On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 03:45:46 GMT, Ralph Barone
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:34:11 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:06:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 12:57 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:28:23 -0400, krw wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:00:16 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"RobertMacy" wrote in message
newsp.xif3so2o2cx0wh@ajm...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:29:47 -0700, Pico Rico

wrote:


"RobertMacy" wrote in message
newsp.xif3f3zo2cx0wh@ajm...
...snip...
So my question is WHICH way is this !@#$#@ system designed for? UP
or DOWN air in the summer?

it depends if you have air conditioning.

again which way? for what reason? elaborate?

heat rises. If you have ac, you want to push the warm air down so it
can become ac'd. If you don't have ac, you might as well leave the
warm air up there were it will be less noticed.

But you can cool to a higher temperature if you help the convection
off your skin. Add in evaporative cooling and a breeze is a big win,
at least in small rooms, like a home.

We have air conditioning which keeps the house at 78, and a way
undersized room dehumidifier which we set up in the master shower, turn
on the circulating fan in the furnace, and basically slowly and
inefficiently dry out the whole house.

It makes a huge huge difference how hot it feels -- and we're in
Oregon,
where everyone is a humidity wimp.

Do you realize the dehumidifier is just an AC unit where the heat is
exhausted back into the room? You could do the same thing by running a
small space heater which would make the AC run more often which does a
much better job of taking the humidity out of the air. Actually, I've
never seen a house with AC that still had high humidity, but then I'm
not in the Pacific northwest.

Our AC is a heat pump which does not remove the moisture from the air --
it just cools it. Don't ask me how -- for all I know they have the thing
arranged to do it on purpose.
Any heat pump or other air conditioner WILL remove humidity from the
air - warm humid air passes over cool surface, humidity condenses out.
Cannot be done any other way.

Depends a bit. If the cooling coil is kept only a little below room
temperature and you depend on sheer volume for heat transfer, you may not
condense much water compared to having a sub-zero cooling coil and lower
air volumes.
But show me a HEAT PUMP that works that way??? A water chiller,
perhaps (running spring water through a cooling coil) but even 50
degree coil will cause condensation in a humid climate.

"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:39:33 -0700, John Larkin
Gave us:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:27:29 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

It's HOT, so I thought run the ceiling fan so the cool air comes
across the stone flooring and moves by me to be sucked up into the
ceiling fan - so I feel cooler. Fan is set to move air UP

Earlier I thought run the fan directly onto me gently moving air
straight at me, which is DOWN. But when I did that, after 10-15min
felt hotter in the room.

Just saw one of those home shows, says in winter run the fan to move
air UP so the hot air moves along the ceiling and down your walls.
And, in the summer run your fan DOWN, with NO explanation, except
claiming that lowers your temperature 4-5 degrees [which is
impossible in a CLOSED system] and save up to 40% on air conditioning
[what planet do THEY live on?]

So my question is WHICH way is this !@#$#@ system designed for? UP or
DOWN air in the summer?

Mine doesn't reverse, it always blows down. I don't think the blades
can be switched.

We don't have a/c, so the only time we use the fan is when it's warm
at night. Works great.

What brand of fan did you buy that it does not reverse?

That is silly.

And if you installed it, why would you install a fan that is so
sub-par? There cannot be that great a savings between them, even if
such fans enjoy a market. Maybe I never looked for them, but an air
circulator fan (ceiling fan)always has a bi-directional motor.

I still have three Hunters from circa 1975. They were $200+ then (each);
that would be almost $1000 each in today's funny money. None of them have a
reverse switch. I guess they figured that people bought fans to blow air on
them, not the ceiling

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:15:13 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:55:56 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:06:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 12:57 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:28:23 -0400, krw wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:00:16 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"RobertMacy" wrote in message
newsp.xif3so2o2cx0wh@ajm...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:29:47 -0700, Pico Rico
wrote:


"RobertMacy" wrote in message
newsp.xif3f3zo2cx0wh@ajm...
...snip...
So my question is WHICH way is this !@#$#@ system designed for? UP
or DOWN air in the summer?

it depends if you have air conditioning.

again which way? for what reason? elaborate?

heat rises. If you have ac, you want to push the warm air down so it
can become ac'd. If you don't have ac, you might as well leave the warm
air up there were it will be less noticed.

But you can cool to a higher temperature if you help the convection off
your skin. Add in evaporative cooling and a breeze is a big win, at
least in small rooms, like a home.

We have air conditioning which keeps the house at 78, and a way
undersized room dehumidifier which we set up in the master shower, turn
on the circulating fan in the furnace, and basically slowly and
inefficiently dry out the whole house.

It makes a huge huge difference how hot it feels -- and we're in Oregon,
where everyone is a humidity wimp.

Do you realize the dehumidifier is just an AC unit where the heat is
exhausted back into the room? You could do the same thing by running a
small space heater which would make the AC run more often which does a
much better job of taking the humidity out of the air. Actually, I've
never seen a house with AC that still had high humidity, but then I'm
not in the Pacific northwest.
If the AC is oversized it is not efficient at removing humidity
because it doesn't run long enough. ANd if it isn't warm enough to
require running the AC, you still have the humidity.

Running the heater and the A/C at the same time MIGHT help, by forcing
the AC to run more, but it most certainly is NOT efficient. At the
price of electricity in Ontario, particularly during peak periods, it
doesn't make any sense at all. We run the AC off-peak to drop the
temperature and keep the house closed up on-peak to keep the heat out.
As soon as it cools down outside the wife wants to open the windows -
even when the humidity is 81%+ outside and only 40% inside.

Slowly getting her trained, after 33 years.

But that is exactly what you *are* doing, running that dehumidifier is
the same as running the big AC unit. I guess it might be more expensive
to run the heat outside rather than keep it in.... but no, the heat is
always run outside by the big unit because of the thermostat.

Clearly the small unit is less efficient, small things usually are. So
why not run the big unit that does a great job of removing the moisture?
It is larger so will need to run much less to lower the humidity. It
is also equipped to remove the water while most room dehumidifiers have
a bucket you need to empty unless you have it tied into a drain.
You are not getting my point. The AC, if oversized, moves a lot of
air over the cold colil for a short amount of time while drawing large
amount of current and removing a small amount of humidity.

I do "get" your point, I just don't agree with it.


A smaller A/C moves less air over the cold coil for a longer period of
time, and moves more air to reduce the temperature by the same amount,
using less power to do so.

I don't think that follows. Most of the power in an AC unit is in the
compressor which creates the cooling. Reducing the temperature of the
air is going to take the same total amount of cooling, so there is no
power saving in a smaller unit. They size units to keep the initial
costs down and to provide enough cooling for the warmest days.


so it removes more moisture for the same
amount of current drawn. The BTU/watt efficiency may very well be the
same - or the big one may even be more efficient - but the efficiency
as a dehumidifier is significantly better on the smaller A/C unit.

Your conclusions simply don't follow your premise. Unless there is
something less effective about the condensation of water in the large
unit it will end up collecting the same amount of moisture from the air.
But in reality there is an effect that makes the larger unit work
better. If the airflow over the coils does not cool the air below the
dew point, no water condenses at all. A sufficiently small unit with an
adequate air flow may well not lower the air temperature enough to
extract enough water during the process.


If it is not cool enough to require air conditioning, but is too humid
for comfort, running a small de-humidifier is a LOT more efficient
than running the big-assed air conditioner AND the furnace!!!!

Again, no substantiation, just a claim. Running the small dehumidifier
removes small amounts of water AND warms the room requiring the AC to
run. Running the large AC unit will remove the water more quickly. If
it does not remove enough water heat must be added as it runs to remove
enough humidity (becoming a dehumidfier). The question is which unit is
more efficient as a dehumidifier and talking about "big-assed" ACs does
not answer the question. You are coming up with an answer based on an
emotional analysis of inadequate data.

The one fact I know is that my AC unit produces enough water to require
a pump to remove it and runs repeatedly all day. A dehumidifier I have
used will fill the two gallon bucket in a day or so in the worst humid
days of summer in the DC area. Still not sufficient data to prove one
or the other since I have never measured the output. But the AC only
cycles on and off while the dehumidifier runs continuously 24/7 until
the bucket is full.


Only a total idiot would run the AC and heat at the same time to
reduce the humidity in the house.

You still fail to understand that is *exactly* what you are doing with
the dehumidifier. It had a hot coil and a cold coil. The hot coil
produces all the heat entering the cold coil plus the electrical energy
coming from the outlet. So you actually warm the room with that unit
requiring the AC to turn on even if it is otherwise not needed.

But the heat produced on the hot coil is mostly ballanced by the cold
on the cold coil. The heat on the hot coil is NOT "produced" like it
is with resistance heating. It is a "heat pump" and produces a lot
more BTUs of heat transfer than the wattage of the power consumption.


As for the de-humidifier producing heat - it only produced a fraction
of it's total power consumption as heat output. The heat coming off
the back of the unit is just heat removed from the air (and moisture)
entering the front of the unit. The latent heat of
vaporization/condensation of the water removed is the only appreciable
"heat" produced. (971 BTU/lb) So for every US gallon of water removed,
aproxemately 8000 BTU.

If it takes 12 hours to remove a gallon, that is 672 btu/hr or less
than 200 watts.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fraction comment. ALL electrical
energy consumed by this unit ends up as heat, mostly at the hot coil.

What I meant to say is that of the total heat output, only a fraction
is produced by the dissipation of electrical energy. The rest is from
the Latent heat of condensation.



The condensed water has had its heat removed and then put back into the
air on the hot side of the unit. The question is where does that heat
go? Only part of the heat at the hot coil was from cooling the air,
most of it was from condensing the water. With a dehumidifier the
entire latent heat of evaporation is returned to the room along with the
heat from the electrical power required to make it all work. This will
heat up the room. With an AC unit that heat is exhausted outside
reducing your cooling costs. Don't think the latent heat of evaporation
needs to be returned to the room to maintain a temperature. When water
evaporates it cools. When it condenses it releases that heat and will
warm the room.
Obviously I understand that - I gave the calcs for the heat gain from
condensing a gallon in 12 hours - which my little dehumidifier does
quite handilly on a Muggly day. My 40 pint dehumidifier dreaws 280
watts maximum. at steady run. So total heat input per hour would be
280+200=480 watts or about 1300 BTU. If it collects the full 5
gallons in 24 hours, it is still less than 800 watts. If you run your
AC to remove that humidity I reccon you will need more than a 600
watt heater to make up for it or the AC will be cycling and using a
lot more power, and the efficiency in gallons per KW will be a lot
lower.

I guess one difference is that we have few days when we need
dehumidification but not cooling. If you actually need your space
warmed with dehumidification rather than cooled, then the dehumidifier
might be more efficient. But if you don't need the extra heat the AC
unit will have to run to maintain a temperature.
And here we have many days where we require dehumidification,
without NEEDING cooling. When it's only 20 C out but 80% humidity, you
do not need AC but dehumidification makes a huge difference.

As for your arguments - ask a REAL HVAC professional.

I'm done.

"John Larkin" wrote in message


We passed a big billboard this morning, downtown, right beside highway
101. It must cost a fortune. It's by Nest, the thermostat people. It
says, as I recall,

"San Francisco, get a NEST thermostat and save on your summer heating
bill."



I used to get to SF 2-4 times a year, usually between October to May. I
tried to avoid July, BITTER cold!

My first experience with SF "summer" was in July, 1952. I was in the navy,
waiting to be shipped to Hawaii. There used to be a jazz club on Geary just
off Powell called - IIRC - Club Hangover. To this day, I remember turning
the corner off Powell and being met with a blast of arctic air. DAMP arctic
air.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 7/5/2014 8:22 AM, wrote:
And here we have many days where we require dehumidification,
without NEEDING cooling. When it's only 20 C out but 80% humidity, you
do not need AC but dehumidification makes a huge difference.

As for your arguments - ask a REAL HVAC professional.

I'm done.


Those keyboard commandos sure can
waste a lot of your time.

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

On 7/4/2014 11:45 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:

Our AC is a heat pump which does not remove the moisture from the air --
it just cools it. Don't ask me how -- for all I know they have the thing
arranged to do it on purpose.
Any heat pump or other air conditioner WILL remove humidity from the
air - warm humid air passes over cool surface, humidity condenses out.
Cannot be done any other way.

Depends a bit. If the cooling coil is kept only a little below room
temperature and you depend on sheer volume for heat transfer, you may not
condense much water compared to having a sub-zero cooling coil and lower
air volumes.


So are you saying a heat pump can change the laws of physics, but just a
little bit? Thanks, I must have missed that class.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:16:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

...snip...

Unscientific anecdotal drivel: My office building was blessed with a
shiny new white roof in Oct 2013. It was previously black asphalt and
a thin layer of fine gray rock. It seems much cooler inside this
summer, but I have no measurements to prove it.


I didn't paint the roof, it's tile and its color is its color.

I painted the walls which receive oblique sunlight and sometimes no
sunlight with the eaves shading. I only experienced 'cooler' HOT
temperatures in the garage and the fact our inside home stayed a
'tighter', and lower, average when we weren't running A/C etc.

I would expect that during the day a white roof would be cooler. Having a
superheated black structure above your head just can't be as cool. No
aspersions on life style meant.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 01:03:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 2:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I do much the same thing. At night, I leave the house partly open so
that it cools down. In the morning, I close all the doors and windows
to trap in the cold air. At about noon, the house warms up to the
same as outside temperature, so I open with windows.

I like to do the same thing when we have cool nights like tonight. More
important than cooling the air in the house is cooling the house itself.
Air heats and cools quickly, the materials of the house, not so much.
So let the house cool as much as possible then shut the house when the
temperatures start to rise. I can't remember the house ever reaching
the outside temperature by noon, the equal point is usually in the
evening when the outside starts to cool again.

Right. My problem is that my house is environmentally incorrect and
far from typical. There's no attic. The roof and ceiling are
non-insulated 2x T&G pine[1]. There's considerable (double pane)
glass in the walls. Add two single pane sliding glass doors and two
single pane French doors. Air leaks around some doors and windows.
With so many leaks, my rule of thumb is that the house temperature
never goes above or below about 20F from the outside temperature, even
when running the woodburner. Such a house would not be practical in
any extreme environment, but reasonably functional in a dense redwood
forest, where the trees moderate the temerature swings. As you note,
the door/window temp regulation method is functional for most houses.
However, my efficiency, as indicated by the equal temperature time, is
far from optimum.

10 year old photo:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/BL-house3.jpg


[1] The roofing is 20 years old and probably has another 5-10 years
of useful life reamining. I plan to insulate the roof when it is
replaced.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

A ceiling fan doesn't change the actual temperature in the room
(watch your thermometer).

Well, I can tell you from experience (very recent) it makes a
difference. Big air conditioned room. 33C at the ceiling, 16C at the
floor. Turned on 2 big-assed (no-not the brand name) fans and dropped
the ceiling temp to 24, and raised the floor temperature to 22C within
a few minutes. Did it change the amount of heat in the room? Not at
all. At less than 30 watts each they did not contribute very many
BTUs, but it sure changed the temperature in MOST of the room. The
thermostat was set to 24C. We reset it to 26C after installing the
fans. Will likely get more adjustment over the coming days.

Thanks for the real world example. That's what I would have expected from
mixing up the warm and cool air. Once the air is mixed up, there's no
further change in the temperature from the ceiling fan.

Of course, if you have a loft or something up near the ceiling, dropping
from 33C to 24C would be very welcome.

Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:15:13 -0400, rickman wrote:



On 7/4/2014 2:37 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:55:56 -0400, rickman wrote:



On 7/4/2014 10:31 AM, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:06:11 -0400, rickman wrote:



On 7/4/2014 12:57 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:28:23 -0400, krw wrote:



On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:00:16 -0700, "Pico Rico"

wrote:





"RobertMacy" wrote in message

newsp.xif3so2o2cx0wh@ajm...

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:29:47 -0700, Pico Rico

wrote:





"RobertMacy" wrote in message

newsp.xif3f3zo2cx0wh@ajm...

...snip...

So my question is WHICH way is this !@#$#@ system designed for? UP

or DOWN air in the summer?



it depends if you have air conditioning.



again which way? for what reason? elaborate?



heat rises. If you have ac, you want to push the warm air down so it

can become ac'd. If you don't have ac, you might as well leave the warm

air up there were it will be less noticed.



But you can cool to a higher temperature if you help the convection off

your skin. Add in evaporative cooling and a breeze is a big win, at

least in small rooms, like a home.



We have air conditioning which keeps the house at 78, and a way

undersized room dehumidifier which we set up in the master shower, turn

on the circulating fan in the furnace, and basically slowly and

inefficiently dry out the whole house.



It makes a huge huge difference how hot it feels -- and we're in Oregon,

where everyone is a humidity wimp.



Do you realize the dehumidifier is just an AC unit where the heat is

exhausted back into the room? You could do the same thing by running a

small space heater which would make the AC run more often which does a

much better job of taking the humidity out of the air. Actually, I've

never seen a house with AC that still had high humidity, but then I'm

not in the Pacific northwest.

If the AC is oversized it is not efficient at removing humidity

because it doesn't run long enough. ANd if it isn't warm enough to

require running the AC, you still have the humidity.



Running the heater and the A/C at the same time MIGHT help, by forcing

the AC to run more, but it most certainly is NOT efficient. At the

price of electricity in Ontario, particularly during peak periods, it

doesn't make any sense at all. We run the AC off-peak to drop the

temperature and keep the house closed up on-peak to keep the heat out.

As soon as it cools down outside the wife wants to open the windows -

even when the humidity is 81%+ outside and only 40% inside.



Slowly getting her trained, after 33 years.



But that is exactly what you *are* doing, running that dehumidifier is

the same as running the big AC unit. I guess it might be more expensive

to run the heat outside rather than keep it in.... but no, the heat is

always run outside by the big unit because of the thermostat.



Clearly the small unit is less efficient, small things usually are. So

why not run the big unit that does a great job of removing the moisture?

It is larger so will need to run much less to lower the humidity. It

is also equipped to remove the water while most room dehumidifiers have

a bucket you need to empty unless you have it tied into a drain.

You are not getting my point. The AC, if oversized, moves a lot of

air over the cold colil for a short amount of time while drawing large

amount of current and removing a small amount of humidity.



I do "get" your point, I just don't agree with it.





A smaller A/C moves less air over the cold coil for a longer period of

time, and moves more air to reduce the temperature by the same amount,

using less power to do so.



I don't think that follows. Most of the power in an AC unit is in the

compressor which creates the cooling. Reducing the temperature of the

air is going to take the same total amount of cooling, so there is no

power saving in a smaller unit. They size units to keep the initial

costs down and to provide enough cooling for the warmest days.





so it removes more moisture for the same

amount of current drawn. The BTU/watt efficiency may very well be the

same - or the big one may even be more efficient - but the efficiency

as a dehumidifier is significantly better on the smaller A/C unit.



Your conclusions simply don't follow your premise. Unless there is

something less effective about the condensation of water in the large

unit it will end up collecting the same amount of moisture from the air.

But in reality there is an effect that makes the larger unit work

better. If the airflow over the coils does not cool the air below the

dew point, no water condenses at all. A sufficiently small unit with an

adequate air flow may well not lower the air temperature enough to

extract enough water during the process.





If it is not cool enough to require air conditioning, but is too humid

for comfort, running a small de-humidifier is a LOT more efficient

than running the big-assed air conditioner AND the furnace!!!!



Again, no substantiation, just a claim. Running the small dehumidifier

removes small amounts of water AND warms the room requiring the AC to

run. Running the large AC unit will remove the water more quickly. If

it does not remove enough water heat must be added as it runs to remove

enough humidity (becoming a dehumidfier). The question is which unit is

more efficient as a dehumidifier and talking about "big-assed" ACs does

not answer the question. You are coming up with an answer based on an

emotional analysis of inadequate data.



The one fact I know is that my AC unit produces enough water to require

a pump to remove it and runs repeatedly all day. A dehumidifier I have

used will fill the two gallon bucket in a day or so in the worst humid

days of summer in the DC area. Still not sufficient data to prove one

or the other since I have never measured the output. But the AC only

cycles on and off while the dehumidifier runs continuously 24/7 until

the bucket is full.





Only a total idiot would run the AC and heat at the same time to

reduce the humidity in the house.



You still fail to understand that is *exactly* what you are doing with

the dehumidifier. It had a hot coil and a cold coil. The hot coil

produces all the heat entering the cold coil plus the electrical energy

coming from the outlet. So you actually warm the room with that unit

requiring the AC to turn on even if it is otherwise not needed.



But the heat produced on the hot coil is mostly ballanced by the cold

on the cold coil. The heat on the hot coil is NOT "produced" like it

is with resistance heating. It is a "heat pump" and produces a lot

more BTUs of heat transfer than the wattage of the power consumption.


I agree. A dehumidifier is not "exactly like" running a central AC and the
heat at the same time. As you say, a dehumidifier is a heat pump and it's
transfering heat from the cold side to the hot side. Since both the cold
and hot side are in the same room, that part of the energy is constant.
Since the heat pump does take energy to run, the electricity used does
result in some heat being added to the room. But because the COP of a
dehumidifier is much greater than one, you're moving 2x or 4X the energy
that dehumidifier takes to run. Running the AC is essentially
a heat pump too. Except there you're pumping the heat from inside outside,
where it's lost. And then you're running the heat, ie gas heat, electric
resistance heat, whatever, to make up for all the lost heat. That's a
huge difference in efficiency and a very inefficient and costly way to
dehumidify compared to running a dehumidifier.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 06:58:52 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:16:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

...snip...

Unscientific anecdotal drivel: My office building was blessed with a
shiny new white roof in Oct 2013. It was previously black asphalt and
a thin layer of fine gray rock. It seems much cooler inside this
summer, but I have no measurements to prove it.

I didn't paint the roof, it's tile and its color is its color.

A few web pages recommend painting your tile roof white:
http://www.doityourself.com/stry/thermal-benefits-of-painting-a-tile-roof-white
Of course they're selling the paint, which does tend to bias the point
of view. I'm not sure it will make a difference or an improvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengineering)
There are charts available showing the SRI (solar reflectance index)
but I don't want to dig through them to determine if coating your tile
roof will offer any benefits.

http://heatisland.lbl.gov/sites/heatisland.lbl.gov/files/Cool-roof-Q+A.pdf
A roof with a clean, smooth "cool color" surface, such as a cool
red tile, can reflect about 35% of incident sunlight (R = 0.35)
and emit thermal radiation with 90% efficiency (E = 0.90). This
surface has an SRI of 38 and a delta T of 56°F [31 K]. The cool
red tile is much warmer than the bright white roof, but still
cooler than a standard red tile (R = 0.10, E = 0.90, SRI = 6,
delta T = 78°F [44 K]).

I painted the walls which receive oblique sunlight and sometimes no
sunlight with the eaves shading. I only experienced 'cooler' HOT
temperatures in the garage and the fact our inside home stayed a
'tighter', and lower, average when we weren't running A/C etc.

I would expect that during the day a white roof would be cooler. Having a
superheated black structure above your head just can't be as cool. No
aspersions on life style meant.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 08:57:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 01:03:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 2:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I do much the same thing. At night, I leave the house partly open so
that it cools down. In the morning, I close all the doors and windows
to trap in the cold air. At about noon, the house warms up to the
same as outside temperature, so I open with windows.

I like to do the same thing when we have cool nights like tonight. More
important than cooling the air in the house is cooling the house itself.
Air heats and cools quickly, the materials of the house, not so much.
So let the house cool as much as possible then shut the house when the
temperatures start to rise. I can't remember the house ever reaching
the outside temperature by noon, the equal point is usually in the
evening when the outside starts to cool again.

Right. My problem is that my house is environmentally incorrect and
far from typical. There's no attic. The roof and ceiling are
non-insulated 2x T&G pine[1]. There's considerable (double pane)
glass in the walls. Add two single pane sliding glass doors and two
single pane French doors. Air leaks around some doors and windows.
With so many leaks, my rule of thumb is that the house temperature
never goes above or below about 20F from the outside temperature, even
when running the woodburner. Such a house would not be practical in
any extreme environment, but reasonably functional in a dense redwood
forest, where the trees moderate the temerature swings. As you note,
the door/window temp regulation method is functional for most houses.
However, my efficiency, as indicated by the equal temperature time, is
far from optimum.

10 year old photo:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/BL-house3.jpg


[1] The roofing is 20 years old and probably has another 5-10 years
of useful life reamining. I plan to insulate the roof when it is
replaced.

That's nice, in the woods.

When we refurbed our business building, and redid the flat roof, we
added a roughly 4" thick thermal insulator, and painted that aluminum.
The ceiling in my office stays just about the seme temp as the floor.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/4/2014 11:45 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:

Our AC is a heat pump which does not remove the moisture from the air --
it just cools it. Don't ask me how -- for all I know they have the thing
arranged to do it on purpose.
Any heat pump or other air conditioner WILL remove humidity from the
air - warm humid air passes over cool surface, humidity condenses out.
Cannot be done any other way.

Depends a bit. If the cooling coil is kept only a little below room
temperature and you depend on sheer volume for heat transfer, you may not
condense much water compared to having a sub-zero cooling coil and lower
air volumes.


So are you saying a heat pump can change the laws of physics, but just a
little bit? Thanks, I must have missed that class.

Not at all. You're welcome.

On 7/5/2014 12:19 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 5, 2014 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:15:13 -0400, rickman wrote:



On 7/4/2014 2:37 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:55:56 -0400, rickman wrote:

Only a total idiot would run the AC and heat at the same time to

reduce the humidity in the house.



You still fail to understand that is *exactly* what you are doing with

the dehumidifier. It had a hot coil and a cold coil. The hot coil

produces all the heat entering the cold coil plus the electrical energy

coming from the outlet. So you actually warm the room with that unit

requiring the AC to turn on even if it is otherwise not needed.



But the heat produced on the hot coil is mostly ballanced by the cold

on the cold coil. The heat on the hot coil is NOT "produced" like it

is with resistance heating. It is a "heat pump" and produces a lot

more BTUs of heat transfer than the wattage of the power consumption.


I agree. A dehumidifier is not "exactly like" running a central AC and the
heat at the same time.


333 lines of text --- got to be a record. Do you know
how to trim, or do we have to teach you?


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

On 7/5/2014 8:22 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:15:13 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:55:56 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:06:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 12:57 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:28:23 -0400, krw wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:00:16 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"RobertMacy" wrote in message
newsp.xif3so2o2cx0wh@ajm...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:29:47 -0700, Pico Rico
wrote:


"RobertMacy" wrote in message
newsp.xif3f3zo2cx0wh@ajm...
...snip...
So my question is WHICH way is this !@#$#@ system designed for? UP
or DOWN air in the summer?

it depends if you have air conditioning.

again which way? for what reason? elaborate?

heat rises. If you have ac, you want to push the warm air down so it
can become ac'd. If you don't have ac, you might as well leave the warm
air up there were it will be less noticed.

But you can cool to a higher temperature if you help the convection off
your skin. Add in evaporative cooling and a breeze is a big win, at
least in small rooms, like a home.

We have air conditioning which keeps the house at 78, and a way
undersized room dehumidifier which we set up in the master shower, turn
on the circulating fan in the furnace, and basically slowly and
inefficiently dry out the whole house.

It makes a huge huge difference how hot it feels -- and we're in Oregon,
where everyone is a humidity wimp.

Do you realize the dehumidifier is just an AC unit where the heat is
exhausted back into the room? You could do the same thing by running a
small space heater which would make the AC run more often which does a
much better job of taking the humidity out of the air. Actually, I've
never seen a house with AC that still had high humidity, but then I'm
not in the Pacific northwest.
If the AC is oversized it is not efficient at removing humidity
because it doesn't run long enough. ANd if it isn't warm enough to
require running the AC, you still have the humidity.

Running the heater and the A/C at the same time MIGHT help, by forcing
the AC to run more, but it most certainly is NOT efficient. At the
price of electricity in Ontario, particularly during peak periods, it
doesn't make any sense at all. We run the AC off-peak to drop the
temperature and keep the house closed up on-peak to keep the heat out.
As soon as it cools down outside the wife wants to open the windows -
even when the humidity is 81%+ outside and only 40% inside.

Slowly getting her trained, after 33 years.

But that is exactly what you *are* doing, running that dehumidifier is
the same as running the big AC unit. I guess it might be more expensive
to run the heat outside rather than keep it in.... but no, the heat is
always run outside by the big unit because of the thermostat.

Clearly the small unit is less efficient, small things usually are. So
why not run the big unit that does a great job of removing the moisture?
It is larger so will need to run much less to lower the humidity. It
is also equipped to remove the water while most room dehumidifiers have
a bucket you need to empty unless you have it tied into a drain.
You are not getting my point. The AC, if oversized, moves a lot of
air over the cold colil for a short amount of time while drawing large
amount of current and removing a small amount of humidity.

I do "get" your point, I just don't agree with it.


A smaller A/C moves less air over the cold coil for a longer period of
time, and moves more air to reduce the temperature by the same amount,
using less power to do so.

I don't think that follows. Most of the power in an AC unit is in the
compressor which creates the cooling. Reducing the temperature of the
air is going to take the same total amount of cooling, so there is no
power saving in a smaller unit. They size units to keep the initial
costs down and to provide enough cooling for the warmest days.


so it removes more moisture for the same
amount of current drawn. The BTU/watt efficiency may very well be the
same - or the big one may even be more efficient - but the efficiency
as a dehumidifier is significantly better on the smaller A/C unit.

Your conclusions simply don't follow your premise. Unless there is
something less effective about the condensation of water in the large
unit it will end up collecting the same amount of moisture from the air.
But in reality there is an effect that makes the larger unit work
better. If the airflow over the coils does not cool the air below the
dew point, no water condenses at all. A sufficiently small unit with an
adequate air flow may well not lower the air temperature enough to
extract enough water during the process.


If it is not cool enough to require air conditioning, but is too humid
for comfort, running a small de-humidifier is a LOT more efficient
than running the big-assed air conditioner AND the furnace!!!!

Again, no substantiation, just a claim. Running the small dehumidifier
removes small amounts of water AND warms the room requiring the AC to
run. Running the large AC unit will remove the water more quickly. If
it does not remove enough water heat must be added as it runs to remove
enough humidity (becoming a dehumidfier). The question is which unit is
more efficient as a dehumidifier and talking about "big-assed" ACs does
not answer the question. You are coming up with an answer based on an
emotional analysis of inadequate data.

The one fact I know is that my AC unit produces enough water to require
a pump to remove it and runs repeatedly all day. A dehumidifier I have
used will fill the two gallon bucket in a day or so in the worst humid
days of summer in the DC area. Still not sufficient data to prove one
or the other since I have never measured the output. But the AC only
cycles on and off while the dehumidifier runs continuously 24/7 until
the bucket is full.


Only a total idiot would run the AC and heat at the same time to
reduce the humidity in the house.

You still fail to understand that is *exactly* what you are doing with
the dehumidifier. It had a hot coil and a cold coil. The hot coil
produces all the heat entering the cold coil plus the electrical energy
coming from the outlet. So you actually warm the room with that unit
requiring the AC to turn on even if it is otherwise not needed.

But the heat produced on the hot coil is mostly ballanced by the cold
on the cold coil. The heat on the hot coil is NOT "produced" like it
is with resistance heating. It is a "heat pump" and produces a lot
more BTUs of heat transfer than the wattage of the power consumption.

There is your fallacy. The heat produced at the hot coil is largely
balanced by the cold at the cold coil (with the exception of the power
drawn from the outlet which is not trivial) but the cold coil does not
cool the air as much as the hot coil heats the are. Most of the heat
entering the cold coil is used to condense the water which does *not*
cool the air. The opposite of evaporative cooling is condensative
heating. Heat has to be extracted from the moisture to condense it
which does not cool the air while that same heat at the hot coil *does*
warm the air.


As for the de-humidifier producing heat - it only produced a fraction
of it's total power consumption as heat output. The heat coming off
the back of the unit is just heat removed from the air (and moisture)
entering the front of the unit. The latent heat of
vaporization/condensation of the water removed is the only appreciable
"heat" produced. (971 BTU/lb) So for every US gallon of water removed,
aproxemately 8000 BTU.

If it takes 12 hours to remove a gallon, that is 672 btu/hr or less
than 200 watts.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fraction comment. ALL electrical
energy consumed by this unit ends up as heat, mostly at the hot coil.

What I meant to say is that of the total heat output, only a fraction
is produced by the dissipation of electrical energy. The rest is from
the Latent heat of condensation.

Ok, but not a useful point.


The condensed water has had its heat removed and then put back into the
air on the hot side of the unit. The question is where does that heat
go? Only part of the heat at the hot coil was from cooling the air,
most of it was from condensing the water. With a dehumidifier the
entire latent heat of evaporation is returned to the room along with the
heat from the electrical power required to make it all work. This will
heat up the room. With an AC unit that heat is exhausted outside
reducing your cooling costs. Don't think the latent heat of evaporation
needs to be returned to the room to maintain a temperature. When water
evaporates it cools. When it condenses it releases that heat and will
warm the room.
Obviously I understand that - I gave the calcs for the heat gain from
condensing a gallon in 12 hours - which my little dehumidifier does
quite handilly on a Muggly day. My 40 pint dehumidifier dreaws 280
watts maximum. at steady run. So total heat input per hour would be
280+200=480 watts or about 1300 BTU. If it collects the full 5
gallons in 24 hours, it is still less than 800 watts. If you run your
AC to remove that humidity I reccon you will need more than a 600
watt heater to make up for it or the AC will be cycling and using a
lot more power, and the efficiency in gallons per KW will be a lot
lower.

I'm having trouble following your statements because I can't tell what
"drawing" and "heat input" refer to. Are you saying the unit draws 280
Watts from the power line? I don't really see where you are going with
this and I certainly don't see how you can compare the two types of
units in this vague way.


I guess one difference is that we have few days when we need
dehumidification but not cooling. If you actually need your space
warmed with dehumidification rather than cooled, then the dehumidifier
might be more efficient. But if you don't need the extra heat the AC
unit will have to run to maintain a temperature.
And here we have many days where we require dehumidification,
without NEEDING cooling. When it's only 20 C out but 80% humidity, you
do not need AC but dehumidification makes a huge difference.

As for your arguments - ask a REAL HVAC professional.

I'm done.

Ok, but until you understand the real heat flow, you can't say you
understand what is happening with your dehumidifier. If it is 20°C
outside and you run your dehumidifier you will be heating the air which
may not be insignificant. So if you want your home to be 22°C with 50%
humidity then a dehumidifier may be the right choice.

--

Rick

On 7/5/2014 8:46 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/4/2014 11:45 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:

Our AC is a heat pump which does not remove the moisture from the
air --
it just cools it. Don't ask me how -- for all I know they have the
thing
arranged to do it on purpose.
Any heat pump or other air conditioner WILL remove humidity from the
air - warm humid air passes over cool surface, humidity condenses out.
Cannot be done any other way.

Depends a bit. If the cooling coil is kept only a little below room
temperature and you depend on sheer volume for heat transfer, you may not
condense much water compared to having a sub-zero cooling coil and lower
air volumes.


So are you saying a heat pump can change the laws of physics, but just a
little bit? Thanks, I must have missed that class.

I think Ralph's point is moot because AC units don't cool "only a little
below room temperature", but the concept is valid. Moisture condenses
only when cooled below the dew point. It doesn't even depend on the
temperature of the coil, but rather of the air passing over the coil.
If the air never reaches the dew point (either because the coil is not
that cold or because the air moves over the coil so fast) no moisture
will condense.

Those *are* the laws of physics.

--

Rick

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:39:02 -0400, rickman wrote:


There is your fallacy.

....



Ok, but not a useful point.


.....


I'm having trouble following your statements because I can't tell what
"drawing" and "heat input" refer to. Are you saying the unit draws 280
Watts from the power line? I don't really see where you are going with
this and I certainly don't see how you can compare the two types of
units in this vague way.



....


Ok, but until you understand the real heat flow, you can't say you
understand what is happening with your dehumidifier.


You ARE Sloman!

On 7/5/2014 12:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://heatisland.lbl.gov/sites/heatisland.lbl.gov/files/Cool-roof-Q+A.pdf
A roof with a clean, smooth "cool color" surface, such as a cool
red tile, can reflect about 35% of incident sunlight (R = 0.35)
and emit thermal radiation with 90% efficiency (E = 0.90). This
surface has an SRI of 38 and a delta T of 56°F [31 K]. The cool
red tile is much warmer than the bright white roof, but still
cooler than a standard red tile (R = 0.10, E = 0.90, SRI = 6,
delta T = 78°F [44 K]).

What exactly is "cool red tile"? What is different in it's construction
from hot red tile?

I looked at the reference and I'm not sure I understand what they are
measuring. I learned many years ago that a surface can not have
different abilities to absorb or emit heat. If it did it would
spontaneously warm up or cool down. But I suppose it can be a matter of
different rates of emission/absorption at different wavelengths. Solar
is IR, visible and UV. Once warm, the heat from a surface would be IR,
possibly long wave IR. So I suppose you can achieve an advantage by
having a low coefficient at the shorter wavelengths and a higher
coefficient at long wavelengths resulting in higher emissivity at night
and a lower absorption during the day.

--

Rick

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:05:40 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

That's nice, in the woods.

Thanks. I wanted to buy a house "away from it all" in about 1974. At
the time, only about half of the houses in the neighborhood were
occupied year round. The rest were vacation houses, Section 8
housing, and methamphetamine factories. It was common for the dogs to
sleep in the roadway. That worked well until the 1990's, when living
in the trees was deemed fashionable that everything I was trying to
get away from moved in next door. That's not really bad news as the
local infrastructure has gradually improved over the years, and rising
home prices has introduced a better class of residents. Be careful.
This type of progress can also happen to you.

When we refurbed our business building, and redid the flat roof, we
added a roughly 4" thick thermal insulator, and painted that aluminum.
The ceiling in my office stays just about the seme temp as the floor.

Hmmm... that's about what I would expect from a concrete slab floor.
The thermal sink it provides is substantial. If it has cold water
pipes running through it, even better. You might try the same test
with the HVAC and circulation fans turned off. I did that once (when
I was complaining about the air conditioning not working) in my
palatial office (thin carpet on slab with a 3ft suspended ceiling with
minimal insulation). I vaguely recall almost no differences with the
fans going, but about 15 or 20F difference after about 2 hrs in still
air. This is measuring air temp with a thermocouple probe, not an IR
thermometer. However, we had a new roof installed late last year and
I should probably retest this again. The new reflective roof is
noticeably better than the old asphalt black roof.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Saturday, July 5, 2014 2:39:02 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:


But the heat produced on the hot coil is mostly ballanced by the cold

on the cold coil. The heat on the hot coil is NOT "produced" like it

is with resistance heating. It is a "heat pump" and produces a lot

more BTUs of heat transfer than the wattage of the power consumption.



There is your fallacy. The heat produced at the hot coil is largely

balanced by the cold at the cold coil (with the exception of the power

drawn from the outlet which is not trivial) but the cold coil does not

cool the air as much as the hot coil heats the are. Most of the heat

entering the cold coil is used to condense the water which does *not*

cool the air.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with your claim that turning
on the central AC and the heat at the same time is "exactly the same"
as running a dehumidifier. They are very different.



The opposite of evaporative cooling is condensative

heating. Heat has to be extracted from the moisture to condense it

which does not cool the air while that same heat at the hot coil *does*

warm the air.



Which again, has nothing to do with the claim. If you run an AC, you're
taking heat from *inside* the house and pumping it *outside*. Your suggestion
to turn on the heat to make the AC run more without lowering the temp,
means that now you're burning gas or using electric resistance heat, etc,
to make up for that lost heat that just went outside. It is not at all
like using a dehumidifier. If you want to lower the humidity while not
lowering the temperature, it's far more efficient to do that by running
a dehumidifier than it is to do it by running the AC and heat at the same
time.







As for the de-humidifier producing heat - it only produced a fraction

of it's total power consumption as heat output. The heat coming off

the back of the unit is just heat removed from the air (and moisture)

entering the front of the unit. The latent heat of

vaporization/condensation of the water removed is the only appreciable

"heat" produced. (971 BTU/lb) So for every US gallon of water removed,

aproxemately 8000 BTU.



If it takes 12 hours to remove a gallon, that is 672 btu/hr or less

than 200 watts.



I'm not sure what you mean by the fraction comment. ALL electrical

energy consumed by this unit ends up as heat, mostly at the hot coil.



What I meant to say is that of the total heat output, only a fraction

is produced by the dissipation of electrical energy. The rest is from

the Latent heat of condensation.



Ok, but not a useful point.



It is the whole point, CL is right.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 15:51:46 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/5/2014 12:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://heatisland.lbl.gov/sites/heatisland.lbl.gov/files/Cool-roof-Q+A.pdf
A roof with a clean, smooth "cool color" surface, such as a cool
red tile, can reflect about 35% of incident sunlight (R = 0.35)
and emit thermal radiation with 90% efficiency (E = 0.90). This
surface has an SRI of 38 and a delta T of 56°F [31 K]. The cool
red tile is much warmer than the bright white roof, but still
cooler than a standard red tile (R = 0.10, E = 0.90, SRI = 6,
delta T = 78°F [44 K]).

What exactly is "cool red tile"? What is different in it's construction
from hot red tile?

We're scraping bottom on my knowledge of construction practices. Other
than falling off a tile roof, I've never build or specified one. I
think the article refers to tile coatings, not the actual tile itself.

Googling for cool red tile coatings:
http://www.americanrooftilecoatings.com/cool-colors.html
Looks like you can get IR reflective roof tiles in any color EXCEPT
red. Maybe they mean terra cotta which is kinda red and has the
highest IR reflectivity? Oh wait, you can get the coating in cool red
(also known as Thai Pepper):
http://www.americanrooftilecoatings.com/color-palette.html

I looked at the reference and I'm not sure I understand what they are
measuring. I learned many years ago that a surface can not have
different abilities to absorb or emit heat. If it did it would
spontaneously warm up or cool down. But I suppose it can be a matter of
different rates of emission/absorption at different wavelengths. Solar
is IR, visible and UV. Once warm, the heat from a surface would be IR,
possibly long wave IR. So I suppose you can achieve an advantage by
having a low coefficient at the shorter wavelengths and a higher
coefficient at long wavelengths resulting in higher emissivity at night
and a lower absorption during the day.

Yep. That all makes sense. Looking at the definitions for SR and
SRI, there are multiple factors (refection, absorption, emission, roof
slope, etc) involved in calculating the indexes. Nothing is simple.

I found some detail on the difference between SR (solar reflectance)
and SRI (solar reflectance index).
http://www.deansteelbuildings.com/products/panels/sr-sri-by-color/
http://energy.lbl.gov/coolroof/ref_01.htm (note the assumptions).

Mo
http://energy.lbl.gov/coolroof/tile.htm


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 2014-07-05, Ralph Barone wrote:

Depends a bit. If the cooling coil is kept only a little below room
temperature and you depend on sheer volume for heat transfer, you may not
condense much water compared to having a sub-zero cooling coil and lower
air volumes.

Sure it's possible, not practical though, noone wants to live in a
damp wind tunnel.

--
umop apisdn


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 7/5/2014 2:39 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:22 AM, wrote:
And here we have many days where we require dehumidification,
without NEEDING cooling. When it's only 20 C out but 80% humidity, you
do not need AC but dehumidification makes a huge difference.

As for your arguments - ask a REAL HVAC professional.

I'm done.

Ok, but until you understand the real heat flow, you can't say you
understand what is happening with your dehumidifier. If it is 20°C
outside and you run your dehumidifier you will be heating the air which
may not be insignificant. So if you want your home to be 22°C with 50%
humidity then a dehumidifier may be the right choice.

252 lines of text -- please trim.

A dehumidifier contains a motor of some
number of watts. So it puts electric heat
into the room.

If the dehum is broken and runs all the
time without removing humidity, it can
really increase your electric bill.

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

On 7/5/2014 2:45 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:31 AM, wrote:
Give it a rest already. Rour totally
unballanced psyc is showing!!


Part of the def'n of Totalitarian is trying to
suppress opposing views.

What about suppressing idiotic views? Is
that totalitarian or just hard
to resist?


Culturally insensetive. Like kicking puppies.
--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 18:25:01 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Gave us:

On 7/5/2014 2:45 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:31 AM, wrote:
Give it a rest already. Rour totally
unballanced psyc is showing!!


Part of the def'n of Totalitarian is trying to
suppress opposing views.

What about suppressing idiotic views? Is
that totalitarian or just hard
to resist?


Culturally insensetive. Like kicking puppies.

You have more on the ball than some folks give you credit for.

On 7/5/2014 6:25 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/5/2014 2:45 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:31 AM, wrote:
Give it a rest already. Rour totally
unballanced psyc is showing!!


Part of the def'n of Totalitarian is trying to
suppress opposing views.

What about suppressing idiotic views? Is
that totalitarian or just hard
to resist?


Culturally insensetive. Like kicking puppies.

In what culture is kicking puppies acceptable?

--

Rick

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:06:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 12:57 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:28:23 -0400, krw wrote:
====snipped===


As soon as it cools down outside the wife wants to open the windows -
even when the humidity is 81%+ outside and only 40% inside.

Slowly getting her trained, after 33 years.

I'm still working on the training issue, after 56 years :-)

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:26:31 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/5/2014 6:25 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/5/2014 2:45 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:40 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/5/2014 8:31 AM, wrote:
Give it a rest already. Rour totally
unballanced psyc is showing!!


Part of the def'n of Totalitarian is trying to
suppress opposing views.

What about suppressing idiotic views? Is
that totalitarian or just hard
to resist?


Culturally insensetive. Like kicking puppies.

In what culture is kicking puppies acceptable?

I was ready to say Democratic, but that would presume they have or
even care about culture.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 07:41:22 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:51:32 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 21:33:06 -0400, Gave us:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:39:48 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 06:16:50 -0700, V Ague wrote:

On 07/04/2014 08:20 AM, dadiOH wrote:
...snip....
There's your answer as to why blowing down doesn't cool you. Nobody
sweats
in Arizona...no sweat, no evaporation.



Somebody slept through science class.

I took him to mean "Nobody sweats in Arizona..." a bit more tongue in
cheek, because we're allowed to carry in this state.

I took it to mean that it was so dry sweat evaporates so fast there is
no sign of them perspiring.

You can carry in VT, too, but just watch the people sweat when it gets
to 85F. ...or the welfare or trust fund check is late.


Higher and more often gun maint program.

Better; move.

Actually, I just got back into town for vacation. It's fun laughing
at all the lefties, knowing that they're not getting any (well not
much) more of my taxes.

Can't let the sweaty little ******* get rusty.

Stainless.

On 7/5/2014 7:14 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 18:25:01 -0400, Stormin Mormon
What about suppressing idiotic views? Is
that totalitarian or just hard
to resist?


Culturally insensetive. Like kicking puppies.

You have more on the ball than some folks give you credit for.

Thanks! Here is a self portrait.

http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...-dabrowski.jpg


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

On 7/5/2014 7:26 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/5/2014 6:25 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
What about suppressing idiotic views? Is
that totalitarian or just hard
to resist?


Culturally insensetive. Like kicking puppies.

In what culture is kicking puppies acceptable?


Usenet?


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

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 13:22:09 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:05:40 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

That's nice, in the woods.

Yes, quite nice. Do you have problems with mold/mildew because of the
trees in such close proximity?

Thanks. I wanted to buy a house "away from it all" in about 1974. At
the time, only about half of the houses in the neighborhood were
occupied year round. The rest were vacation houses, Section 8
housing, and methamphetamine factories. It was common for the dogs to
sleep in the roadway. That worked well until the 1990's, when living
in the trees was deemed fashionable that everything I was trying to
get away from moved in next door. That's not really bad news as the
local infrastructure has gradually improved over the years, and rising
home prices has introduced a better class of residents. Be careful.
This type of progress can also happen to you.

Larkin? Never. SF is too much of a dump. He's more likely to have a
Google bus parked in his driveway while they pick up the illegal
programmers next door. ;-)


When we refurbed our business building, and redid the flat roof, we
added a roughly 4" thick thermal insulator, and painted that aluminum.
The ceiling in my office stays just about the seme temp as the floor.

Hmmm... that's about what I would expect from a concrete slab floor.
The thermal sink it provides is substantial. If it has cold water
pipes running through it, even better. You might try the same test
with the HVAC and circulation fans turned off. I did that once (when
I was complaining about the air conditioning not working) in my
palatial office (thin carpet on slab with a 3ft suspended ceiling with
minimal insulation). I vaguely recall almost no differences with the
fans going, but about 15 or 20F difference after about 2 hrs in still
air. This is measuring air temp with a thermocouple probe, not an IR
thermometer. However, we had a new roof installed late last year and
I should probably retest this again. The new reflective roof is
noticeably better than the old asphalt black roof.

I didn't like a slab floor of the Alabama house. Too cold on the
feet. Even in the South, the slab made it cold in the Winter and I
had to crank up the thermostat as the Winter went on (and the ground
cooled).

On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 16:09:53 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband
wrote:

A ceiling fan doesn't change the actual temperature in the room
(watch your thermometer).

Well, I can tell you from experience (very recent) it makes a
difference. Big air conditioned room. 33C at the ceiling, 16C at the
floor. Turned on 2 big-assed (no-not the brand name) fans and dropped
the ceiling temp to 24, and raised the floor temperature to 22C within
a few minutes. Did it change the amount of heat in the room? Not at
all. At less than 30 watts each they did not contribute very many
BTUs, but it sure changed the temperature in MOST of the room. The
thermostat was set to 24C. We reset it to 26C after installing the
fans. Will likely get more adjustment over the coming days.

Thanks for the real world example. That's what I would have expected from
mixing up the warm and cool air. Once the air is mixed up, there's no
further change in the temperature from the ceiling fan.

Of course, if you have a loft or something up near the ceiling, dropping
from 33C to 24C would be very welcome.

Anthony Watson
www.mountainsoftware.com
www.watsondiy.com
I think the LED potlights are going to appreciate the lower
temperature too. And with the 6 workstations on the high step being
so much higher than the 11 on the bottom floor, the fan keeps them a
lot cooler without freezing the butts of the the other 11.(and cuts
the run time of the AC significantly)

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:05:40 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 08:57:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 01:03:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 2:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I do much the same thing. At night, I leave the house partly open so
that it cools down. In the morning, I close all the doors and windows
to trap in the cold air. At about noon, the house warms up to the
same as outside temperature, so I open with windows.

I like to do the same thing when we have cool nights like tonight. More
important than cooling the air in the house is cooling the house itself.
Air heats and cools quickly, the materials of the house, not so much.
So let the house cool as much as possible then shut the house when the
temperatures start to rise. I can't remember the house ever reaching
the outside temperature by noon, the equal point is usually in the
evening when the outside starts to cool again.

Right. My problem is that my house is environmentally incorrect and
far from typical. There's no attic. The roof and ceiling are
non-insulated 2x T&G pine[1]. There's considerable (double pane)
glass in the walls. Add two single pane sliding glass doors and two
single pane French doors. Air leaks around some doors and windows.
With so many leaks, my rule of thumb is that the house temperature
never goes above or below about 20F from the outside temperature, even
when running the woodburner. Such a house would not be practical in
any extreme environment, but reasonably functional in a dense redwood
forest, where the trees moderate the temerature swings. As you note,
the door/window temp regulation method is functional for most houses.
However, my efficiency, as indicated by the equal temperature time, is
far from optimum.

10 year old photo:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/BL-house3.jpg


[1] The roofing is 20 years old and probably has another 5-10 years
of useful life reamining. I plan to insulate the roof when it is
replaced.

That's nice, in the woods.

When we refurbed our business building, and redid the flat roof, we
added a roughly 4" thick thermal insulator, and painted that aluminum.
The ceiling in my office stays just about the seme temp as the floor.

Next time the flat roof on the neighbour's house leaks he's building a
truss roof on top of it - solve the leak and heat problems in one fell
swoop.
Perssonally, I would NEVER own a building with a flat roof.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:39:02 -0400, rickman wrote:


There is your fallacy. The heat produced at the hot coil is largely
balanced by the cold at the cold coil (with the exception of the power
drawn from the outlet which is not trivial) but the cold coil does not
cool the air as much as the hot coil heats the are. Most of the heat
entering the cold coil is used to condense the water which does *not*
cool the air. The opposite of evaporative cooling is condensative
heating. Heat has to be extracted from the moisture to condense it
which does not cool the air while that same heat at the hot coil *does*
warm the air.
exactly what I said
Goodbye

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 18:22:46 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:


Ok, but until you understand the real heat flow, you can't say you
understand what is happening with your dehumidifier. If it is 20°C
outside and you run your dehumidifier you will be heating the air which
may not be insignificant. So if you want your home to be 22°C with 50%
humidity then a dehumidifier may be the right choice.

252 lines of text -- please trim.
595 watts for my 40 pint dehumidifier (5.8 amps). My old 20 pint unit
drew 200 watts (1.8 amps running) (just checked)
That's less than the heat from my office lights (before I switched to
LED lights)

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:53:36 -0400, Arnie Goetchius
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:06:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 12:57 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:28:23 -0400, krw wrote:
====snipped===


As soon as it cools down outside the wife wants to open the windows -
even when the humidity is 81%+ outside and only 40% inside.

Slowly getting her trained, after 33 years.

I'm still working on the training issue, after 56 years :-)
And she likely thinks she is making less headway in that department
than you, if she's anything like mine

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:20:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 13:22:09 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:05:40 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

That's nice, in the woods.

Yes, quite nice. Do you have problems with mold/mildew because of the
trees in such close proximity?

Thanks. I wanted to buy a house "away from it all" in about 1974. At
the time, only about half of the houses in the neighborhood were
occupied year round. The rest were vacation houses, Section 8
housing, and methamphetamine factories. It was common for the dogs to
sleep in the roadway. That worked well until the 1990's, when living
in the trees was deemed fashionable that everything I was trying to
get away from moved in next door. That's not really bad news as the
local infrastructure has gradually improved over the years, and rising
home prices has introduced a better class of residents. Be careful.
This type of progress can also happen to you.

Larkin? Never. SF is too much of a dump. He's more likely to have a
Google bus parked in his driveway while they pick up the illegal
programmers next door. ;-)

I live in Glen Park, an obscure quiet neighborhood, with a small
village down the hill with a few good restaurants and a dynamite
bakery. Glen Canyon is two blocks away, with a stream and raccoons and
coyotes and hawks and stuff. There are googlites moving in here and
there. Nice people, but they are driving up house prices.

San Francisco is a collection of villages, mostly separated by
geographic features. Different parts are very different.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...lone_Way_1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...nny_Lane_2.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...nyon_Trail.jpg

Not exactly Fishermen's Wharf.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:23:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:05:40 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 08:57:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 01:03:11 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/4/2014 2:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I do much the same thing. At night, I leave the house partly open so
that it cools down. In the morning, I close all the doors and windows
to trap in the cold air. At about noon, the house warms up to the
same as outside temperature, so I open with windows.

I like to do the same thing when we have cool nights like tonight. More
important than cooling the air in the house is cooling the house itself.
Air heats and cools quickly, the materials of the house, not so much.
So let the house cool as much as possible then shut the house when the
temperatures start to rise. I can't remember the house ever reaching
the outside temperature by noon, the equal point is usually in the
evening when the outside starts to cool again.

Right. My problem is that my house is environmentally incorrect and
far from typical. There's no attic. The roof and ceiling are
non-insulated 2x T&G pine[1]. There's considerable (double pane)
glass in the walls. Add two single pane sliding glass doors and two
single pane French doors. Air leaks around some doors and windows.
With so many leaks, my rule of thumb is that the house temperature
never goes above or below about 20F from the outside temperature, even
when running the woodburner. Such a house would not be practical in
any extreme environment, but reasonably functional in a dense redwood
forest, where the trees moderate the temerature swings. As you note,
the door/window temp regulation method is functional for most houses.
However, my efficiency, as indicated by the equal temperature time, is
far from optimum.

10 year old photo:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/BL-house3.jpg


[1] The roofing is 20 years old and probably has another 5-10 years
of useful life reamining. I plan to insulate the roof when it is
replaced.

That's nice, in the woods.

When we refurbed our business building, and redid the flat roof, we
added a roughly 4" thick thermal insulator, and painted that aluminum.
The ceiling in my office stays just about the seme temp as the floor.

Next time the flat roof on the neighbour's house leaks he's building a
truss roof on top of it - solve the leak and heat problems in one fell
swoop.
Perssonally, I would NEVER own a building with a flat roof.

That's near universal in San Francisco, and I have no idea why. In my
experience, they leak about as often as pitched roofs.

They are fun to walk on. I could walk my entire block on my neighbors'
roofs.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:20:04 -0400, wrote:

Yes, quite nice. Do you have problems with mold/mildew because of the
trees in such close proximity?

Mold was once a big problem for me. When I bought the house, I
discovered that the roof leaked. I patched it as best as I could, but
standing water on a flat roof is never a good idea. The heat from the
wood burner would evaporate the water that leaked into the carpet,
raising the indoor humidity. The water condensed on various surfaces
promoting mold growth. I knew what it was like to live in a
terrarium.

In 1995, I did some remodeling which included replacing the flat roof
with a 1:12 not-so-flat roof. That and re-roofing mostly eliminated
the leaks. I then emptied half the house at a time, and went on a
mold hunt. Unfortunately, some of my old books were lost during the
mold purge. My built in mold detector (runny nose) signaled success.

The one remaining mold factory is the shower. It's a primitive all
sheet metal affaire, with some rust around the edges. The rust seems
to attract mold, especially behind the shower curtains. I use bleach
to remove the mold when it becomes visible, but will eventually
replace the shower with something more modern.

Other than these, there is no mold anywhere else in the house. That's
one of the side benefits of a drafty house. Where there's air flow,
there's no mold. That's why mold accumulated on surfaces behind
furniture and curtains, where there's no air flow.

Larkin? Never. SF is too much of a dump. He's more likely to have a
Google bus parked in his driveway while they pick up the illegal
programmers next door. ;-)

I was referring to his vacation getaway. All the houses in my
neighborhood were once vacation homes and not intended for winter
occupancy. Incidentally, I program Motorola radios on the side, which
I guess makes me an "illegal programmer".

I didn't like a slab floor of the Alabama house. Too cold on the
feet. Even in the South, the slab made it cold in the Winter and I
had to crank up the thermostat as the Winter went on (and the ground
cooled).

I think he was referring to his office building, which would have a
slab foundation and floor, like all commercial buildings. If you were
rolling around your house with a loaded fork lift, you might
appreciate the merits of a slab floor somewhat more.

Thermal conductivity of concrete is about 1 W/m-K while kiln dried
wood is roughly 0.1 W/m-K (varies with moisture content).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558