|
Problem with winter dryness
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. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Nick |
|
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. You can add spices to create a nice fresh scent while you're humidifying. Try slicing half an apple in the water, they're a frugal buy this time of year and a refreshing scent. |
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ... 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. Lower power and automatic cut off. You can still add an aroma oil. I use one in my house and it makes it almost a garden experience. |
Dont use your clothes dryer, hang them in the house to dry, it is cheap
as it gets. |
(read from news:sci.engr.heat-vent-ac
- note header trimming and followups-to) On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:16:27 -0600, L. Maurer wrote: On 16 Nov 2004 12:35:32 -0500, 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. You can add spices to create a nice fresh scent while you're humidifying. Try slicing half an apple in the water, they're a frugal buy this time of year and a refreshing scent. mama And then they would be harboring mold and condensation, no? Rather than artificially adding humidity, why not get a good balance? Of course, if you've got those goddamn casement windows in your place, like I do, then I inderstand. Especially if it's a rental. Caulking and weatherstripping is futile in these rat traps. In this case, just keep treating the carpet with cupric sulfate, the baseboards with captan, and the windows with malathion. Use chlorine products sparingly, where needed, to immediately kill and bleach the most aggressive mold. I live in one of those cheap rentals, and it is terrible. The best solution is to move out, but real estate being the way it is, and such... I wish I had better credit! IHTH, mama. -- -john wide-open at throttle dot info |
|
"~^Johnny^~" wrote in message ... On 16 Nov 2004 12:35:32 -0500, 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. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Or, stop dehimidifying it. Put film over the window frames, or install double glazing. In the winter, most indoor indoor moisture is lost due to condensation, not infiltration. Bull****. What do you think, Nick? |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:52:44 -0600, (m Ransley)
wrote: Dont use your clothes dryer, hang them in the house to dry, it is cheap as it gets. Also, your clothes dryer exhausts indoor air which, one way or another, will be replaced by cold dry outdoor air. Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com |
Gary R. Lloyd wrote:
~^Johnny^~ wrote: 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. We might get used to that, ie adapt. Arizonans do. We might grow more nose hair or wear mufflers or those foggy alien harmonica holders :-) Is there any easy practical way to humidify this place? Sure. Caulk it. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Or, stop dehimidifying it. Put film over the window frames, or install double glazing. In the winter, most indoor indoor moisture is lost due to condensation, not infiltration. Anybody with the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject, or even a healthy measure of common sense is waiting for your proof on that last statement. It is not only wrong, but ridiculous. Yet you state it authoritatively, as if it were a proven fact. It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick |
"~^Johnny^~" wrote in message In the winter, most indoor indoor moisture is lost due to condensation, not infiltration. -john It ****es me off when they change the laws of physics and don't tell me. |
On 17 Nov 2004 09:25:38 -0500, wrote:
Gary R. Lloyd wrote: ~^Johnny^~ wrote: 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. We might get used to that, ie adapt. Arizonans do. We might grow more nose hair or wear mufflers or those foggy alien harmonica holders :-) Is there any easy practical way to humidify this place? Sure. Caulk it. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Or, stop dehimidifying it. Put film over the window frames, or install double glazing. In the winter, most indoor indoor moisture is lost due to condensation, not infiltration. Anybody with the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject, or even a healthy measure of common sense is waiting for your proof on that last statement. It is not only wrong, but ridiculous. Yet you state it authoritatively, as if it were a proven fact. It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know. Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com |
Gary R. Lloyd wrote:
Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Almost. Early UK coal miners fell asleep with less than 5 cfm each. Current ASHRAE humans require 15 cfm. Nick |
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:57:11 -0800, ~^Johnny^~ wrote: On 16 Nov 2004 12:35:32 -0500, 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. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Or, stop dehimidifying it. Put film over the window frames, or install double glazing. In the winter, most indoor indoor moisture is lost due to condensation, not infiltration. Sure, bubble wrap the whole thing, better get the air scrubbers out and O2 generators running first. gerry -- Personal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots |
I suggest we ignore the so-called no-it-all and if it makes one more
comfortable in ones home with the proper amount of humidification, and makes one feel better physically, plus the other benefits it provides, go ahead and do it! If Einstein does not believe in it that's his problem. "gerry" wrote in message ... [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:57:11 -0800, ~^Johnny^~ wrote: On 16 Nov 2004 12:35:32 -0500, 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. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Or, stop dehimidifying it. Put film over the window frames, or install double glazing. In the winter, most indoor indoor moisture is lost due to condensation, not infiltration. Sure, bubble wrap the whole thing, better get the air scrubbers out and O2 generators running first. gerry -- Personal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots |
|
=plonk!=
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:05:07 GMT, "Ace" wrote: I suggest we ignore the so-called no-it-all and if it makes one more comfortable in ones home with the proper amount of humidification, and makes one feel better physically, plus the other benefits it provides, go ahead and do it! If Einstein does not believe in it that's his problem. "gerry" wrote in message .. . [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:57:11 -0800, ~^Johnny^~ wrote: On 16 Nov 2004 12:35:32 -0500, 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. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Or, stop dehimidifying it. Put film over the window frames, or install double glazing. In the winter, most indoor indoor moisture is lost due to condensation, not infiltration. Sure, bubble wrap the whole thing, better get the air scrubbers out and O2 generators running first. gerry -- Personal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots -- -john wide-open at throttle dot info |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:59:50 -0800 "~^Johnny^~"
used 51 lines of text to write in newsgroup: alt.home.repair =plonk!= LOL! I guess you disagree... ;) -- -Graham Remove the 'snails' from my email |
Well, I have lived in northern Canada for most of my life, and back in
my childhood days, we simply put a container of water (re coffee can) on the heater, and when we got central heat (humidifiers were not normally installed), placed the can on the vent in the kitchen (most used room), and if it was to dry in bedrooms did the same thing with those vents. No chance of a fire, burnt pot etc. all you had to do was refill the can. As an adult working in the high arctic we did the same thing in the bunk house. If you didn't, you woke up in the morning with split lips and a mouth that tasted like the cat s**t in it.... If you want to spend a fortune sealing up your house, it will save you in heating costs, but to be healthy your going to need an air to air exchanger anyway, and your house will still dry out if you have serious cold weather... Which is why even an energy efficient home will usually have a humidification system of some kind... If you live in a humid climate with out sub freezing temps, an energy efficient house will require a dehumidifier... Dave 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. Andersen says an average family of 4 evaporate 2 gallons of water per day, ie 0.0116 pounds per minute... 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3, so you can raise the RH from wo = 0.0025 pounds of water per pound of dry air outdoors to wi = 0.0047 indoors (70 F at 30% RH) by reducing the air leaks until 0.075C(wi-wo) = 0.0116 pounds of water per minute, ie C = 70 cfm. This will also reduce your heating bill. Nick |
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:05:52 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: On 17 Nov 2004 09:25:38 -0500, wrote: Gary R. Lloyd wrote: \ It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know. Maine requires very tight construction and power heat recovery ventilation. My guess is they must have _some_ science behind it. Sustaining life is an intriguing question, I wonder if they addressed it. Since the ventilation is powered and extended power outages are common in the coastal areas of the state! gerry -- Personal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:05:05 -0500, gerry
wrote: [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:05:52 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: On 17 Nov 2004 09:25:38 -0500, wrote: Gary R. Lloyd wrote: \ It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know. Maine requires very tight construction and power heat recovery ventilation. My guess is they must have _some_ science behind it. Not necessarily. politics + science = junk science Sustaining life is an intriguing question, I wonder if they addressed it. Since the ventilation is powered and extended power outages are common in the coastal areas of the state! Those who put energy savings first tend to fluff off the unimportant stuff like health and comfort. Possibly I am wrong on this, but quoting from the ASHRAE bible and long involved formulas are not going to do much to convince me. Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com |
"dave(remove wrote:
Well, I have lived in northern Canada for most of my life, and back in my childhood days, we simply put a container of water (re coffee can) on the heater, and when we got central heat (humidifiers were not normally installed), placed the can on the vent in the kitchen Back in Colonial days, a typical tiny US farmhouse was simply heated during the day with 10 cords of wood per winter, before the invention of woodstoves, insulation, and air sealing :-) As an adult working in the high arctic we did the same thing in the bunk house. If you didn't, you woke up in the morning with split lips and a mouth that tasted like the cat s**t in it.... You might have fixed that with more air sealing. If you want to spend a fortune sealing up your house, it will save you in heating costs... Air sealing materials are cheap. Labor can be cheap, if it's yours. but to be healthy your going to need an air to air exchanger anyway, Or a small exhaust fan. and your house will still dry out if you have serious cold weather... How serious can it be outdoors, to avoid condensation on R8 windows when it's 70 F with 30% RH indoors? This isn't an argument against air sealing. Condensation merely depends on indoor humidity, not the means to raise it. Which is why even an energy efficient home will usually have a humidification system of some kind... A need for winter humidification is a symptom of excess air leakage. If you live in a humid climate with out sub freezing temps, an energy efficient house will require a dehumidifier... Gary points out a 44 F dewpoint will also work without a dehumidifier, eg 60 F outdoor air at 100e^-9621/((1/460+60)-1/(460+44)) = 56% RH. Nick |
"gerry" wrote in message ... [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:05:52 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: On 17 Nov 2004 09:25:38 -0500, wrote: Gary R. Lloyd wrote: \ It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know. Maine requires very tight construction and power heat recovery ventilation. My guess is they must have _some_ science behind it. Sustaining life is an intriguing question, I wonder if they addressed it. Since the ventilation is powered and extended power outages are common in the coastal areas of the state! People just dont die in well sealed houses. Its really only seen much in trucks and people smugglers etc. |
"dave(remove).kozlowski" wrote in message news:9UXmd.254528$nl.34112@pd7tw3no...
snip As an adult working in the high arctic we did the same thing in the bunk house. If you didn't, you woke up in the morning with split lips and a mouth that tasted like the cat s**t in it.... If you want to spend a fortune sealing up your house, it will save you in heating costs, but to be healthy your going to need an air to air exchanger anyway, and your house will still dry out if you have serious cold weather... Which is why even an energy efficient home will usually have a humidification system of some kind... snip Interestingly, in all the writings I've seen on hyper-efficient houses, the consensus was that air-air exchangers are needed to remove the moisture given off from humans, showers, laundry, cooking, and such. Besides to make O2 available. Of course, condensing that moisture saves huge heat loss. Wouldn't know about such a house, but trying. I'm told people don't "spend a fortune" sealing up houses, and do it regularly in Scandinavia. Maybe leaves them some funds for aquavit? I'd call it "investing." More so each year, it seems advisable to seal it up, insulate to the max, monitor r.h. and do whatever is best for human health, like air-air. Expect I'll be going that route in a year or two. John |
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:07:26 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:05:05 -0500, gerry wrote: [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:05:52 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: On 17 Nov 2004 09:25:38 -0500, wrote: Gary R. Lloyd wrote: \ It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know. Maine requires very tight construction and power heat recovery ventilation. My guess is they must have _some_ science behind it. Not necessarily. politics + science = junk science Thus the "_some_" qualification I added. Your description is better ;-) Sustaining life is an intriguing question, I wonder if they addressed it. Since the ventilation is powered and extended power outages are common in the coastal areas of the state! Those who put energy savings first tend to fluff off the unimportant stuff like health and comfort. Possibly I am wrong on this, but quoting from the ASHRAE bible and long involved formulas are not going to do much to convince me. I certainly agree with your statement. Of course, natural infiltration is very hard to control, but the concept of being dependent upon powered ventilation doesn't thrill me. The two installations I have examined in ME (Maine) had the ERV in the basement. No alarm would sound if the fan failed meaning the ERV system useless. gerry -- Personal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots |
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:34:46 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: "gerry" wrote in message .. . [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:05:52 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: On 17 Nov 2004 09:25:38 -0500, wrote: Gary R. Lloyd wrote: \ It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know. Maine requires very tight construction and power heat recovery ventilation. My guess is they must have _some_ science behind it. Sustaining life is an intriguing question, I wonder if they addressed it. Since the ventilation is powered and extended power outages are common in the coastal areas of the state! People just dont die in well sealed houses. Well, many of these homes have propane cooking stoves (handy for power outages) and AC powered CO detectors. Only the fire detectors are required to have battery backup with low battery alarms. Houses sealed very tightly. Seems likely the average person might be tempted to use the cooking stove since most furnaces need AC to provide heat. (Oil furnaces seem most common). I haven't seen a ODP on a cooking stove yet. A couple winter days without power might just be poor for one's health! I don't think these codes mix very well when the power goes off. gerry -- Personal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots |
"gerry" wrote in message ... [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:34:46 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: "gerry" wrote in message . .. [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:05:52 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: On 17 Nov 2004 09:25:38 -0500, wrote: Gary R. Lloyd wrote: \ It seems unlikely and undesirable and avoidable, esp in this country. Canada's IDEAS (post R2000) air infiltration standard specs 0.15 m^3/h per m^2 of envelope, tested at 50 Pa, which translates into a natural air leakage of about 2.5 cfm, or 0.008 ACH for a 2400 ft^2 1-story house, 125X less than a typical 1 ACH US house. Nick Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know. Maine requires very tight construction and power heat recovery ventilation. My guess is they must have _some_ science behind it. Sustaining life is an intriguing question, I wonder if they addressed it. Since the ventilation is powered and extended power outages are common in the coastal areas of the state! People just dont die in well sealed houses. Well, many of these homes have propane cooking stoves (handy for power outages) and AC powered CO detectors. The obvious fix for that is to either have battery powered CO detectors or an UPS for those if power outages are common. Only the fire detectors are required to have battery backup with low battery alarms. Houses sealed very tightly. I doubt they are actually sealed tightly enough to kill anyone. You certainly dont see examples in the news of people being found dead in that situation. Another obvious possibility is to just have something that can be opened manually when there is a power outage so it isnt as very tightly sealed. Not a shred of rocket science required at all. Seems likely the average person might be tempted to use the cooking stove since most furnaces need AC to provide heat. (Oil furnaces seem most common). I haven't seen a ODP on a cooking stove yet. And I havent noticed anyone ending up dead like that either. The short story is that it clearly isnt a significant problem. A couple winter days without power might just be poor for one's health! Unlikely. I don't think these codes mix very well when the power goes off. Completely trivial to fix by requiring the CO detector to work thru those. Wouldnt be much harder to mandate a CO detector that provided some ventilation as well even when there is a power failure. |
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:55:23 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: well clipped to make a point People just dont die in well sealed houses. Well, many of these homes have propane cooking stoves (handy for power outages) and AC powered CO detectors. The obvious fix for that is to either have battery powered CO detectors or an UPS for those if power outages are common. Only the fire detectors are required to have battery backup with low battery alarms. Houses sealed very tightly. I doubt they are actually sealed tightly enough to kill anyone. So there are no health issues unless someone dies? gerry -- Personal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots |
gerry wrote:
well clipped to make a point People just dont die in well sealed houses. Well, many of these homes have propane cooking stoves (handy for power outages) and AC powered CO detectors. The obvious fix for that is to either have battery powered CO detectors or an UPS for those if power outages are common. Only the fire detectors are required to have battery backup with low battery alarms. Houses sealed very tightly. I doubt they are actually sealed tightly enough to kill anyone. So there are no health issues unless someone dies? Sure there can be health issues without death. CO causes headaches, nausea and sleepiness. It'll affect some people faster than others. In order for someone to die there would have to be a combination of circumstances and very poor decisions. This is a good reason to have battery backup on your CO detector and not use stoves as a source of heat. Anthony |
gerry wrote in message ... Rod Speed wrote People just dont die in well sealed houses. Well, many of these homes have propane cooking stoves (handy for power outages) and AC powered CO detectors. The obvious fix for that is to either have battery powered CO detectors or an UPS for those if power outages are common. Only the fire detectors are required to have battery backup with low battery alarms. Houses sealed very tightly. I doubt they are actually sealed tightly enough to kill anyone. So there are no health issues unless someone dies? Not as far as well sealed houses are concerned. And if you consider that say humidity levels are a problem health wise, its completely trivial to have that automatically controlled too. |
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:16:40 -0500, gerry
wrote: [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:55:23 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: well clipped to make a point People just dont die in well sealed houses. Well, many of these homes have propane cooking stoves (handy for power outages) and AC powered CO detectors. The obvious fix for that is to either have battery powered CO detectors or an UPS for those if power outages are common. Only the fire detectors are required to have battery backup with low battery alarms. Houses sealed very tightly. I doubt they are actually sealed tightly enough to kill anyone. So there are no health issues unless someone dies? Even if they do, its worth it to save Iran. _______________________________ Liberals are thieves and dictators, unlike conservatives who are dictators and thieves. |
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:46:09 -0500, Joel M. Eichen
wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:12:03 GMT, (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote: I doubt they are actually sealed tightly enough to kill anyone. So there are no health issues unless someone dies? Even if they do, its worth it to save Iran. Yes saving Iran is uppermost in my thinking too ... now can you please explain why? Yeah Nick... explain why? _______________________________ Liberals are thieves and dictators, unlike conservatives who are dictators and thieves. |
Gary R. Lloyd wrote:
So there are no health issues unless someone dies? ASHRAE's "15 cfm per occupant" standard is designed to avoid health issues. Smoking, radon, and so on may require more. It's surprising how little hvac "tech method gurus" know about ASHRAE ventilation standards. ...saving Iran is uppermost in my thinking too ... now can you please explain why? We've recently found more of our oil under their country. China did too, and they are willing to pay for it, so now we feel a need to invade Iran to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and bring them the joys of democracy, by force. I'm just back from a Bruderhof weekend. They picked me up at the Rhinecliff train station in one of their 10 used-French-fry-oil-powered Diesel Jettas. They kept the original Diesel fuel tank and added a heated 5 gallon plastic tank in the trunk. Their newest versions switch to and from Diesel to veg automatically, with a 20 sec Diesel fuel purge cycle as you turn the key off, leaving Diesel fuel in the system for easy starting. Nick |
On 21 Nov 2004 14:53:14 -0500, wrote:
Gary R. Lloyd wrote: So there are no health issues unless someone dies? ASHRAE's "15 cfm per occupant" standard is designed to avoid health issues. Smoking, radon, and so on may require more. It's surprising how little hvac "tech method gurus" know about ASHRAE ventilation standards. Do you know what a non sequitur is? Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com |
On 21 Nov 2004 14:53:14 -0500, 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. 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. Is this a fair representation of your position? Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com |
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. Nick |
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. Nick 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? Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com |
"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. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter