:
On 12/12/2012 5:29 PM, BobH wrote:
On 12/11/2012 2:19 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

Maybe it depends on where you are, but in Phoenix, our pool needed
cooling in the summer just from the heat load from the sun. In July and
August, the water temperature would be 98+ in the evening. We had a
mister hooked up to the filter return that would take a few degrees off
when the pump ran at night. Pumping more heat into the pool would make
it unusable for swimming.

Also, we ran the pump late at night when electric rates were lower. That
would not be possible if you were using the pool as a heat sink.

Boiled,
BobH

Yeah. Central TX here and same thing. Last 2 summers I got "Sun Sails"
and that made quite a difference. HD sells them for $35. I got mine back
when they were cheaper. They hold up remarkably well.

Are you sure they lower the bills at night? Here it just looks like they
do and it fools a lot of people. Even the guys at the pool store thought
it was lower at night but, actually, here, they tier the rates based on
usage, not time of day.

I looked it up. Phoenix does have "time of use" billing.

On 12/12/2012 6:37 PM, gonjah wrote:
On 12/12/2012 5:56 PM, gonjah wrote:
On 12/12/2012 5:29 PM, BobH wrote:

Also, we ran the pump late at night when electric rates were lower. That
would not be possible if you were using the pool as a heat sink.

Boiled,
BobH

Yeah. Central TX here and same thing. Last 2 summers I got "Sun Sails"
and that made quite a difference. HD sells them for $35. I got mine back
when they were cheaper. They hold up remarkably well.

Are you sure they lower the bills at night? Here it just looks like they
do and it fools a lot of people. Even the guys at the pool store thought
it was lower at night but, actually, here, they tier the rates based on
usage, not time of day.

I looked it up. Phoenix does have "time of use" billing.

Yes, we were on APS in the east valley. As long as we used more than 1/2
the daily KWH between 8PM and 8AM (or something similar), the nightime
rate was about 1/3 the daytime rate. Running the pool pump from midnight
to 5AM used enough power that we almost always made the required
distribution, even when we were pounding hell out of the air conditioner.

BobH

On Dec 12, 12:16*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Existential Angst" wrote in message

...





wrote in message
....
On Dec 11, 4:19 am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.

No it won't. *Because the refrigerant temp coming back
to the air handler is going to be about the same in either
case. * The existing condenser is HUGE because it's air
based. *But it's sized so that the returning refrigerant is
near ambient when it goes back. * The pool water is
going to be typically 80 - 85. *At least it would be if this
thing does what it's claimed to do. *The refrigerant
can't go lower than the pool temp, even if this small
water based heat exchanger is 100% efficient.
So, in my world, the bulk of the energy savings is
from the AC condenser fan not running and instead
the pool pump being used. *The pool pump electricity
isn't counted, because the pump would have to run
6 or 8 hours a day to filter anyway.

BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
--
EA

It ain't gonna do much for SEER, for the reasons noted above.
================================================== =======

I think you missed the basic point.

Heat transfer to air is *intrinsically* less efficient (by orders of
magnitude) than it is to water.

Which, as I said, means that you need a bigger condenser
coil/fan for air. Which the AC unit already has. It's the
big thing with coils on 4 sides, fan on top.

You can transfer the same amount of heat with either water
or air, given that they are sized correctly.


Add to that that the water is proly sig'ly cooler than the air to begin
with, water cooling of the outside coils of an A/C is a no-brainer.


Significantly cooler? The whole purpose of this thing is
to keep the pool warm. So, if it works, then the pool is
gonna be 80 -85, which is not significantly different than
the air temps. Sure, during some periods, the pool water
could be 65, but that's going to be at the beginning of the
season. And during those periods, how much do you
think the AC is running? In my world, it's not enough so
that whatever is going on is going to make a big difference
in cooling costs.




So no matter how the condenser is "sized" for air, a water bath would
radically improve (lower) the returning refrigerant temps. And the hotter
the day, the more improvement will be seen.

But, HOW this is actually executed is another story, as Vic implied. *He
was just making the thermodynamic point that, all other things being
equal, the A/C efficiency, due to the heat transfer to water instead of
air, would skyrocket.

It's not going to change much at all, assuming the AC condenser
already there is properly sized, which it is.



*That the A/C exhaust fan is not needed is an added
plus, as well.

OTHER things might negate the idea of water cooling, but that's another
story.

Why do you think IC engines are water-cooled? *Despite the fact that
air-cooling technology exists?
They've even gone to water-cooling motorcycle engines.
Yeah, the analogy is not perfect, but it drives the point home.

Actually they are air cooled too. They have a properly
sized radiator which takes all that heat the water picks up
and transfers it to the air.



You claim your return refrigerant is close to ambient....
If that's indeed true, you have a point, water cooling would be moot --
unless water temps were sig'ly below ambient.

But I seem to recall those return lines being perty warm, altho I wouldn't
bet the farm on it.

Have you felt the return line on a modern one, say 14SEER?

On Dec 12, 3:23*pm, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human readable)"
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:24:05 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 11, 4:19 am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp. A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.
And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings. It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Excellent points.
Bottom line, the pool will help the A/C MUCH more than the A/C will help
the pool.

No it won't. *Because the refrigerant temp coming back
to the air handler is going to be about the same in either
case. * The existing condenser is HUGE because it's air
based. *But it's sized so that the returning refrigerant is
near ambient when it goes back. * The pool water is
going to be typically 80 - 85. *At least it would be if this
thing does what it's claimed to do. *The refrigerant
can't go lower than the pool temp, even if this small
water based heat exchanger is 100% efficient.
So, in my world, the bulk of the energy savings is
from the AC condenser fan not running and instead
the pool pump being used. *The pool pump electricity
isn't counted, because the pump would have to run
6 or 8 hours a day to filter anyway.

BUT, it is proly unlikely this could be done economically, at least in a
one-off basis.

But, if A/C mfrs would outfit the condensing heat exchanger with a water
jacket, so that all's you needed was some fittings, plastic tubing and a
small-ish pump, then indeed it would be economical, and likely radically
increasing the SEER ratings.
--
EA

It ain't gonna do much for SEER, for the reasons noted above.

Another huge problem is the pool chemistry has to be kept Very Rigidly
Controlled or the pool water will rot out the water cooled condenser
REAL FAST - or clog it up with scale to the point it won't work
anymore, same outcome. *Most people can't or won't be that anal about
the pool water, and the condensers can rot in a year or two.

This is why water cooled condensers and the water tower used to cool
the water use liberal amounts of some really nasty chemical additives
to keep that from happening - and you sure as hell don't want to swim
in them. *And they still dump a lot of water and evaporate even more
on purpose (higher temps) and replace it with fresh every day.

Plus, you need to setup a variable-speed pool pump motor and link the
AC to the Pool

There is no need for a variable speed pump. Any
existing pool pump is going to be just fine. With a single
speed pump, the water just goes at full speed. What's
wrong with that? It's going already, probably 6 - 8
hours a day to filter the water.




- and you'll really need a computer to know when to
shift between the Water Condenser and the regular air condenser coils
on the condensing unit - Or it can't run automatically.

The installed unit comes with a controller that does
exactly that.




If you go that way, gotta go all the way or don't bother.

-- Bruce --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Dec 12, 4:08*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman (munged human readable)"

Another huge problem is the pool chemistry has to be kept Very Rigidly
Controlled or the pool water will rot out the water cooled condenser
REAL FAST - or clog it up with scale to the point it won't work
anymore, same outcome. *Most people can't or won't be that anal about
the pool water, and the condensers can rot in a year or two.

It's not as huge a problem as you think.

For one, a pool should be kept near neutral.

I have a pool heater and years ago, after 2 years, the water manifold
developed a leak. *The first thing the pool guy was asking is "did you
keep the water near neutral?". *I did, but was unable to get any kind of
discount on the replacement.

When putting in the replacement, I noticed the interior is coated with
plastic. *So, there's no water to metal contact.

I've been running heaters for more than 6 years now and I can tell you
the water in contact with a heated metal unit does not create any
special corrosion problems. *A condenser shouldn't be any problem at
all.

I'm not sure what all the controversy is.

If this guy had his AC unit near his pool pump he just did what was
reasonable. *The alternative would be to have a big fan roaring near the
pool with hot air being blown around. *That's not something you want
near a pool.


Using water cooling is going to be quieter and save blower energy.
I believe other posters are correct, this won't heat the pool much but
it will save energy, be quiet, and not heat the air near the pool.

--
Dan Espen

If you watch the TOH video, the problem was not
the AC condenser unit making noise. It did not appear to be
particularly close to the pool. The problem was the pool is
shady and the homeowner wanted to heat the pool. The side
benefit was the alleged substantial savings in AC costs.

On Dec 12, 3:19*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:19:15 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:38*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. *The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. * The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. *Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. * Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. *But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.

I never mentioned heating the pool, only AC efficiency.
But even with water and air temps the same, water cooling is a much
more efficient means to remove heat.
Why do you think many commercial enterprises use water cooling for AC?

You need to get a grasp on efficiency and what it
actually means. In this case, the fact that water can
absorb a lot more heat than air means that you can
use a much smaller heat exchanger with water to
transfer the SAME amount of heat. That is why the
pool heat exchanger is SMALL, the AC condenser
with all it's coils on 4 sides is LARGE.

I could construct a variety of heat exchangers to
take away the heat from the compressed AC
refrigerant. It doesn't matter how large or small
they are. All that matters is how much heat they
remove and how much energy goes into doing
that. You have two differenct heat exchangers:

A - Existing AC coils with fan

B - Pool water, using pool pump.

As long as the temp of the refrigerant going back
to the air handler is about the same, the only
efficiency that comes into play is that the AC coils
have a fan that must be powerd. The pool pump
also must be powered, but since the pool water
has to be circulated 6 or 8 hours, you can attribute
the electricity that it takes to run the pool pump
to the pool, so it's already paid for.

For there to be any other "efficiency" involved you
would have to see a difference in the temp of the
refrigerant where it enters the air handler. If the
pool heater works as claimed, then the pool is
going to be 80 - 85. The refrigerant can't be any
cooler than that. And from holding the line on a
new AC unit, the line isn't hot going into the air
handler. It might be a little above 80 - 85, but I
don't belive you're typically going to have it be
substantially hotter than what you get with the
pool water. If it were, AC manufacturers could
get that same improved performance by just
making the AC coils, fan, etc larger. They have
already done exactly that, to get the most
efficiency possible out of the unit. It would be
pretty stupid to send hot refrigerant back to the
evaporator.




Building logistics, local electric and water costs, and salesmen.
Cooling towers aren't put up capriciously.







*A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. *The
existing on is sized based on AIR. *The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. * So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. *But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. * As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.

You seem to be denying common precepts of thermodynamic laws.

In fact, I'm following them.



Energy is being used and transferred in all cases. *Water transfers
heat much better than does air. *Beside the fan, a bigger condenser
also usually means a bigger compressor, and more energy use.



Well, duh! And a bigger compressor, bigger coils
means the unit has more capacity. Of course a
5 ton AC is bigger than a 3 ton. But that isn't the
issue. For a given capacity, say 4 tons, the
condenser and fan are sized to remove all the
heat required. That unit sends the refrigerant back
to the evaporator at close to ambient.





And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. *Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. *Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.

You keep saying the end result is same, but it's not.
Water cooling will provide lower condensed refrigerant temps
with less electrical energy expended.

I said the result is close enough to being the same
that it's not going to make much difference. If
the refrigerant is about the same temp when it
gets back to the air handler, then the only difference
in efficiency is going to be the difference in energy
it takes to run the AC fan on the condenser versus
the energy it takes to run the pool pump. And I'll
bet in the energy comparisons they don't count
the pool pump, attributing it to running anyway.
That in turn does give you some energy savings.

On Dec 12, 7:53*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:38 pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. *Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. * Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. *But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.

I never mentioned heating the pool, only AC efficiency.
But even with water and air temps the same, water cooling is a much
more efficient means to remove heat.
Why do you think many commercial enterprises use water cooling for AC?
Building logistics, local electric and water costs, and salesmen.
Cooling towers aren't put up capriciously.

A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. *The
existing on is sized based on AIR. *The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. * So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. *But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. * As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.

You seem to be denying common precepts of thermodynamic laws.
Energy is being used and transferred in all cases. *Water transfers
heat much better than does air. *Beside the fan, a bigger condenser
also usually means a bigger compressor, and more energy use.

And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. *Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.

You keep saying the end result is same, but it's not.
Water cooling will provide lower condensed refrigerant temps
with less electrical energy expended.
You can cut down a tree with a sharp blade or a dull blade.
The tree goes down in either case. *But the dull blade will tire you
out more.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings.

Anybody can give you "estimates". *I'd like to see real data
on this pool thing. * And as I've said, you do get some savings.
It's due to the fact that you no longer have the fan on the
condenser running. *Instead you're using the pool pump
motor, which you can assume is paid for by it having to
run for pool filtering, anyway.

You probably won't find data on residential pool-cooled *AC
condensers, because air-cooled AC does the job, electricity is pretty
cheap in most places in the U.S., and residential pools are very small
in number. *The southwest U.S. might be the place to look.
Here's a "study" done in Kuwait showing `40% energy savings using
water cooled AC. *Click on the pdf link.
http://repository.tamu.edu//handle/1969.1/4621
I don't vouch for it.

It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Do you have a pool? * Pool heater? *What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? * In my world, there
is no way this computes.

No, I don't have a pool and never wanted one.
And I'm not saying I would cool my AC with pool water.
But if I lived in the right climate and had a pool, I would look into
it. *But a hard look at cost vs savings. *Chlorine interaction with
the heat exchanger might be the biggest issue,
BTW, I don't know who said it, but I think somebody said the air
handler uses the bulk of the electric energy in the AC system. *Not
true from what I've read. *Compressor uses `70%.

All true (proly).
But Trader's point was, if the return refrigerent is already at ambient temp
(and assuming water is at the same ambient temp), adding water cooling to an
existing system will provide no benefit. *This is correct.
I don't know if return refridgerant of an air-cooled A/C **is* at ambient
temps, but if it is, ADDING water coolant won't do anything further.

I think someone here finally gets it! That is in essence
the point. That the existing AC system is going to get
the refrigerant down to just above ambient. But in your
above statement, the pool water
cooling could still have benefit IF the pool water was
substantially below ambient. But as I've said, that
couldn't be during most operating times, if the thing
does what it's supposed to, ie heat the pool. If it
works, then the pool should be 80 -85 most of the
time, right? Which sounds like ambient air temp.






If the pool water is below ambient temp, then better effic would be
realized, but it would remain to be seen if the increased effic was worth
the monkeying around.

Per the above you have the catch 22. The system was
installed to heat the pool. If it's effective doing that, then
most of the time the pool should be at ambient.

" writes:

On Dec 12, 4:08Â*pm, Dan Espen wrote:
"Bruce L. Bergman (munged human readable)"

Another huge problem is the pool chemistry has to be kept Very Rigidly
Controlled or the pool water will rot out the water cooled condenser
REAL FAST - or clog it up with scale to the point it won't work
anymore, same outcome. Â*Most people can't or won't be that anal about
the pool water, and the condensers can rot in a year or two.

It's not as huge a problem as you think.

For one, a pool should be kept near neutral.

I have a pool heater and years ago, after 2 years, the water manifold
developed a leak. Â*The first thing the pool guy was asking is "did you
keep the water near neutral?". Â*I did, but was unable to get any kind of
discount on the replacement.

When putting in the replacement, I noticed the interior is coated with
plastic. Â*So, there's no water to metal contact.

I've been running heaters for more than 6 years now and I can tell you
the water in contact with a heated metal unit does not create any
special corrosion problems. Â*A condenser shouldn't be any problem at
all.

I'm not sure what all the controversy is.

If this guy had his AC unit near his pool pump he just did what was
reasonable. Â*The alternative would be to have a big fan roaring near the
pool with hot air being blown around. Â*That's not something you want
near a pool.


Using water cooling is going to be quieter and save blower energy.
I believe other posters are correct, this won't heat the pool much but
it will save energy, be quiet, and not heat the air near the pool.

If you watch the TOH video, the problem was not
the AC condenser unit making noise. It did not appear to be
particularly close to the pool. The problem was the pool is
shady and the homeowner wanted to heat the pool. The side
benefit was the alleged substantial savings in AC costs.

Yep, just watched the video.

The AC unit is right next to the pool plumbing.
They mention energy savings and pool heating.

For me, the savings would be noise and the hot air blowing around.
Any heat input in the pool is going to be very small.
It's going to take a huge amount of hot air to heat that amount of cool
water. Better to cut a few of those trees down.

--
Dan Espen

wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 7:53 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:38 pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.

I never mentioned heating the pool, only AC efficiency.
But even with water and air temps the same, water cooling is a much
more efficient means to remove heat.
Why do you think many commercial enterprises use water cooling for AC?
Building logistics, local electric and water costs, and salesmen.
Cooling towers aren't put up capriciously.

A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. The
existing on is sized based on AIR. The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.

You seem to be denying common precepts of thermodynamic laws.
Energy is being used and transferred in all cases. Water transfers
heat much better than does air. Beside the fan, a bigger condenser
also usually means a bigger compressor, and more energy use.

And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.

You keep saying the end result is same, but it's not.
Water cooling will provide lower condensed refrigerant temps
with less electrical energy expended.
You can cut down a tree with a sharp blade or a dull blade.
The tree goes down in either case. But the dull blade will tire you
out more.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings.

Anybody can give you "estimates". I'd like to see real data
on this pool thing. And as I've said, you do get some savings.
It's due to the fact that you no longer have the fan on the
condenser running. Instead you're using the pool pump
motor, which you can assume is paid for by it having to
run for pool filtering, anyway.

You probably won't find data on residential pool-cooled AC
condensers, because air-cooled AC does the job, electricity is pretty
cheap in most places in the U.S., and residential pools are very small
in number. The southwest U.S. might be the place to look.
Here's a "study" done in Kuwait showing `40% energy savings using
water cooled AC. Click on the pdf link.
http://repository.tamu.edu//handle/1969.1/4621
I don't vouch for it.

It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Do you have a pool? Pool heater? What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? In my world, there
is no way this computes.

No, I don't have a pool and never wanted one.
And I'm not saying I would cool my AC with pool water.
But if I lived in the right climate and had a pool, I would look into
it. But a hard look at cost vs savings. Chlorine interaction with
the heat exchanger might be the biggest issue,
BTW, I don't know who said it, but I think somebody said the air
handler uses the bulk of the electric energy in the AC system. Not
true from what I've read. Compressor uses `70%.

All true (proly).
But Trader's point was, if the return refrigerent is already at ambient
temp
(and assuming water is at the same ambient temp), adding water cooling to
an
existing system will provide no benefit. This is correct.
I don't know if return refridgerant of an air-cooled A/C *is* at ambient
temps, but if it is, ADDING water coolant won't do anything further.

I think someone here finally gets it! That is in essence
the point.
================================================== =


And I owe it all to your very fine leadership and tutelage.
Plus, the REAL assholes all seem to be on rec.woodworking..... LOL
--
EA







That the existing AC system is going to get
the refrigerant down to just above ambient. But in your
above statement, the pool water
cooling could still have benefit IF the pool water was
substantially below ambient. But as I've said, that
couldn't be during most operating times, if the thing
does what it's supposed to, ie heat the pool. If it
works, then the pool should be 80 -85 most of the
time, right? Which sounds like ambient air temp.






If the pool water is below ambient temp, then better effic would be
realized, but it would remain to be seen if the increased effic was worth
the monkeying around.

Per the above you have the catch 22. The system was
installed to heat the pool. If it's effective doing that, then
most of the time the pool should be at ambient.

On Dec 13, 12:31*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 12, 7:53 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:





"Vic Smith" wrote in message

.. .

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:19:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 10, 12:38 pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:43:07 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:

Think about how it could help the AC. The current coils
and fan in the condesner are perfectly capable of taking
the heated, compressed refrigerant down to close to
ambient temperature. The pool heat exchanger is going
to do the same thing.

"Ambient" pool water temperature normally isn't the same as ambient
air temp.

I never said they were. Only that they are, fairly close.
If this thing works, then it should keep the pool at 80 - 85.
That isn't all that much different than the ambient air
temps when the AC is going to be running. Sure, the pool
could be 65 in May. But then the AC isn't running or
isn't running enough to make any impact anyway.

I never mentioned heating the pool, only AC efficiency.
But even with water and air temps the same, water cooling is a much
more efficient means to remove heat.
Why do you think many commercial enterprises use water cooling for AC?
Building logistics, local electric and water costs, and salesmen.
Cooling towers aren't put up capriciously.

A pool provides an enormous heat sink, cooling at night,
with evaporative cooling not requiring jumping through EPA hoops.
Water is thousands (WAG) of times more capable of removing heat than
air.

That is reflected in the size of the CONDENSER. The
existing on is sized based on AIR. The pool water one is
sized based on using WATER. So, of course the pool
water one is much smaller. But if the temp of the refrigerant
when it leaves the condenser and returns to the evaporator
in the air handler is the same, then the only thing you've
accomplished from an energy standpoint are replacing
the fan motor with a pump motor. As previously noted,
that is a benefit as long as the pool pump would be
running to filter the water anyway.

You seem to be denying common precepts of thermodynamic laws.
Energy is being used and transferred in all cases. Water transfers
heat much better than does air. Beside the fan, a bigger condenser
also usually means a bigger compressor, and more energy use.

And "perfectly capable" doesn't address the difference in time running
to do the same job. Which gets to electrical consumption and
compresser/fan wear.

Yes it does address it, because, again, the refrigerant temp
is still going to be about the same temp when it returns to
the air handler. Whether it got to that temp by a large air
based heat exchanger or a small water based one doesn't
matter, the pool pump motor replacing the fan motor being
the essential difference.

You keep saying the end result is same, but it's not.
Water cooling will provide lower condensed refrigerant temps
with less electrical energy expended.
You can cut down a tree with a sharp blade or a dull blade.
The tree goes down in either case. But the dull blade will tire you
out more.

Yeah, it's smaller because water
can take the same heat away with a smaller heat exchanger.
But, at the end of the day, all I see that's saved is the cost
of running the AC condenser fan. Don't know how much
that is in the whole AC scheme, but considering you have
a compressor, big blower in the furnace, I'd be surprised if
it's more than 15% or so.

I've seen estimates that water cooled condensers give 20-50% energy
savings.

Anybody can give you "estimates". I'd like to see real data
on this pool thing. And as I've said, you do get some savings.
It's due to the fact that you no longer have the fan on the
condenser running. Instead you're using the pool pump
motor, which you can assume is paid for by it having to
run for pool filtering, anyway.

You probably won't find data on residential pool-cooled AC
condensers, because air-cooled AC does the job, electricity is pretty
cheap in most places in the U.S., and residential pools are very small
in number. The southwest U.S. might be the place to look.
Here's a "study" done in Kuwait showing `40% energy savings using
water cooled AC. Click on the pdf link.
http://repository.tamu.edu//handle/1969.1/4621
I don't vouch for it.

It's all in the details - and climate.
In some climates people want their pools chilled.
Barring that, using pool water to cool the condenser is elegant and
efficient if the bottom line works out The main issues are initial
cost and maintenance.
Those are the nuts to crack. It all gets to payback.

Do you have a pool? Pool heater? What size is the pool
and what is the pool heater in BTUs? In my world, there
is no way this computes.

No, I don't have a pool and never wanted one.
And I'm not saying I would cool my AC with pool water.
But if I lived in the right climate and had a pool, I would look into
it. But a hard look at cost vs savings. Chlorine interaction with
the heat exchanger might be the biggest issue,
BTW, I don't know who said it, but I think somebody said the air
handler uses the bulk of the electric energy in the AC system. Not
true from what I've read. Compressor uses `70%.

All true (proly).
But Trader's point was, if the return refrigerent is already at ambient
temp
(and assuming water is at the same ambient temp), adding water cooling to
an
existing system will provide no benefit. This is correct.
I don't know if return refridgerant of an air-cooled A/C *is* at ambient
temps, but if it is, ADDING water coolant won't do anything further.

I think someone here finally gets it! * That is in essence
the point.
================================================== =

And I owe it all to your very fine leadership and tutelage.
Plus, the REAL assholes all seem to be on rec.woodworking..... * LOL
--
EA



If someone here is in a warm climate, has a decent efficient
AC system, perhaps they could measure the temp of the
refrigerant pressure line just before it enters the air handler.
I'd love to do it, but it's too cold here. It would be interesting
to see how much above outside ambient the temp is.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:53:13 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


You need to get a grasp on efficiency and what it
actually means. In this case, the fact that water can
absorb a lot more heat than air means that you can
use a much smaller heat exchanger with water to
transfer the SAME amount of heat. That is why the
pool heat exchanger is SMALL, the AC condenser
with all it's coils on 4 sides is LARGE.


Right. Water cooling means a smaller condenser, a smaller compressor
and compressor motor, and `30% less electrical consumption than an
air-cooled unit producing the same cooling capacity.
But that has nothing to do with efficiency. And all the HVAC
engineers are wrong. And I "need to get a grasp on efficiency .."
Got it. Dream on.