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

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

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

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.

What do you think, Nick?

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

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.

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.


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

"~^Johnny^~" wrote in message
news
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

In article ,
(Gary R. Lloyd) wrote:

Is that enough fresh air to sustain life? Would the oxygen deprivation
cause us to be come socialists? Enquiring minds want to know.

Nick tends to ignore the fact that the same standards also require
air-to-air heat excahngers (forced ventiliation, not random leakage).

--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

=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 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?

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.