Home Menu

Menu


Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

DIYbanter » Do - it - Yourself » Home Repair > Problem with winter dryness
Reply
Page 2 of 2 1 2
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they both
result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

Here's my opinion:

Advantages Disadvantages

A) Natural leakage Lower first cost Higher fuel consumption
More reliable in winter and summer
Possibly better IAQ: Can't use HRV
CO, CO2, H20 often Lower RH in winter
diluted with a Wet insulation and drywall
large flow of Possible wood rot, mold,
fresh air and mildew inside walls
No ventilation at all
on still mild days

B) Positive ventilation More uniform fresh air
and temp distribution
around the house
It's always easier to
bring air in than to
keep it out, turning
B) into A) if needed...

Nick (who just got a call from two Lennox lawyers saying they may change
the energy-savings claim on their humidifier web site "if it turns
out to be inaccurate in the opinion of our engineers" :-)

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #44   Report Post  
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Rod Speed wrote:

"Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
wrote in message ...


Rod Speed wrote:

L. Maurer wrote in message
...
wrote
wrote

We live in a rented townhouse. During the winter
when the heat is used, the place really gets dry.
So much so that it dries out the sinus and causes discomfort.
Is there any easy practical way to humidify this place?

Sure. Caulk it.

They asked for "easy" and they don't own the place. The "easy" way
is to just sit a pot of water on the stove, simmer it, and let it steam.

Its not actually that easy, particulary the risk of boiling it dry.

Makes more sense to buy a humidifier instead.

Isn't that what taking a shower does?

Nothing like as convenient as using a humidifier, stupid.

So you are going to vent the water vapour that you can get for free and
pay to make more with a humidifier you had to buy? Your a genius, Rod!



How much energy is lost from evaporating and sending
outside all the water splashed around in taking a shower?

Who cares ?

If you just vent the house of that water vapour, that's heat going out
of your house. If you are paying to heat your house, that is money going
out of your house.


--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential library
sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff he didn't
want anyone to find till long after his death, the real deed to
Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken payoffs, the real
gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the Exocet missile he took Ron
Brown out with, copies of another few thousand illegally acquired FBI
files on his enemies, tickets to Tahiti from the White House Travel
Office, a few more soiled dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed
Cuban cigars, and the unabridged version of his autobiography. That last
one was touch and go just getting the bugger in.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #45   Report Post  
Rod Speed
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"
wrote in message ...


Rod Speed wrote:

"Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' )"

wrote in message ...


Rod Speed wrote:

L. Maurer wrote in message
...
wrote
wrote

We live in a rented townhouse. During the winter
when the heat is used, the place really gets dry.
So much so that it dries out the sinus and causes discomfort.
Is there any easy practical way to humidify this place?

Sure. Caulk it.

They asked for "easy" and they don't own the place. The "easy" way
is to just sit a pot of water on the stove, simmer it, and let it
steam.

Its not actually that easy, particulary the risk of boiling it dry.

Makes more sense to buy a humidifier instead.

Isn't that what taking a shower does?

Nothing like as convenient as using a humidifier, stupid.

So you are going to vent the water vapour that you can get for free

Nope.

and pay to make more with a humidifier you had to buy?

Nope.

Your a genius, Rod!

You're a ****wit, Blonde.

How much energy is lost from evaporating and sending
outside all the water splashed around in taking a shower?

Who cares ?

If you just vent the house of that water vapour, that's
heat going out of your house. If you are paying to heat
your house, that is money going out of your house.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist ****wits ?

I dont care how much is lost, because
its a tiny part of the winter heating cost.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #48   Report Post  
Gary R. Lloyd
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:02:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2004 08:11:30 -0500, wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

ASHRAE's "15 cfm per occupant" standard is designed to avoid health issues.
Smoking, radon, and so on may require more.

For a family of four, that comes to 60 CFM.

You have stated that miners have been shown to pass out at 5 CFM per
person. For our family of four, that comes to 20 CFM.

These 19th century coal-mining experiments were an early basis
for ventilation standards.

You advocate the Canadian model, where the passive leakage is reduced
to 2.5 CFM. Then you would make up the difference by forced
ventilation.

Sure. This also works in most of Europe, and in many books on efficient
home design, eg The Superinsulated Home Book, by Nisson and Dutt
(Wiley and Sons, 1985.)

Is this a fair representation of your position?

Sure. It may be time now to look for better solutions instead of problems.

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they
both result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

The obvious pro with tight construction and active ventilation
is that you have real control over the ventilation and can vary
it depending on stuff like CO CO2 and humidity levels.

The only real downside is that you may need some form of
small UPS or internal battery power or failsafe to an automatic
shutter etc if extended periods without power are possible/likely.

I'd personally just have a decent warning system with a completely
unambiguous warning message where its clear what is warning about.


Another real downside is price. What would be the payback?

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #49   Report Post  
Gary R. Lloyd
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:08:05 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:55:24 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:

On 22 Nov 2004 17:14:38 -0500, wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they both
result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

Here's my opinion:

Advantages Disadvantages

A) Natural leakage Lower first cost Higher fuel consumption
More reliable in winter and summer
Possibly better IAQ: Can't use HRV
CO, CO2, H20 often Lower RH in winter
diluted with a Wet insulation and drywall
large flow of Possible wood rot, mold,
fresh air and mildew inside walls
No ventilation at all
on still mild days

B) Positive ventilation More uniform fresh air
and temp distribution
around the house
It's always easier to
bring air in than to
keep it out, turning
B) into A) if needed...


An ERV would make more sense than an HRV, providing another plus in
the form of humidity recovery.

http://www.aexusa.com/enthalpy/aaex1.htm


I should point out that I am by no means an expert on HRV/ERV, but I
am not aware of any residential ERV which is recommended for subzero
temps, because they freeze up. I included the above link to very
expensive high volume commercial warm weather/cold weather ERV's just
to show that it is possible. I suspect however, that the humidity
transfer has a price.

Should someone come up with a residential ERV capable of economically
transferring humidity in both warm and cold climates, these presumably
would have a huge potential market beyond the deep south, and would go
a long way towards justifying supertight construction.

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #50   Report Post  
Rod Speed
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:02:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2004 08:11:30 -0500, wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

ASHRAE's "15 cfm per occupant" standard is designed to avoid health
issues.
Smoking, radon, and so on may require more.

For a family of four, that comes to 60 CFM.

You have stated that miners have been shown to pass out at 5 CFM per
person. For our family of four, that comes to 20 CFM.

These 19th century coal-mining experiments were an early basis
for ventilation standards.

You advocate the Canadian model, where the passive leakage is reduced
to 2.5 CFM. Then you would make up the difference by forced
ventilation.

Sure. This also works in most of Europe, and in many books on efficient
home design, eg The Superinsulated Home Book, by Nisson and Dutt
(Wiley and Sons, 1985.)

Is this a fair representation of your position?

Sure. It may be time now to look for better solutions instead of problems.

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they
both result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

The obvious pro with tight construction and active ventilation
is that you have real control over the ventilation and can vary
it depending on stuff like CO CO2 and humidity levels.

The only real downside is that you may need some form of
small UPS or internal battery power or failsafe to an automatic
shutter etc if extended periods without power are possible/likely.

I'd personally just have a decent warning system with a completely
unambiguous warning message where its clear what is warning about.

Another real downside is price.

Nope. You'd normally save enough on the lower
heating costs that better sealing produces.

What would be the payback?

Obviously that would vary with the location and how much heating is done.



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #51   Report Post  
gerry
 
Posts: n/a
Default
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:40:18 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:


I should point out that I am by no means an expert on HRV/ERV, but I
am not aware of any residential ERV which is recommended for subzero
temps, because they freeze up. I included the above link to very
expensive high volume commercial warm weather/cold weather ERV's just
to show that it is possible. I suspect however, that the humidity
transfer has a price.

I can not get the make/model info at the moment since I don't live in
Maine. But ME certainly experiences subzero temperatures and residential
ERV's are required in all new construction. The person I visited with one
no longer lives in that house (or new construction) so I can't call and
get the information.

One such unit is:

http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/gr...it/erv-2pd.pdf

It uses a periodic defrost cycle below 23F.

"The ERV is equipped with a special energy recovery core which exchanges
both sensible and latent heat with the fresh incoming air. The ability to
transfer moisture however, allows the core to build frost to cold outdoor
air in winter time. For temperatures below 23°F, the unit will
automatically operate with periodic defrost."

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #52   Report Post  
Ecnerwal
 
Posts: n/a
Default
I've always been more than a little suspicious that the units which try
to transfer moisture between airstreams will also transfer other stuff
(dissolved in the moisture) between airstreams, which you might rather
exhaust. An obvious example would be ammonia fumes from cleaning
products.

I'm also innately suspicious that this type of core is a better breeding
ground for unplesant life-forms.

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #53   Report Post  
Clarence
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ecnerwal" wrote in message
...
I've always been more than a little suspicious that the units which try
to transfer moisture between airstreams will also transfer other stuff
(dissolved in the moisture) between airstreams, which you might rather
exhaust. An obvious example would be ammonia fumes from cleaning
products.

I'm also innately suspicious that this type of core is a better breeding
ground for unplesant life-forms.
--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

While in Wisconsin we added 12 drops of bleach per gallon of water put into the
humidifier to assure minimum possibility of live transfer. The Humidifier had
ceramic plates to provide large evaporation surfaces and I used to have to soak
the plates in vinegar once every three months to remove the lime deposits that
formed on them. I know now that distilled water would have helped a lot for
this, but there was no reference to the water purity in the directions with the
humidifier. The did sell replacement ceramic plates though!



Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #55   Report Post  
Gary R. Lloyd
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:03:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:02:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2004 08:11:30 -0500, wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

ASHRAE's "15 cfm per occupant" standard is designed to avoid health
issues.
Smoking, radon, and so on may require more.

For a family of four, that comes to 60 CFM.

You have stated that miners have been shown to pass out at 5 CFM per
person. For our family of four, that comes to 20 CFM.

These 19th century coal-mining experiments were an early basis
for ventilation standards.

You advocate the Canadian model, where the passive leakage is reduced
to 2.5 CFM. Then you would make up the difference by forced
ventilation.

Sure. This also works in most of Europe, and in many books on efficient
home design, eg The Superinsulated Home Book, by Nisson and Dutt
(Wiley and Sons, 1985.)

Is this a fair representation of your position?

Sure. It may be time now to look for better solutions instead of problems.

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they
both result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

The obvious pro with tight construction and active ventilation
is that you have real control over the ventilation and can vary
it depending on stuff like CO CO2 and humidity levels.

The only real downside is that you may need some form of
small UPS or internal battery power or failsafe to an automatic
shutter etc if extended periods without power are possible/likely.

I'd personally just have a decent warning system with a completely
unambiguous warning message where its clear what is warning about.

Another real downside is price.

Nope. You'd normally save enough on the lower
heating costs that better sealing produces.

What would be the payback?

Obviously that would vary with the location and how much heating is done.


Of course that's true. Nonetheless it is the question a homeowner is
going to ask. What is needed for the discussion is a typical house in
a typical location, with typical construction costs and typical energy
prices.

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #56   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they both
result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

Here's my opinion:

Advantages Disadvantages

A) Natural leakage Lower first cost Higher fuel consumption
More reliable in winter and summer
Possibly better IAQ: Can't use HRV
CO, CO2, H20 often Lower RH in winter
diluted with a Wet insulation and drywall
large flow of Possible wood rot, mold,
fresh air and mildew inside walls
***No ventilation at all
on still mild days***

B) Positive ventilation More uniform fresh air
and temp distribution
around the house
It's always easier to
bring air in than to
keep it out, turning
B) into A) if needed...

In case you haven't noticed, what I've been trying to do here is to
get you to present a case for your strategy that is based upon why
this is good for the homeowner, rather than why it is good for your
political agenda. I remain unconvinced.

Pity. BTW, I'd call the information above unbiased, albeit my opinion,
and that of many others. How would you change it?

At the very least, there should be enough *passive* introduction of
outdoor air, be it through leakage or controlled flow, to keep people
from passing out (over 5 CFM per person), and then pump in the rest.

Sounds good to me, on the coldest day. Airtightness costs money. Why
overdo it? Those few cracks and crevices can be bidirectional air-air
heat exchangers with a bidirectional fan in an indoor partition wall.
BTW, extra air leakage also increases AC bills.

And I am also not convinced that people outside of acclimated desert
dwellers are comfortable and/or healthy at 20% humidity.

Pity. You might look at the ASHRAE 55-2004 standard.

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

With these "credentials," it's darkly amusing that you know so little about
building science :-) I'm only one of thousands of engineers and architects
around the world who recommend reducing air leakage in houses. You might
correct your lonely arrogant ego-filled ignorance by taking an ASHRAE short
course on ventilation or joining the Society of Building Science Educators
(SBSE). They have a nice web site.

Nick

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #57   Report Post  
Steve@carolinabreezehvac
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they both
result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

Here's my opinion:

Advantages Disadvantages

A) Natural leakage Lower first cost Higher fuel consumption
More reliable in winter and summer
Possibly better IAQ: Can't use HRV
CO, CO2, H20 often Lower RH in winter
diluted with a Wet insulation and
drywall
large flow of Possible wood rot,
mold,
fresh air and mildew inside
walls
***No ventilation at all
on still mild days***

B) Positive ventilation More uniform fresh air
and temp distribution
around the house
It's always easier to
bring air in than to
keep it out, turning
B) into A) if needed...

In case you haven't noticed, what I've been trying to do here is to
get you to present a case for your strategy that is based upon why
this is good for the homeowner, rather than why it is good for your
political agenda. I remain unconvinced.

Pity. BTW, I'd call the information above unbiased, albeit my opinion,
and that of many others. How would you change it?


Your many others are being challenged..simply address the issue...or dont.


At the very least, there should be enough *passive* introduction of
outdoor air, be it through leakage or controlled flow, to keep people
from passing out (over 5 CFM per person), and then pump in the rest.

Sounds good to me, on the coldest day. Airtightness costs money. Why
overdo it? Those few cracks and crevices can be bidirectional air-air
heat exchangers with a bidirectional fan in an indoor partition wall.
BTW, extra air leakage also increases AC bills.

Something we have been installing for years....


And I am also not convinced that people outside of acclimated desert
dwellers are comfortable and/or healthy at 20% humidity.

Pity. You might look at the ASHRAE 55-2004 standard.

I am sure that Gary is more familiar with it than you expect.
Do you own any of his books? Read any? Might be worth your time..and you
might learn something new. I sure did.


Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

With these "credentials," it's darkly amusing that you know so little
about
building science :-) I'm only one of thousands of engineers and architects
around the world who recommend reducing air leakage in houses. You might
correct your lonely arrogant ego-filled ignorance by taking an ASHRAE
short
course on ventilation or joining the Society of Building Science Educators
(SBSE). They have a nice web site.


Even more amusing is that many states have now relaxed, or will relax the
standards of sealing a home.
You are making one point, and overlooking others.

I think the only ego maniac here is you....thank God your ideas wont fly
here...nor is there a contractor in this state that would allow you to
design a home for him, when we have several here that are NOT sealed up
tight as a drum, and the owners can claim power bills that have not exceeded
$75 a month here...and we are talking fairly large square footage.
There is a limit to what you want to do, and maintain a healthy enviroment.

Nick


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #58   Report Post  
bill
 
Posts: n/a
Default
In article ,
wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

With these "credentials," it's darkly amusing that you know so little about
building science :-) I'm only one of thousands of engineers and architects
around the world who recommend reducing air leakage in houses. You might
correct your lonely arrogant ego-filled ignorance by taking an ASHRAE short
course on ventilation or joining the Society of Building Science Educators
(SBSE). They have a nice web site.

Nick

Well, you genius engineers seem to have IAQ problems and sick building
syndrome everywhere, regardless of climate.
When you fix your **** poor implimentation of IAQ that has caused more
problems than it's solved you get back to us.

Step off your hobby horse Nicky. It's legs have been cut off.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #59   Report Post  
gerry
 
Posts: n/a
Default
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:37:20 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:

On 22 Nov 2004 17:14:38 -0500, wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they both
result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

Here's my opinion:

Advantages Disadvantages

A) Natural leakage Lower first cost Higher fuel consumption
More reliable in winter and summer
Possibly better IAQ: Can't use HRV
CO, CO2, H20 often Lower RH in winter
diluted with a Wet insulation and drywall
large flow of Possible wood rot, mold,
fresh air and mildew inside walls
No ventilation at all
on still mild days

B) Positive ventilation More uniform fresh air
and temp distribution
around the house
It's always easier to
bring air in than to
keep it out, turning
B) into A) if needed...


In case you haven't noticed, what I've been trying to do here is to
get you to present a case for your strategy that is based upon why
this is good for the homeowner, rather than why it is good for your
political agenda. I remain unconvinced.

At the very least, there should be enough *passive* introduction of
outdoor air, be it through leakage or controlled flow, to keep people
from passing out (over 5 CFM per person), and then pump in the rest.

I concur - the difficulty with "positive ventilation" is it isn't
"positive", it's "active" and far from fail safe.

Controlling "passive ventilation" certainly is difficult, any minimum will
likely be grossly exceeded under some weather conditions. At least it
remains safe (death not being the sole criteria).

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #60   Report Post  
pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:03:41 GMT, bill
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

With these "credentials," it's darkly amusing that you know so little about
building science :-) I'm only one of thousands of engineers and architects
around the world who recommend reducing air leakage in houses. You might
correct your lonely arrogant ego-filled ignorance by taking an ASHRAE short
course on ventilation or joining the Society of Building Science Educators
(SBSE). They have a nice web site.

Nick

Well, you genius engineers seem to have IAQ problems and sick building
syndrome everywhere, regardless of climate.
When you fix your **** poor implimentation of IAQ that has caused more
problems than it's solved you get back to us.

Step off your hobby horse Nicky. It's legs have been cut off.

That's because he kept falling off and landing on his head
when he was a kid.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #61   Report Post  
Rod Speed
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:03:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:02:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Gary R. Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2004 08:11:30 -0500, wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

ASHRAE's "15 cfm per occupant" standard is designed to avoid health
issues.
Smoking, radon, and so on may require more.

For a family of four, that comes to 60 CFM.

You have stated that miners have been shown to pass out at 5 CFM per
person. For our family of four, that comes to 20 CFM.

These 19th century coal-mining experiments were an early basis
for ventilation standards.

You advocate the Canadian model, where the passive leakage is reduced
to 2.5 CFM. Then you would make up the difference by forced
ventilation.

Sure. This also works in most of Europe, and in many books on efficient
home design, eg The Superinsulated Home Book, by Nisson and Dutt
(Wiley and Sons, 1985.)

Is this a fair representation of your position?

Sure. It may be time now to look for better solutions instead of problems.

What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced
ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they
both result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?

The obvious pro with tight construction and active ventilation
is that you have real control over the ventilation and can vary
it depending on stuff like CO CO2 and humidity levels.

The only real downside is that you may need some form of
small UPS or internal battery power or failsafe to an automatic
shutter etc if extended periods without power are possible/likely.

I'd personally just have a decent warning system with a completely
unambiguous warning message where its clear what is warning about.

Another real downside is price.

Nope. You'd normally save enough on the lower
heating costs that better sealing produces.

What would be the payback?

Obviously that would vary with the location and how much heating is done.

Of course that's true. Nonetheless it is
the question a homeowner is going to ask.

Its unlikely to be a question worth answering in areas that
need much winter heating. In other words good sealing will
pay for itself, its a tad academic just how long that will take.

What is needed for the discussion is a typical house in a typical
location, with typical construction costs and typical energy prices.

Typical is completely irrelevant. And you will certainly
get a decent payback in areas that do much heating.

If you are anal enough to care, you need to use actual values, not typicals.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #62   Report Post  
wmbjk
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:35:47 -0500, "Steve@carolinabreezehvac"
wrote:

when we have several here that are NOT sealed up
tight as a drum, and the owners can claim power bills that have not exceeded
$75 a month here...and we are talking fairly large square footage.
There is a limit to what you want to do, and maintain a healthy enviroment.

How tight is "as a drum"? Our home is constructed of SIPs, has fixed
glazing, and filtered ventilation. About as tight as reasonably
practical. Even with the vents closed (and they're closed most of the
winter), going in and out, and letting the dogs in and out, provides
more air exchanges than we need for health and a clean-smelling home.
For anyone who lives a normal life, I think it might be difficult to
seal a home to a level that could be considered a risk to health. The
idea of building-in uncontrolled leaks seems nuts to me... although
there's no accounting for some tastes. For example - I can think of
one couple who, between expensive visits to specialists attempting to
cure severe allergy symptoms, insisted on sleeping next to an open
window in pollen season. Also, many humans prefer driving with their
car windows open instead of using the vents, and many dogs require
their nostrils to be hanging out in the highway breeze even though
their chauffeurs would be perfectly healthy with the windows shut. If
dogs could type, a pack or more would be weighing in on this thread...
:-)

Wayne

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #63   Report Post  
Gary R. Lloyd
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:03:41 GMT, bill
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

With these "credentials," it's darkly amusing that you know so little about
building science :-) I'm only one of thousands of engineers and architects
around the world who recommend reducing air leakage in houses. You might
correct your lonely arrogant ego-filled ignorance by taking an ASHRAE short
course on ventilation or joining the Society of Building Science Educators
(SBSE). They have a nice web site.

Nick

Well, you genius engineers seem to have IAQ problems and sick building
syndrome everywhere, regardless of climate.
When you fix your **** poor implimentation of IAQ that has caused more
problems than it's solved you get back to us.

Anything that is politically motivated is highly suspect. The mixture
of science and politics is giving science a bad name.

I am not necessarily opposed to tight construction, and would
encourage experimentation, but not legislation, in this area.

A measurement is worth a thousand calculations. Show me the real
numbers, preferably presented by someone without a political ax to
grind, or by someone who is honest enough to set the politics aside.

First comes health, then comfort, then energy savings, preferably
expressed as payback on investment.

If the strategy lives up to its billing, homeowners will want it, with
or without legislation.

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #64   Report Post  
gerry
 
Posts: n/a
Default
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:04:11 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:03:41 GMT, bill
wrote:

In article ,
 wrote:

Gary R. Lloyd CMS
HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
http://www.techmethod.com

With these "credentials," it's darkly amusing that you know so little about
building science :-) I'm only one of thousands of engineers and architects
around the world who recommend reducing air leakage in houses. You might
correct your lonely arrogant ego-filled ignorance by taking an ASHRAE short
course on ventilation or joining the Society of Building Science Educators
(SBSE). They have a nice web site.

Nick

Well, you genius engineers seem to have IAQ problems and sick building
syndrome everywhere, regardless of climate.
When you fix your **** poor implimentation of IAQ that has caused more
problems than it's solved you get back to us.

Anything that is politically motivated is highly suspect. The mixture
of science and politics is giving science a bad name.

I am not necessarily opposed to tight construction, and would
encourage experimentation, but not legislation, in this area.

Legislated stuff can really backfire without REAL WORLD data CORRECTLY
interpreted.

In MA (and many states) the EPA's Clean Air Act requires reformulated
gasoline (RFG) burning gasoline was mandated. Well, they never studied
what happens when deployed!

Despite intentions, the additive MBTE is causing toxic ground water
contamination. Here in Eastern MA, well water is very common even for
cities and towns with town water.

So much for science without extensive field tests!

gerry



--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #65   Report Post  
Anthony Matonak
 
Posts: n/a
Default
gerry wrote:
....
Legislated stuff can really backfire without REAL WORLD data CORRECTLY
interpreted.

Legislated stuff often backfires because it's implemented based on
political reasons and not scientific or rational ones.

In MA (and many states) the EPA's Clean Air Act requires reformulated
gasoline (RFG) burning gasoline was mandated. Well, they never studied
what happens when deployed!

Despite intentions, the additive MBTE is causing toxic ground water
contamination. Here in Eastern MA, well water is very common even for
cities and towns with town water.

The risks of MTBE were well known long before they legislated it's
use. The oil companies lobbied heavily for the use of MTBE over
ethanol because it was slightly cheaper and they didn't want to give
the agricultural industry more power and money. Remember, biodiesel
and ethanol are the two main competitors for diesel and gas.

The toxic nature of any leakage also had the effect (in California)
that nearly all gas stations had to get their tanks replaced. This
produced a shakeout of almost all the independent stations because
they didn't have the deep pockets to afford it.

Anthony
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #66   Report Post  
Joel M. Eichen
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:29:23 -0500, gerry
wrote:

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

Thanks I hate to see electrons wasted.

Joel


On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:04:11 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd)
wrote:

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #67   Report Post  
pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:42:21 -0500, Joel M. Eichen
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:29:23 -0500, gerry
wrote:

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

Thanks I hate to see electrons wasted.


You can *see* them ??? Damn !!!!!



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #71   Report Post  
gerry
 
Posts: n/a
Default
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:42:21 -0500, Joel M. Eichen
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:29:23 -0500, gerry
wrote:

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

Thanks I hate to see electrons wasted.

Joel


Hey, I'm an electron hugger, all electrons recycled here! Waste not, want
not ;-)

gerry

--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #72   Report Post  
Joel M. Eichen
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:40:59 -0500, gerry
wrote:

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:42:21 -0500, Joel M. Eichen
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:29:23 -0500, gerry
wrote:

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

Thanks I hate to see electrons wasted.

Joel


Hey, I'm an electron hugger, all electrons recycled here! Waste not, want
not ;-)

Ye-o-o-oo-w-w-w-w-ww-w-w!

Don't touch that socket!




gerry

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Water Pump / Pressure Tank Problem !!!!!! James Nipper Home Repair 9 June 28th 04 02:13 AM
AV problem with philips 32PW6005 Leeder Home Repair 0 June 5th 04 05:07 PM
Wiring problem A Nony Mous Home Repair 10 May 28th 04 03:00 AM
Boiler Problem Gradually Getting Worse Frank Davis UK diy 1 October 23rd 03 10:00 PM
CRT Contrast Problem David Ellingsworth Electronics Repair 6 October 4th 03 06:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Contact Us DIY Banter Forum Home Privacy Statement