On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:00:13 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

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.

This is Manhattan, too: ;-)

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...57_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...60_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...55_600x450.jpg

Not exactly Harlem...

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:20:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

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.

That's bad. Really bad. I was referring to outside, though. Trees
that close to frame buildings aren't a good idea. I had problems with
moss on my driveway in Alabama. ...and that was a completely open
area. The only trees on the lot were a few Crepe Myrtles (the bushy
type) and a 10' Cherry that I'd just planted. The problem was on the
North side of the house, though.

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".

Nah, you're not crammed fourteen to a house and shuttled back and
forth from the dorm to work.

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.

Sure, but you were mentioning temperature being an advantage. I
didn't find it so, at least for a smaller building. Perhaps a large
building (more constant sub-slab temperature) would be different.

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

Yes, you can feel the difference with your feet. ...and it's rare to
use wood as insulation.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:31:46 -0400, wrote:

That's bad. Really bad. I was referring to outside, though. Trees
that close to frame buildings aren't a good idea. I had problems with
moss on my driveway in Alabama. ...and that was a completely open
area. The only trees on the lot were a few Crepe Myrtles (the bushy
type) and a 10' Cherry that I'd just planted. The problem was on the
North side of the house, though.

I have some moss or algae (not mold) growing on the roof and in a dark
outside corner. I control it by spraying the area with dilute bleach
twice per year:
http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/asktoh/question/0,,401167,00.html
There are a few redwoods leaning against the deck and part of the
roof. I try to make room by cutting back the roof and deck, but the
trees just keep growing. The north side of the trees sometimes
accumulate some moss but conveniently, that side is not in contact
with the house.

Nah, you're not crammed fourteen to a house and shuttled back and
forth from the dorm to work.

I have a cot, sleeping bag, and some survival supplies in the office.
However, they're not for the occasional all night writing exercises,
data recovery exercises, or last minute taxes. They're for when the
roads are closed due to flood, mud, or crud and I can't drive home.

Just before I bought this house, I lived with some friends in a
crowded apartment building located about 20 ft from a major freeway.
The traffic noise was so bad that everyone had mattresses blocking the
freeway facing windows. Actually, I didn't live there as all of my
stuff was in a cramped storage locker.

Sure, but you were mentioning temperature being an advantage. I
didn't find it so, at least for a smaller building. Perhaps a large
building (more constant sub-slab temperature) would be different.

How was the slab in the summer? I would expect the slab floor to be
cooler, especially if there were cold water pipes inside. An
acquaintance built a thermal sink near his house consisting of an
underground water tank containing about 500 gallons of water. The
water is not for drinking (but can be used for fire suppression).
Instead, it is pumped through copper and plastic pipes in the walls
and floor. During the summer, it keeps the house at ground
temperature. During the winter, the water is heated by his wood
burner. It is then slowly pumped through the walls and floor to heat
the house at night. It's not intended to heat or cool the house, but
rather to moderate the temperature swings so that minimal heating and
cooling will work more effectively.

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

Yes, you can feel the difference with your feet. ...and it's rare to
use wood as insulation.

I've seen wood laminate over foam board insulation (underlayment) used
on slab foundations. However, I have no personal experience:
http://www.doityourself.com/forum/solid-hardwood-engineered-laminate-flooring/320138-laminate-over-rigid-foam-insulation.html
Delta-FL moisture barrier, EPS foam, 3/8" OSB (oriented strand board),
3/32" underlayment foam, and laminate sandwich. The end result is
allegedly better insulated than a 2" elevated sub-floor on the slab.
The catch is that the slab should be perfect as wet spots (leaks and
cracks) and lumps will wreck anything you put on the slab. The
underside of a laminated wood floor is quite sensitive to moisture so
the moisture barrier also has to be perfect.




--
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 23:23:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:00:13 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

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.

This is Manhattan, too: ;-)

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...57_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...60_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...55_600x450.jpg

Not exactly Harlem...


I've spent 3 or 4 months of my life in Manhattan, and that's enough.

That's nice, in the woods.

Agreed, I love the forested setting.

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.
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.

We bought our property about 25 years ago. We're about 10 miles out of
town, up on a mountain, and was surrounded by thick forest everywhere. The
county road ends a half mile past our place. We really felt like we were
getting away from it all to enjoy nature, our privacy, and peace and quiet.

Over the years the developers moved in, and immediately logged off most of
the forest.

Now we are surrounded by private gated estates with 4000-5000 sq/ft mini-
mansions. Despite having 5 acres to build on, they built one right across
the road that sits up on a hill overlooking our property. It's less than
150 feet from our house. Yay... So much for privacy. To make matters worse,
their landscapers show up every Friday with multiple mowers and leaf
blowers.

We used to have beat up pickup trucks and the occasional weekend partiers
driving up and down our road. Now it's mostly BMW's and Mercedes.

I miss the remote feel we used to have. We have tried to keep as much of
the forest on our own property as possible, but with less than two acres
there's only so much we can do.

Such is "progress"...

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

On 7/5/2014 10:25 PM, wrote:
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

That is *not* what you said. You said...

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.

Actually I'm not sure what this is saying, but it when you used the word
"fraction" it seems to imply that there is little heat produced in the
room. The opposite is true. Drawing say 200 watts from the outlet will
warm the room by several times that amount. The difference is the
latent heat of evaporation from the moisture when liquified being
returned to the room at the hot coil. So a dehumidifier is much like
running the AC and a heater to remove the moisture. You heat the room
by more than the power drawn from the outlet which in turn makes the AC
run longer to remove that heat.

When my house is not dry enough I turn the thermostat down another
degree or two. The AC runs a little longer removing more moisture and a
happy comfort level is achieved with a balance between being dry and
being cool. I'm looking for comfort, not a fixed temperature. Once the
air is wrung out I can turn the thermostat up again if I want. Much
easier than dealing with extra equipment and likely more cost effective
to boot. An AC is a great dehumidifier.

--

Rick

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:23:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:00:13 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

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.

This is Manhattan, too: ;-)

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...57_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...60_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...55_600x450.jpg

Not exactly Harlem...


I've spent 3 or 4 months of my life in Manhattan, and that's enough.

I've been dragged to plays in Manhattan and that was enough. Oh, then
there was the iApx432 launch (three days). That was *way* more than
enough. SF was much better (parking was the same - nonexistent). The
hookers a couple of blocks from the hotel were funny, far better than
those in Manhattan (even the trannies).

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 21:57:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:31:46 -0400, wrote:

That's bad. Really bad. I was referring to outside, though. Trees
that close to frame buildings aren't a good idea. I had problems with
moss on my driveway in Alabama. ...and that was a completely open
area. The only trees on the lot were a few Crepe Myrtles (the bushy
type) and a 10' Cherry that I'd just planted. The problem was on the
North side of the house, though.

I have some moss or algae (not mold) growing on the roof and in a dark
outside corner. I control it by spraying the area with dilute bleach
twice per year:

You might want to string some copper wire across the roof. They also
make copper and zinc strips for the purpose.

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/asktoh/question/0,,401167,00.html
There are a few redwoods leaning against the deck and part of the
roof. I try to make room by cutting back the roof and deck, but the
trees just keep growing. The north side of the trees sometimes
accumulate some moss but conveniently, that side is not in contact
with the house.

I don't like any growth in contact with the house. Any wind and
there's more work to do. It's good to keep the exterior dry, too.

Nah, you're not crammed fourteen to a house and shuttled back and
forth from the dorm to work.

I have a cot, sleeping bag, and some survival supplies in the office.
However, they're not for the occasional all night writing exercises,
data recovery exercises, or last minute taxes. They're for when the
roads are closed due to flood, mud, or crud and I can't drive home.

Sounds like a regular occurrence. Ugh.

Just before I bought this house, I lived with some friends in a
crowded apartment building located about 20 ft from a major freeway.
The traffic noise was so bad that everyone had mattresses blocking the
freeway facing windows. Actually, I didn't live there as all of my
stuff was in a cramped storage locker.

Sure, but you were mentioning temperature being an advantage. I
didn't find it so, at least for a smaller building. Perhaps a large
building (more constant sub-slab temperature) would be different.

How was the slab in the summer? I would expect the slab floor to be
cooler, especially if there were cold water pipes inside. An
acquaintance built a thermal sink near his house consisting of an
underground water tank containing about 500 gallons of water. The
water is not for drinking (but can be used for fire suppression).
Instead, it is pumped through copper and plastic pipes in the walls
and floor. During the summer, it keeps the house at ground
temperature. During the winter, the water is heated by his wood
burner. It is then slowly pumped through the walls and floor to heat
the house at night. It's not intended to heat or cool the house, but
rather to moderate the temperature swings so that minimal heating and
cooling will work more effectively.

Like the Winter, it worked fine for a month or two into the season.
Late in the season it got to be the wrong temperature and would work
against the heat pump. Most people have this mistaken idea that only
a few feet down the ground is a constant temperature - not true. Just
notice the position of the mixing valve when you take a shower, during
Summer and Winter.

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

Yes, you can feel the difference with your feet. ...and it's rare to
use wood as insulation.

I've seen wood laminate over foam board insulation (underlayment) used
on slab foundations. However, I have no personal experience:
http://www.doityourself.com/forum/solid-hardwood-engineered-laminate-flooring/320138-laminate-over-rigid-foam-insulation.html
Delta-FL moisture barrier, EPS foam, 3/8" OSB (oriented strand board),
3/32" underlayment foam, and laminate sandwich. The end result is
allegedly better insulated than a 2" elevated sub-floor on the slab.
The catch is that the slab should be perfect as wet spots (leaks and
cracks) and lumps will wreck anything you put on the slab. The
underside of a laminated wood floor is quite sensitive to moisture so
the moisture barrier also has to be perfect.

Yes, a foam board probably would have made all the difference. Much
of the downstairs of our house was tile or bamboo flooring, with the
master BR carpeted, directly on the slab. All of the floors were
noticeably warmer/colder than the upstairs floor.

I'm leery about putting anything over concrete (whether floor or
wall), for exactly the reasons you state. Concrete is porous and
moisture *will* come through. I really don't want to stop it on the
inside. My current basement has an unfinished basement and I'm not
sure what to do on the floor. I'm only planning on using it for a
shop and storage but I want to sheetrock the walls, at least, if not
put in a ceiling (though may not for tax reasons). Most of it is
carpeted now, which I'm tearing up (sawdust in carpeting is a PITA).
The problem is that the floor is dusting. Not sure how to handle it.

On Sunday, July 6, 2014 4:34:04 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 7/5/2014 10:25 PM, wrote:

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



That is *not* what you said. You said...



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.



Actually I'm not sure what this is saying, but it when you used the word

"fraction" it seems to imply that there is little heat produced in the

room. The opposite is true. Drawing say 200 watts from the outlet will

warm the room by several times that amount.


Ridiculous. To do so would require energy to be mysteriously created,
which of course it's not. Assume the room is perfectly insulated. If
200W is all that's going into the room, then that is all the heat that
is being created. Physics says so.




The difference is the

latent heat of evaporation from the moisture when liquified being

returned to the room at the hot coil. So a dehumidifier is much like

running the AC and a heater to remove the moisture. You heat the room

by more than the power drawn from the outlet which in turn makes the AC

run longer to remove that heat.



It's not much like running the heater and the AC at the same time at all.
As has been explained to you about 5 times now, when you run the AC,
you're pumping heat from inside the house to the OUTSIDE. Then, to replace
that heat and keep the temperature of the house from dropping, you're
proposing to run the HEAT. Whether that heat is gas, oil, electric, etc,
it's being used to REPLACE heat that you just pumped outside. It's
very inefficient compared to running a dehumidifier. With a dehumidifier,
you're not pumping heat outside the house.








When my house is not dry enough I turn the thermostat down another

degree or two. The AC runs a little longer removing more moisture and a

happy comfort level is achieved with a balance between being dry and

being cool. I'm looking for comfort, not a fixed temperature. Once the

air is wrung out I can turn the thermostat up again if I want. Much

easier than dealing with extra equipment and likely more cost effective

to boot. An AC is a great dehumidifier.



If by turning the thermostat back up again, you mean just raising the
set point for cooling, so that the AC goes off, then I agree it's what
normal people would do,
it's cost effective, and fast. It's what I said many posts ago I'd do
if my house was 78 and too humid. However that is very different from
what you claimed, which was that turning on the AC AND THE HEAT is
exactly the same as running a dehumidifier. It's not, because, one more
time, by doing that, you're pumping heat out of the house, then using
the heat system to replace it. A very inefficient process compared to
a dehumidifier.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 16:26:31 -0700, rickman wrote:

...snip...
In what culture is kicking puppies acceptable?


I remember a story about a Canadian Mounty knowing his man, responsible
for murder robbery, mayhem, etc, was one of two inside a saloon. But did
not know which man. He went in, severely kicked a dog lying near the bar,
as the dog yelped loudly and one of the two came to the dog's aid with
"poor puppy, etc" the Mounty arrested that man, and had the correct man.

Plus, Lizzie Borden gave her money to an animal shelter,

go figure.

wrote:
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

Yup. Her favorite expression: "Will you ever learn?"

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 07:33:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:23:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:00:13 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

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
m 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.

This is Manhattan, too: ;-)

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...57_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...60_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...55_600x450.jpg

Not exactly Harlem...


I've spent 3 or 4 months of my life in Manhattan, and that's enough.

I've been dragged to plays in Manhattan and that was enough. Oh, then
there was the iApx432 launch (three days). That was *way* more than
enough.

The iApx432 event must have been a hoot. Ditto Itanic. What I don't
understand is how Intel introduced those architectures (super CISC and
then super RISC) and somehow managed to make them slower than x86.
There's got to be stories.


SF was much better (parking was the same - nonexistent). The
hookers a couple of blocks from the hotel were funny, far better than
those in Manhattan (even the trannies).

NYC is all concrete and steel and steam. Central Park is much praised
but still awfully civilized.

SF has a small downtown, like a bit of New York, which is what most
visitors see. But it has views, trails, stairways, beaches, cliffs,
tunnels, mountains (well one, almost) if you get a couple of miles
from downtown. We passed Proposition M some years back, which
established height limits that keeps downdown from spreading. I park
on the street at home, no problem.

You've got to be a people-person to enjoy New York. You have to
actually own two or three tuxedos. Hang out in art museums.

We get the Sunday New York Times. It doesn't have comics, but it does
have Style and The Arts, which are even funnier.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 07:52:48 -0400, wrote:

I have some moss or algae (not mold) growing on the roof and in a dark
outside corner. I control it by spraying the area with dilute bleach
twice per year:

You might want to string some copper wire across the roof. They also
make copper and zinc strips for the purpose.

Zinc doesn't work at all. Cooper only works for about 2-3 ft
downhill.
"Copper / Zinc Strips Failure - Roof Life of Oregon"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cb-uZW9tJg
One of my experiments was to rapidly electroplate some copper onto a
cathode, producing copper dust. I sprinkled it onto the moss and
added some mildly acidic water. The most was mostly gone by the next
day. I hosed off the residue, and in about a month later, the moss
was back. Grrr. Diluted sodium hypochlorite bleach (Clorox) and a
little TSP replacement degreaser in a garden sprayer works well enough
for me, or just use the overpriced commercial stuff:
http://www.30seconds.net
or make your own concoction:
http://savagesisters.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/make-your-own-outdoor-cleaner/

I have a cot, sleeping bag, and some survival supplies in the office.
However, they're not for the occasional all night writing exercises,
data recovery exercises, or last minute taxes. They're for when the
roads are closed due to flood, mud, or crud and I can't drive home.

Sounds like a regular occurrence. Ugh.

Not really. Once a year at most for road closures. Maybe 4 times per
year when my car won't run, or I'm stuck with doing the computer work
after midnight. I don't use the cot much because there's no room in
my cluttered office. I just roll an inflatable mattress into the isle
and use a sleeping bag.

There's only one road in and out of the San Lorenzo Valley. Drop a
tree across it and everything comes to a screeching halt. Actually,
the tree isn't the problem, it's the safety regulations. It used to
be that when a tree falls across the power lines, PG&E, Ma Bell,
Comcast, Davey Tree, Public Works, and the local fire department all
arrive at once and work together. Lots of congestion, but the tree
was usually cleared in a very short time. The problem is that it's
not really very safe to have everyone working at the same time. So,
it was decreed that parallel processing was out, and serial processing
was better. Everyone stands around directing traffic until PG&E
declares the power to be turned off and safe. Then, the tree and
debris are removed by Davey Tree. Then the various utilities replace
the lines. Public works clears the road and declares the road
passable. Finally, the fire department opens the road to traffic.
Using parallel processing, a tree fall could be cleared in about an
hour or two. With the new improved method, I've timed the process at
between 6 to 8 hours.

Like the Winter, it worked fine for a month or two into the season.
Late in the season it got to be the wrong temperature and would work
against the heat pump. Most people have this mistaken idea that only
a few feet down the ground is a constant temperature - not true. Just
notice the position of the mixing valve when you take a shower, during
Summer and Winter.

I know little about heat pumps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump
"Seasonal variations drop off with depth and disappear below
7 metres (23 ft) to 12 metres (39 ft)"
That's more than a "few feed down". How deep did you go?

I'm leery about putting anything over concrete (whether floor or
wall), for exactly the reasons you state. Concrete is porous and
moisture *will* come through.

Part of my foundation is concrete and rebar filled speedblock, which
is certainly porous. I used:
http://www.thompsonswaterseal.com/waterproofing-products/multisurface-waterproofers/waterproofer-plus-masonry-protector
and some long forgotten brand of vapor barrier on the outside.
Something similar should work for a slab:
http://www.concretenetwork.com/vapor-barriers/
http://www.concretenetwork.com/vapor-barriers/types.html

I really don't want to stop it on the
inside.

Well, that's the standard practice. If your water table is too high,
something else will need to be done. I have zero experience with such
slabs and can't offer any suggestions.

My current basement has an unfinished basement and I'm not
sure what to do on the floor. I'm only planning on using it for a
shop and storage but I want to sheetrock the walls, at least, if not
put in a ceiling (though may not for tax reasons).

Dunno. Maybe just an overlay to seal it better? Again, I have zero
experience with slabs:
http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete-overlays/

Most of it is
carpeted now, which I'm tearing up (sawdust in carpeting is a PITA).
The problem is that the floor is dusting. Not sure how to handle it.

What type of dust? Carpet dust? Concrete dust? Rubber pad dust?


--
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 Sunday, July 6, 2014 2:49:56 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 07:52:48 -0400, wrote:



I have some moss or algae (not mold) growing on the roof and in a dark

outside corner. I control it by spraying the area with dilute bleach

twice per year:



You might want to string some copper wire across the roof. They also

make copper and zinc strips for the purpose.



Zinc doesn't work at all. Cooper only works for about 2-3 ft

downhill.

"Copper / Zinc Strips Failure - Roof Life of Oregon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cb-uZW9tJg


In the video, he says it's copper, but it sure looks like zinc to me.
No copper color that I see. And I can show you roofs here where it's
obvious zinc works, just like whatever it is in that video. You can see
it with zinc flashing on pipes coming out of roofs. For about 4 ft below
there is no moss/algae. But I agree it's far from an ideal solution, you'd
have to put strips every 4 ft.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 10:47:09 -0400, Arnie Goetchius
wrote:

wrote:
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

Yup. Her favorite expression: "Will you ever learn?"
Pretty close "you'll NEVER learn!!!"

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:53:12 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:44:53 -0700, Joerg wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
...snip....
I run UP all seasons.... moves the air within putting myself in a
wind.


Yup. Same here.


THANKS, again empirical evidence opposite the 'experts'!

"ex spurt" or sales critter? A lot of sales critters act as if "expert"
to upsell to higher margin products.

?-)

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 13:44:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/4/2014 11:34 AM, Tim Wescott 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.

Heat pumps defy the laws of physics? If the air is cooled it changes
how much moisture it has in it. Take some time to learn how it works.

Unless you run an evaporative cooler like we do. Best invention since
pivot irrigation.

One has to get used to it. I feel much more comfortable than with
traditional A/C but we have to make sure to always use coasters for
drinks such as beer that just came out of the fridge. Else there'll be
ugly water stains developing on the table.
Evap cooling doesn't work too well in the Muggly Hot weather we get
here in the "interlaken" district of Ontario. 81% humidity doesn't
evaporate much even at 90F.


True, but it's not always that humid. What counts is the energy savings
over the whole season. It would be very easy to use evap coolibng in
front of the condenser or traditional A/C. But A/C technology is still
largely in the stone age.

I really like evap cooling but have a major gripe with the poor quality
of much of that stuff. The motor in our Champion/Essick cooler did a
spectacular smoke-out into (!) the house last year. Bought a new motor
and now that one is staring to show signs of failure. It hasn't even run
2000h. Pathetic.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 15:43:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 13:44:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/4/2014 11:34 AM, Tim Wescott 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.

Heat pumps defy the laws of physics? If the air is cooled it changes
how much moisture it has in it. Take some time to learn how it works.

Unless you run an evaporative cooler like we do. Best invention since
pivot irrigation.

One has to get used to it. I feel much more comfortable than with
traditional A/C but we have to make sure to always use coasters for
drinks such as beer that just came out of the fridge. Else there'll be
ugly water stains developing on the table.
Evap cooling doesn't work too well in the Muggly Hot weather we get
here in the "interlaken" district of Ontario. 81% humidity doesn't
evaporate much even at 90F.


True, but it's not always that humid. What counts is the energy savings
over the whole season. It would be very easy to use evap coolibng in
front of the condenser or traditional A/C. But A/C technology is still
largely in the stone age.

I really like evap cooling but have a major gripe with the poor quality
of much of that stuff. The motor in our Champion/Essick cooler did a
spectacular smoke-out into (!) the house last year. Bought a new motor
and now that one is staring to show signs of failure. It hasn't even run
2000h. Pathetic.

Up here, generally, if it is hot enough to need AC it is too humid for
a "swamp cooler". Most of the time just reducing the humidity a bit
makes it bearable - but when it's hot AND humid, we run the AC.

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

In some really important ways, you are missing big items. Most of the
cold coils heat transport is from condensation energy, there is no
equivalent heat of evaporation on the hot side so it all goes into
temperature rise (sensible heat). Unless of course it is built very like
conventional AC and the heat is exhausted outside.

?-)

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 09:10:25 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 07:33:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:23:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:00:13 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

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.

This is Manhattan, too: ;-)

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...57_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...60_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...55_600x450.jpg

Not exactly Harlem...


I've spent 3 or 4 months of my life in Manhattan, and that's enough.

I've been dragged to plays in Manhattan and that was enough. Oh, then
there was the iApx432 launch (three days). That was *way* more than
enough.

The iApx432 event must have been a hoot. Ditto Itanic. What I don't
understand is how Intel introduced those architectures (super CISC and
then super RISC) and somehow managed to make them slower than x86.
There's got to be stories.

It had its moments but mostly boring. They had silicon there but the
big question of the day was "Huh?". That question was never answered.
....even decades later. Intel is a one-trick pony. Always has been.

SF was much better (parking was the same - nonexistent). The
hookers a couple of blocks from the hotel were funny, far better than
those in Manhattan (even the trannies).

NYC is all concrete and steel and steam. Central Park is much praised
but still awfully civilized.

Civilized? Is that why it's so dangerous?

SF has a small downtown, like a bit of New York, which is what most
visitors see. But it has views, trails, stairways, beaches, cliffs,
tunnels, mountains (well one, almost) if you get a couple of miles
from downtown. We passed Proposition M some years back, which
established height limits that keeps downdown from spreading. I park
on the street at home, no problem.

You do know that there are a *lot* of single-family homes in NYC, too?
Manhattan NYC.

You've got to be a people-person to enjoy New York. You have to
actually own two or three tuxedos. Hang out in art museums.

No, you have to hate people.

We get the Sunday New York Times. It doesn't have comics, but it does
have Style and The Arts, which are even funnier.

The editorial page is even funnier.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 23:15:30 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 09:10:25 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 07:33:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:05:08 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:23:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:00:13 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

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
m 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.

This is Manhattan, too: ;-)

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...57_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...60_600x450.jpg

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...55_600x450.jpg

Not exactly Harlem...


I've spent 3 or 4 months of my life in Manhattan, and that's enough.

I've been dragged to plays in Manhattan and that was enough. Oh, then
there was the iApx432 launch (three days). That was *way* more than
enough.

The iApx432 event must have been a hoot. Ditto Itanic. What I don't
understand is how Intel introduced those architectures (super CISC and
then super RISC) and somehow managed to make them slower than x86.
There's got to be stories.

It had its moments but mostly boring. They had silicon there but the
big question of the day was "Huh?". That question was never answered.
...even decades later. Intel is a one-trick pony. Always has been.

SF was much better (parking was the same - nonexistent). The
hookers a couple of blocks from the hotel were funny, far better than
those in Manhattan (even the trannies).

NYC is all concrete and steel and steam. Central Park is much praised
but still awfully civilized.

Civilized? Is that why it's so dangerous?

SF has a small downtown, like a bit of New York, which is what most
visitors see. But it has views, trails, stairways, beaches, cliffs,
tunnels, mountains (well one, almost) if you get a couple of miles
from downtown. We passed Proposition M some years back, which
established height limits that keeps downdown from spreading. I park
on the street at home, no problem.

You do know that there are a *lot* of single-family homes in NYC, too?
Manhattan NYC.

You've got to be a people-person to enjoy New York. You have to
actually own two or three tuxedos. Hang out in art museums.

No, you have to hate people.

We get the Sunday New York Times. It doesn't have comics, but it does
have Style and The Arts, which are even funnier.

The editorial page is even funnier.

The NYT reeks of partisanship and crude intellectual dishonesty. It has become a
parody of its former respectable self. My wife likes it, so we get the Sunday
edition delivered.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

On 7/6/2014 10:13 PM, josephkk wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:39:02 -0400, 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. 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.

In some really important ways, you are missing big items. Most of the
cold coils heat transport is from condensation energy, there is no
equivalent heat of evaporation on the hot side so it all goes into
temperature rise (sensible heat). Unless of course it is built very like
conventional AC and the heat is exhausted outside.

Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just
agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the
hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming
the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.

--

Rick

On 7/7/2014 6:53 PM, rickman wrote:

Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just
agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the
hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming
the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.


Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric
motor which gives off heat when it runs.
The cooling and condensing are equal, so they
can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and
that's the added (electric) heat.

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

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric
motor which gives off heat when it runs.
The cooling and condensing are equal, so they
can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and
that's the added (electric) heat.

Plus latent heat of vaporization -- you're de-evaporating water, which
gives off quite a lot by volume.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs
Electrical Engineering Consultation
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

On 7/7/2014 7:06 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/7/2014 6:53 PM, rickman wrote:

Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just
agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the
hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming
the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.


Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric
motor which gives off heat when it runs.
The cooling and condensing are equal, so they
can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and
that's the added (electric) heat.

That is incorrect. The hot and cold coils provide the same amount of
cooling or heating other than the inefficiencies, but the cooling does
not all go into making the air cool. The water condensing puts heat
into the coil without changing temperature. This heat at the warm coil
*does* fully go to heating the air.

Look up heat of condensation or evaporation. Same with
freezing/melting. Heat flows, but temperature does not change.

--

Rick

On 7/7/2014 7:15 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric
motor which gives off heat when it runs.
The cooling and condensing are equal, so they
can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and
that's the added (electric) heat.

Plus latent heat of vaporization -- you're
de-evaporating water, which
gives off quite a lot by volume.

Tim


Silly! You de-evaporate water by WEIGHT.
Not volume. And some call it "condensing"
the water. In any case, yes, that's a lot
of latent heat.

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

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:53:08 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/6/2014 10:13 PM, josephkk wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:39:02 -0400, 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. 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.

In some really important ways, you are missing big items. Most of the
cold coils heat transport is from condensation energy, there is no
equivalent heat of evaporation on the hot side so it all goes into
temperature rise (sensible heat). Unless of course it is built very like
conventional AC and the heat is exhausted outside.

Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just
agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the
hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming
the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.
And I guess I didn't explain clearly enough what those BTUs of latent
heat were doing.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:06:55 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/7/2014 6:53 PM, rickman wrote:

Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just
agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the
hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming
the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.


Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric
motor which gives off heat when it runs.
The cooling and condensing are equal, so they
can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and
that's the added (electric) heat.
Almost. Add the latent heat of condensation like I calculated in an
earlier post. Still - it is a pittance.

On 7/7/2014 8:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:06:55 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric
motor which gives off heat when it runs.
The cooling and condensing are equal, so they
can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and
that's the added (electric) heat.
Almost. Add the latent heat of condensation like I calculated in an
earlier post. Still - it is a pittance.


Pittance? You English talk funny.

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

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:53:08 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 7/6/2014 10:13 PM, josephkk wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:39:02 -0400, 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. 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.

In some really important ways, you are missing big items. Most of the
cold coils heat transport is from condensation energy, there is no
equivalent heat of evaporation on the hot side so it all goes into
temperature rise (sensible heat). Unless of course it is built very like
conventional AC and the heat is exhausted outside.

Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just
agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the
hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming
the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.

That is an understatement.

?-)

On Monday, July 7, 2014 7:06:55 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/7/2014 6:53 PM, rickman wrote:



Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just

agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the

hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming

the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.





Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric

motor which gives off heat when it runs.

The cooling and condensing are equal, so they

can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and

that's the added (electric) heat.




And he's conflating heat with temperature.

On Monday, July 7, 2014 7:18:19 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 7/7/2014 7:06 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 7/7/2014 6:53 PM, rickman wrote:



Not sure what you mean by "you are missing big items". I think you just

agreed with me 100%. The cold coil does not cool the air as much as the

hot coil warms the air. All of the heat of condensation ends up warming

the air in the room. I guess I didn't explain it clearly.





Try this: Dehumidifier contains an electric

motor which gives off heat when it runs.

The cooling and condensing are equal, so they

can be ignored. Check the wattage used, and

that's the added (electric) heat.



That is incorrect. The hot and cold coils provide the same amount of

cooling or heating other than the inefficiencies, but the cooling does

not all go into making the air cool. The water condensing puts heat

into the coil without changing temperature. This heat at the warm coil

*does* fully go to heating the air.



Look up heat of condensation or evaporation. Same with

freezing/melting. Heat flows, but temperature does not change.



--



Rick

Except of course that it all balances out again when the air mixes.
The drier warmend air that comes out of the dehumidifier quickly mixes
with the rest of the air, which still has higher humidity. That slightly
warmer and drier air
then transfers it's energy to the rest of volume of air in the room/house,
heating the air and water in it, until equilibrium is attained again.

And back to the original claim, that a dehumidifier is like running the
AC and heat at the same time, it's not. That's because when you do that,
you're pumping heat out of the house, then running heat, ie electric, gas,
whatever, to replace the energy you just pumped needlessly outside.
A dehumdifier avoids that.

On 7/8/2014 8:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:

And he's conflating heat with temperature.


I'm gobsmacked! Your barmy use of "conflate"!

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

In sci.electronics.design 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?

Anybody else here think ceiling fans are just pointless all together?

On 7/9/2014 2:03 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:

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

Anybody else here think ceiling fans are just pointless all together?


Which direction is this usenet thread
supposed to blow?

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

On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 2:03:36 AM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.design 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?



Anybody else here think ceiling fans are just pointless all together?

Not me. I think they produce a breeze in summer that is both cooling
and soothing. Even if you're outside, which 75F day is more pleasant? One
that is dead calm, or one with a light breeze?

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:03:36 -0700, Cydrome Leader
wrote:

...snip...

Anybody else here think ceiling fans are just pointless all together?

I did!

I used to think they were just for making flies avoid the room, and kept
envisioning people in a smoke filled room sitting around a table covered
in green felt playing cards, etc.

But, after finally trying one, I see the advantage in 'low humidity'
conditions. Makes the air 'seem' cooler and doesn't stuff the pockets of
the ultities firms.

On 7/9/2014 2:03 AM, Cydrome Leader wrote:


Anybody else here think ceiling fans are just pointless all together?


Used properly in the right location, they work. They are not a cure for
all your environmental ills. One use for them it to gently move around
the air in a room to keep a constant temperature and eliminate hot and
cold spots. Not rvery room needs that though.

It's a tool. Use it properly.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:03:36 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Anybody else here think ceiling fans are just pointless all together?

If you stand under a ceiling fan wearing a pickelhaube, I guess(tm) it
might remove the point, making it pointless:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=pickelhaube

--
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 7/9/2014 11:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:03:36 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Anybody else here think ceiling fans are just pointless all together?

If you stand under a ceiling fan wearing a pickelhaube, I guess(tm) it
might remove the point, making it pointless:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=pickelhaube