Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark Hogan, after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web site." :-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small amount of
electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is cheaper than
the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature to be
comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing? Are you
assuming that the thermostat is at the same setting weather or not the
humidifier is on?




wrote:
Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark
Hogan, after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with
calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We
will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web
site." :-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.

There are obviously some approaches to increasing the humidity
by say not deliberately venting showers to the outside and
with dryers etc that dont involve any extra cost for the higher
humidity, but that wasnt what was being discussed.

wrote:
Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark
Hogan, after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with
calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We
will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web
site." :-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
....

There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.

Small cost? My mother decided not ot upkeep her humidifier for a few years
and her maple table split from end to end as well as her buffet cracked
right down one side. Ohhhh, the 3/8 inch cracks all close up each summer but
open again each winter. Then we won't mention the nasal irritation and
infections and the kleenex to wipe up the bloody noses. Want to talk about
zapped computer equipment for the static hitting the keyboard?

**** your economy.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid
valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
...

There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
...

There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.

Separate issue entirely.

We could all live outside without a house. It would be cheaper. No heat, No
humidifier, no sex?....No way!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than
just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid
valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
...

There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.

Separate issue entirely.

So what does not waist energy. I guess you heat with wood and dont
shower till the lake warms up.

Gymmie Bob wrote in message
...

We could all live outside without a house. It would be
cheaper. No heat, No humidifier, no sex?....No way!

Irrelevant to his point that those claiming to save money
by increasing the humidity can be fooling themselves.


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than
just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid
valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
...

There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.

Separate issue entirely.

Most heating people have always claimed humidification saves heating
dollars. Maybe they don't mention the dollars used to humidify in their
formulae?...LOL

Anyway the point is moot. People will humidify whether it costs more or
not. (see my outside sarcasm)

Interesting discussion though.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Gymmie Bob wrote in message
...

We could all live outside without a house. It would be
cheaper. No heat, No humidifier, no sex?....No way!

Irrelevant to his point that those claiming to save money
by increasing the humidity can be fooling themselves.


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to
feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the
temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than
just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water
solenoid
valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
...

There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.

Separate issue entirely.

I have pots of water everywhere there is a heater, and it has done
wonders for the air, our skin and our noses.


:-)

Luiza

Gymmie Bob wrote in message
...

Most heating people have always claimed humidification
saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL

Anyway the point is moot.

Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.

People will humidify whether it costs
more or not. (see my outside sarcasm)

Irrelevant to that claim.

Interesting discussion though.

Yeah, its one of those more subtle complexitys.

Their claim appears to be correct until you analyse it properly.


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Gymmie Bob wrote in message
...

We could all live outside without a house. It would be
cheaper. No heat, No humidifier, no sex?....No way!

Irrelevant to his point that those claiming to save money
by increasing the humidity can be fooling themselves.


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to
feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the
temperature
to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?

That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than
just
'the small amount of electricity needed to open up a water
solenoid
valve'

The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.

Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?

Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
...

There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.

Separate issue entirely.

Gymmie Bob wrote:
Most heating people have always claimed humidification saves heating
dollars. Maybe they don't mention the dollars used to humidify in
their
formulae?...LOL

Anyway the point is moot. People will humidify whether it costs more
or
not. (see my outside sarcasm)

Interesting discussion though.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Gymmie Bob wrote in message
...

2 trolls walk into a bar...

....and wind up replying to each other on Usenet.

Get a room.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Gymmie Bob wrote in message
...

Most heating people have always claimed humidification
saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL

Anyway the point is moot.

Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.

The header here says "wasted" energy. If there is a benefit that I'm
willing to pay for, the energy is not wasted, but used to achieve a goal.
Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for personal
comfort. Any energy used to achieve that I don't consider wasted, but well
spent. .

The header here says "wasted" energy. If there is a benefit that I'm
willing to pay for, the energy is not wasted, but used to achieve a goal.
Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for personal
comfort.

.... and I'm guessing the OP doesn't own a Golden Retriever (or any other
long-haired dog). Try brushing out a Golden without using a humidifier
in cold climates. Ever had an electric dog?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote in message
om...
Rod Speed wrote
Gymmie Bob wrote

Most heating people have always claimed humidification
saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL

Anyway the point is moot.

Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.

The header here says "wasted" energy.

Irrelevant when usenet threads often diverse past the original
subject header and no one bothers to change it for various reasons.

If there is a benefit that I'm willing to pay for, the energy is not wasted,
but used to achieve a goal.

Duh.

Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for personal
comfort. Any energy used to achieve that I don't consider wasted, but well
spent. .

Irrelevant to what was being discussed in this particular subthread.

wrote:
Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark Hogan, after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web site." :-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

Hi,
I care about my well being as well as my old grand piano and furnitures
in my house more than little bit of eergy use.
What kind of car do you drive? A V8 monster?, LOL!
Tony

Steve Scott wrote:
It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in this case) started the thread
and header. It is his claim that humidification wastes energy. If
you had followed the sci.engr.heat-vent-ac ng for any length of time
you'd know that.

Just more proof that Nick is an Idiot! Give him a bunch of numbers and
he will bend them to anything he wants... But in a real life situation
he sucks.. Go to one of his Seminars sometime. A real waste! I presented
some of his posts to a forum of my fellow Engineers at USC a while back
just for laughs... I got them! ;-p

Humidity in the proper proportions is beneficial for people, furniture
and electronic equipment. It doesn't cost...It pays! The Humidifier
industry is humongous. Even the medical profession agrees with this!

Steve Scott wrote in message
news
It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in
this case) started the thread and header.

Completely irrelevant to this subthread.

It is his claim that humidification wastes energy.

Separate issue entirely to the specific claim being discussed
in this particular subthread, whether the claim that humidification
can save energy because the thermostat can be set lower is a lie.

If you had followed the sci.engr.heat-vent-ac
ng for any length of time you'd know that.

Completely irrelevant that specific claim being discussed.


On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:01:20 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Edwin Pawlowski wrote in message
.com...
Rod Speed wrote
Gymmie Bob wrote

Most heating people have always claimed humidification
saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL

Anyway the point is moot.

Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.

The header here says "wasted" energy.

Irrelevant when usenet threads often diverse past the original
subject header and no one bothers to change it for various reasons.


--
'If I could reach you, I would hurt
you, Pinky' -- The Brain

A tea kettle on the woodstove doesn't waste much energy, and helps our
breathing a lot.

Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org

Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

wrote:
Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark Hogan, after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web site." :-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

Steve Scott wrote:
It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in this case) started the
thread
and header. It is his claim that humidification wastes energy.

I think Nick is correct. It's also true that winter heating
wastes energy. Just turn the furnace off and save lots of
energy.

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

Sure. Here's the email I sent to Lennox...

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:58 AM

Subject: Attn: president/legal--Winter humidification wastes energy

Gentlemen,

I suspect that winter humidification wastes vs saves heating energy, and
the savings claim is an energy myth. People tend to forget that evaporating
water takes heat energy, and that heat energy has to come from somewhere,
even if something like a humidifier belt motor uses little energy by itself.

The heat saved by turning a thermostat down appears to be far less than
the extra heat used to evaporate water, in all but extremely tight houses
with little insulation, eg submarines.

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf claims
that 69 F at 35% RH and 72 F at 19% RH are equally comfortable, but the BASIC
program in the new ASHRAE 55-2004 comfort standard predicts that 69 F and 35%
RH and 69.7 at 19% RH are equally comfortable (PMV = -0.537, see below.)

If a 2400 ft^2 tight house has 0.5 ACH and say, 400 Btu/h-F of conductance,
turning the thermostat down from 69.7 to 69 saves (69.7-69)400 = 280 Btu/h.

Air at 69 F and 100% RH has humidity ratio w = 0.015832 pounds of water per
pound of dry air, so 19% air has wl = 0.00301, and 39% air has wh = 0.00617.
Raising 69 F air from 19 to 39% requires evaporating wh-wl = 0.00316 pounds
of water per pound of dry air. Dry air weighs about 0.075 lb per cubic foot.

With 0.5x2400x8/60 = 160 cfm or 9600 ft^3/h or 720 pounds per hour of
air leakage, raising the indoor RH from 19 to 39% requires evaporating
720x0.00316 = 2.275 pounds of water per hour, which requires about 2275
Btu/h of heat energy, so it looks like humidifying this fairly airtight
house wastes 2275/280 = 8 times more energy than it "saves." And many
S houses are less airtight, so humidification would waste more energy.

Please modify your energy-savings claim.

Thank you.

Nick Pine

10 SCREEN 9:KEY OFF
20 CLO=1'clothing insulation (clo)
30 MET=1.1'metabolic rate (met)
40 WME=0'external work (met)
50 DATA 69,35,69.74,19
60 FOR CASE=1 TO 2
70 READ TC,RC
80 TA=(TC-32)/1.8'air temp (C)
90 TR=TA'mean radiant temp (C)
100 VEL=.1'air velocity
110 RH=RC'relative humidity (%)
120 PA=0'water vapor pressure
130 DEF FNPS(T)=EXP(16.6536-4030.183/(TA+235))'sat vapor pressure, kPa
140 IF PA=0 THEN PA=RH*10*FNPS(TA)'water vapor pressure, Pa
150 ICL=.155*CLO'clothing resistance (m^2K/W)
160 M=MET*58.15'metabolic rate (W/m^2)
170 W=WME*58.15'external work in (W/m^2)
180 MW=M-W'internal heat production
190 IF ICL.078 THEN FCL=1+1.29*ICL ELSE FCL=1.05+.645*ICL'clothing factor
200 HCF=12.1*SQR(VEL)'forced convection conductance
210 TAA=TA+273'air temp (K)
220 TRA=TR+273'mean radiant temp (K)
230 TCLA=TAA+(35.5-TA)/(3.5*(6.45*ICL+.1))'est clothing temp
240 P1=ICL*FCL:P2=P1*3.96:P3=P1*100:P4=P1*TAA'intermed iate values
250 P5=308.7-.028*MW+P2*(TRA/100)^4
260 XN=TCLA/100
270 XF=XN
280 EPS=.00015'stop iteration when met
290 XF=(XF+XN)/2'natural convection conductance
300 HCN=2.38*ABS(100*XF-TAA)^.25
310 IF HCFHCN THEN HC=HCF ELSE HC=HCN
320 XN=(P5+P4*HC-P2*XF^4)/(100+P3*HC)
330 IF ABS(XN-XF)EPS GOTO 290
340 TCL=100*XN-273'clothing surface temp (C)
350 HL1=.00305*(5733-6.99*MW-PA)'heat loss diff through skin
360 IF MW58.15 THEN HL2=.42*(MW-58.15) ELSE HL2=0'heat loss by sweating
370 HL3=.000017*M*(5867-PA)'latent respiration heat loss
380 HL4=.0014*M*(34-TA)'dry respiration heat loss
390 HL5=3.96*FCL*(XN^4-(TRA/100)^4)'heat loss by radiation
400 HL6=FCL*HC*(TCL-TA)'heat loss by convection
410 TS=.303*EXP(-.036*M)+.028'thermal sensation transfer coefficient
420 PMV=TS*(MW-HL1-HL2-HL3-HL4-HL5-HL6)'predicted mean vote
430 PPD=100-95*EXP(-.03353*PMV^4-.2179*PMV^2)'predicted % dissatisfied
440 PRINT TC,RC,PMV
450 NEXT CASE

69 35 -.5376486
69.74 19 -.5372599

Engineering VP Mark Hogan said Lennox was embarrassed by all this and
he didn't know where their numbers had come from, and he thanked me
for bringing this to their attention and said they are changing their
printed brochures and Aprilaire web site energy-savings claim.

This reminds me of David and Goliath :-)

Nick

Nick avecspam, or your other names. Who cares, live in your cave, be
happy.

Tony Hwang wrote:

wrote:

Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark Hogan,
after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with
calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web site."
:-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

Hi,
I care about my well being as well as my old grand piano and furnitures
in my house more than little bit of eergy use.
What kind of car do you drive? A V8 monster?, LOL!
Tony

I posted in mcfl about adding a furnace humidifier for comfort. We went
through a winter without and I had daily nose bleeds. We have plaster
walls and noticed more cracks after that winter. No way will we go
without the humidification. I don't feel it is a waste of energy. In
fact, I posted a link where it explains that extra humidifacation
actually saves you energy. Oh, and I do drive a V8 luxury car simply
because of the comfort level. You only go through this world once so
you might as well do it in style I know that doesn't mesh with
Nick's point of view but hey, I'm frugal in other ways.

On 11 Feb 2005 08:33:11 -0500, wrote:

OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

Sure. Here's the email I sent to Lennox...

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:58 AM

Subject: Attn: president/legal--Winter humidification wastes energy

Bull****.

**REQUIRES** energy, yes. but *WASTES** it ??? That value
judgement changes the entire issue.

As always, you ignore reality, and look to some 'extremes of
the envelope' from some ASHRAE chart to define what 'comfortable' is.

The simple fact is that 20 % is uncomfortably dry to most
people. 'Comfort' is a VERY subjective thing.

I have my thermostat set at 74 right now. Does that COST more
energy than if I set it at 70 ? Of course. Is that energy WASTED ?
Not in my opinion, which is the only opinion that matters in this
house.

Could you whip out some chart to prove I would prefer it to be
set at 70 ? Knowing you, you probably could. But in the meantime,
keep your grubby little paws of my thermostat.

I suspect that winter humidification wastes vs saves heating energy, and
the savings claim is an energy myth. People tend to forget that evaporating
water takes heat energy, and that heat energy has to come from somewhere,
even if something like a humidifier belt motor uses little energy by itself.

And you forget that people CHOOSE to SPEND ( not 'WASTE' )
energy to achieve comfort.

Engineering VP Mark Hogan said Lennox was embarrassed by all this and
he didn't know where their numbers had come from, and he thanked me
for bringing this to their attention and said they are changing their
printed brochures and Aprilaire web site energy-savings claim.

He'll say ANYTHING to get rid of your ass ;-)

This reminds me of David and Goliath :-)

Reminds me of Harvey the 6 foot ASHRAE bunny.



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/

Serendipity wrote:

...I posted a link where it explains that extra humidifacation
actually saves you energy.

Post it again. So many myths. So little time...

Nick

Turning down from 69.7 to 69 is not going to do much, lets get frugal
and look at keeping a home at 69 instead of 72.

Compare 72 @ 29% to 69 @ 36%, similar enthalpy. Almost think Lennox had
a typo. Look forward to seeing their new brochure, to see if in fact
you have basically pointed out a typo. 72 @ 29% vs 69 @ 35%, or 72 @
19% vs 69 @ 25%

2400 sq ft with a conductance of 400 btu/(hr F), again this is heat
conducting out of the house.

Air infiltration equivalent to 160 CFM.

So setting thermostat down from 72 to 69 saves 3 x (400 +1.08 x 160) =
1718.4 Btu/hr.

As a check, assuming 70F indoor temp, 0F outdoor temp, heatloss of home
in the ball park of 70x (400 + 1.08 x 160)= 40,096 Btu/hr. Wow a 45 MBH
90% eff gas furnace would be right on the money, and this is typically
the smallest size condensing furnace on the market, so this scenario
sounds realistic.

The house volume is about 19,200 cubic feet so the difference in the
amount of water held in the air is a little under one pound and the
heat to evaporate this moisture will be a maybe 900 Btu.

Save 1718 Btu then waste 900 to evaporate some water.

So there is a 'savings' of 818 Btu.

Yes the motors that turn humidifier drums use energy, but energy is
conserved and ultimately this energy creates heat in the home as well,
so it is not wasted.


wrote:
OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

Sure. Here's the email I sent to Lennox...

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:58 AM

Subject: Attn: president/legal--Winter humidification wastes energy

Gentlemen,

I suspect that winter humidification wastes vs saves heating energy,
and
the savings claim is an energy myth. People tend to forget that
evaporating
water takes heat energy, and that heat energy has to come from
somewhere,
even if something like a humidifier belt motor uses little energy by
itself.

The heat saved by turning a thermostat down appears to be far less
than
the extra heat used to evaporate water, in all but extremely tight
houses
with little insulation, eg submarines.

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf
claims
that 69 F at 35% RH and 72 F at 19% RH are equally comfortable, but
the BASIC
program in the new ASHRAE 55-2004 comfort standard predicts that 69 F
and 35%
RH and 69.7 at 19% RH are equally comfortable (PMV = -0.537, see
below.)

If a 2400 ft^2 tight house has 0.5 ACH and say, 400 Btu/h-F of
conductance,
turning the thermostat down from 69.7 to 69 saves (69.7-69)400 = 280
Btu/h.

Air at 69 F and 100% RH has humidity ratio w = 0.015832 pounds of
water per
pound of dry air, so 19% air has wl = 0.00301, and 39% air has wh =
0.00617.
Raising 69 F air from 19 to 39% requires evaporating wh-wl = 0.00316
pounds
of water per pound of dry air. Dry air weighs about 0.075 lb per
cubic foot.

With 0.5x2400x8/60 = 160 cfm or 9600 ft^3/h or 720 pounds per hour of
air leakage, raising the indoor RH from 19 to 39% requires
evaporating
720x0.00316 = 2.275 pounds of water per hour, which requires about
2275
Btu/h of heat energy, so it looks like humidifying this fairly
airtight
house wastes 2275/280 = 8 times more energy than it "saves." And many

S houses are less airtight, so humidification would waste more
energy.

Please modify your energy-savings claim.

Thank you.

Nick Pine

10 SCREEN 9:KEY OFF
20 CLO=1'clothing insulation (clo)
30 MET=1.1'metabolic rate (met)
40 WME=0'external work (met)
50 DATA 69,35,69.74,19
60 FOR CASE=1 TO 2
70 READ TC,RC
80 TA=(TC-32)/1.8'air temp (C)
90 TR=TA'mean radiant temp (C)
100 VEL=.1'air velocity
110 RH=RC'relative humidity (%)
120 PA=0'water vapor pressure
130 DEF FNPS(T)=EXP(16.6536-4030.183/(TA+235))'sat vapor pressure,
kPa
140 IF PA=0 THEN PA=RH*10*FNPS(TA)'water vapor pressure, Pa
150 ICL=.155*CLO'clothing resistance (m^2K/W)
160 M=MET*58.15'metabolic rate (W/m^2)
170 W=WME*58.15'external work in (W/m^2)
180 MW=M-W'internal heat production
190 IF ICL.078 THEN FCL=1+1.29*ICL ELSE FCL=1.05+.645*ICL'clothing
factor
200 HCF=12.1*SQR(VEL)'forced convection conductance
210 TAA=TA+273'air temp (K)
220 TRA=TR+273'mean radiant temp (K)
230 TCLA=TAA+(35.5-TA)/(3.5*(6.45*ICL+.1))'est clothing temp
240 P1=ICL*FCL:P2=P1*3.96:P3=P1*100:P4=P1*TAA'intermed iate values
250 P5=308.7-.028*MW+P2*(TRA/100)^4
260 XN=TCLA/100
270 XF=XN
280 EPS=.00015'stop iteration when met
290 XF=(XF+XN)/2'natural convection conductance
300 HCN=2.38*ABS(100*XF-TAA)^.25
310 IF HCFHCN THEN HC=HCF ELSE HC=HCN
320 XN=(P5+P4*HC-P2*XF^4)/(100+P3*HC)
330 IF ABS(XN-XF)EPS GOTO 290
340 TCL=100*XN-273'clothing surface temp (C)
350 HL1=.00305*(5733-6.99*MW-PA)'heat loss diff through skin
360 IF MW58.15 THEN HL2=.42*(MW-58.15) ELSE HL2=0'heat loss by
sweating
370 HL3=.000017*M*(5867-PA)'latent respiration heat loss
380 HL4=.0014*M*(34-TA)'dry respiration heat loss
390 HL5=3.96*FCL*(XN^4-(TRA/100)^4)'heat loss by radiation
400 HL6=FCL*HC*(TCL-TA)'heat loss by convection
410 TS=.303*EXP(-.036*M)+.028'thermal sensation transfer coefficient
420 PMV=TS*(MW-HL1-HL2-HL3-HL4-HL5-HL6)'predicted mean vote
430 PPD=100-95*EXP(-.03353*PMV^4-.2179*PMV^2)'predicted %
dissatisfied
440 PRINT TC,RC,PMV
450 NEXT CASE

69 35 -.5376486
69.74 19 -.5372599

Engineering VP Mark Hogan said Lennox was embarrassed by all this and
he didn't know where their numbers had come from, and he thanked me
for bringing this to their attention and said they are changing their
printed brochures and Aprilaire web site energy-savings claim.

This reminds me of David and Goliath :-)

Nick

Lol, the bunny's off gassing would humidify the place

Abby Normal wrote:

Homes built to current Canadian codes, and not as stringent as the R2000
requirements concerning air tightness, would still be perhaps 0.3 ACH
per hour and will still require mechanical ventilation to reduce RH
in the winter.

Andersen says an average family evaporates 2 gal/day of water. At that rate,
how large could a 0.3 ACH house be, with indoor air at 70 F and 50% RH?

A house that needs a humidifier is a loose house. Perhaps you can
calculate that it does takes more energy to humidify, but this energy
is not wasted when it creates comfort.

Lennox claimed that winter humidification saved energy.

PS there was a poster on another forum looking for an equation that
relates W to RH and DB temp. I told him to check sci.engr.heat-vent-ac,
as I am sure you would have an exponential equation that approximates
this for him.

I didn't see that posting. He might consult p j m of the Pulsating Rectum.

He is looking for W= Function of RH + Function of T...

Psat = e^(17.863-9621/(T+460)), Pa = RHPsat/100, and w = 0.62198/(29.921/Pa-1).

Nick

Mine is rated about 66 pint of water a day. That's a lot of pot
filling...LOL

"Luiza" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have pots of water everywhere there is a heater, and it has done
wonders for the air, our skin and our noses.


:-)

Luiza

It is all semantics for the purpose of one-upmanship here.

If you argue black is black they will disagree with you. Lack of control
phobia.

"Don Ocean" wrote in message
...
Steve Scott wrote:
It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in this case) started the thread
and header. It is his claim that humidification wastes energy. If
you had followed the sci.engr.heat-vent-ac ng for any length of time
you'd know that.

Just more proof that Nick is an Idiot! Give him a bunch of numbers and
he will bend them to anything he wants... But in a real life situation
he sucks.. Go to one of his Seminars sometime. A real waste! I presented
some of his posts to a forum of my fellow Engineers at USC a while back
just for laughs... I got them! ;-p

Humidity in the proper proportions is beneficial for people, furniture
and electronic equipment. It doesn't cost...It pays! The Humidifier
industry is humongous. Even the medical profession agrees with this!

My point exactly!
Be prepared to be called troll and idiot....LOL

"Tony Wesley" wrote in message
oups.com...

Steve Scott wrote:
It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in this case) started the
thread
and header. It is his claim that humidification wastes energy.

I think Nick is correct. It's also true that winter heating
wastes energy. Just turn the furnace off and save lots of
energy.

I didn't post the garbage you attributed to me.

On your bike bottom feeder.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Gymmie Bob wrote:
Most heating people have always claimed humidification saves heating
dollars. Maybe they don't mention the dollars used to humidify in
their
formulae?...LOL

Anyway the point is moot. People will humidify whether it costs more
or
not. (see my outside sarcasm)

Interesting discussion though.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Gymmie Bob wrote in message
...

2 trolls walk into a bar...

...and wind up replying to each other on Usenet.

Get a room.

All semantics!

It doesn't cost anymore for me to heat my home to 69 deg or 72 no matter
what the humidity in the summer.

Forgot a big factor boys.

"Abby Normal" wrote in message
oups.com...
Turning down from 69.7 to 69 is not going to do much, lets get frugal
and look at keeping a home at 69 instead of 72.

Compare 72 @ 29% to 69 @ 36%, similar enthalpy. Almost think Lennox had
a typo. Look forward to seeing their new brochure, to see if in fact
you have basically pointed out a typo. 72 @ 29% vs 69 @ 35%, or 72 @
19% vs 69 @ 25%

2400 sq ft with a conductance of 400 btu/(hr F), again this is heat
conducting out of the house.

Air infiltration equivalent to 160 CFM.

So setting thermostat down from 72 to 69 saves 3 x (400 +1.08 x 160) =
1718.4 Btu/hr.

As a check, assuming 70F indoor temp, 0F outdoor temp, heatloss of home
in the ball park of 70x (400 + 1.08 x 160)= 40,096 Btu/hr. Wow a 45 MBH
90% eff gas furnace would be right on the money, and this is typically
the smallest size condensing furnace on the market, so this scenario
sounds realistic.

The house volume is about 19,200 cubic feet so the difference in the
amount of water held in the air is a little under one pound and the
heat to evaporate this moisture will be a maybe 900 Btu.

Save 1718 Btu then waste 900 to evaporate some water.

So there is a 'savings' of 818 Btu.

Yes the motors that turn humidifier drums use energy, but energy is
conserved and ultimately this energy creates heat in the home as well,
so it is not wasted.


wrote:
OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?

Sure. Here's the email I sent to Lennox...

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:58 AM

Subject: Attn: president/legal--Winter humidification wastes energy

Gentlemen,

I suspect that winter humidification wastes vs saves heating energy,
and
the savings claim is an energy myth. People tend to forget that
evaporating
water takes heat energy, and that heat energy has to come from
somewhere,
even if something like a humidifier belt motor uses little energy by
itself.

The heat saved by turning a thermostat down appears to be far less
than
the extra heat used to evaporate water, in all but extremely tight
houses
with little insulation, eg submarines.

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf
claims
that 69 F at 35% RH and 72 F at 19% RH are equally comfortable, but
the BASIC
program in the new ASHRAE 55-2004 comfort standard predicts that 69 F
and 35%
RH and 69.7 at 19% RH are equally comfortable (PMV = -0.537, see
below.)

If a 2400 ft^2 tight house has 0.5 ACH and say, 400 Btu/h-F of
conductance,
turning the thermostat down from 69.7 to 69 saves (69.7-69)400 = 280
Btu/h.

Air at 69 F and 100% RH has humidity ratio w = 0.015832 pounds of
water per
pound of dry air, so 19% air has wl = 0.00301, and 39% air has wh =
0.00617.
Raising 69 F air from 19 to 39% requires evaporating wh-wl = 0.00316
pounds
of water per pound of dry air. Dry air weighs about 0.075 lb per
cubic foot.

With 0.5x2400x8/60 = 160 cfm or 9600 ft^3/h or 720 pounds per hour of
air leakage, raising the indoor RH from 19 to 39% requires
evaporating
720x0.00316 = 2.275 pounds of water per hour, which requires about
2275
Btu/h of heat energy, so it looks like humidifying this fairly
airtight
house wastes 2275/280 = 8 times more energy than it "saves." And many

S houses are less airtight, so humidification would waste more
energy.

Please modify your energy-savings claim.

Thank you.

Nick Pine

10 SCREEN 9:KEY OFF
20 CLO=1'clothing insulation (clo)
30 MET=1.1'metabolic rate (met)
40 WME=0'external work (met)
50 DATA 69,35,69.74,19
60 FOR CASE=1 TO 2
70 READ TC,RC
80 TA=(TC-32)/1.8'air temp (C)
90 TR=TA'mean radiant temp (C)
100 VEL=.1'air velocity
110 RH=RC'relative humidity (%)
120 PA=0'water vapor pressure
130 DEF FNPS(T)=EXP(16.6536-4030.183/(TA+235))'sat vapor pressure,
kPa
140 IF PA=0 THEN PA=RH*10*FNPS(TA)'water vapor pressure, Pa
150 ICL=.155*CLO'clothing resistance (m^2K/W)
160 M=MET*58.15'metabolic rate (W/m^2)
170 W=WME*58.15'external work in (W/m^2)
180 MW=M-W'internal heat production
190 IF ICL.078 THEN FCL=1+1.29*ICL ELSE FCL=1.05+.645*ICL'clothing
factor
200 HCF=12.1*SQR(VEL)'forced convection conductance
210 TAA=TA+273'air temp (K)
220 TRA=TR+273'mean radiant temp (K)
230 TCLA=TAA+(35.5-TA)/(3.5*(6.45*ICL+.1))'est clothing temp
240 P1=ICL*FCL:P2=P1*3.96:P3=P1*100:P4=P1*TAA'intermed iate values
250 P5=308.7-.028*MW+P2*(TRA/100)^4
260 XN=TCLA/100
270 XF=XN
280 EPS=.00015'stop iteration when met
290 XF=(XF+XN)/2'natural convection conductance
300 HCN=2.38*ABS(100*XF-TAA)^.25
310 IF HCFHCN THEN HC=HCF ELSE HC=HCN
320 XN=(P5+P4*HC-P2*XF^4)/(100+P3*HC)
330 IF ABS(XN-XF)EPS GOTO 290
340 TCL=100*XN-273'clothing surface temp (C)
350 HL1=.00305*(5733-6.99*MW-PA)'heat loss diff through skin
360 IF MW58.15 THEN HL2=.42*(MW-58.15) ELSE HL2=0'heat loss by
sweating
370 HL3=.000017*M*(5867-PA)'latent respiration heat loss
380 HL4=.0014*M*(34-TA)'dry respiration heat loss
390 HL5=3.96*FCL*(XN^4-(TRA/100)^4)'heat loss by radiation
400 HL6=FCL*HC*(TCL-TA)'heat loss by convection
410 TS=.303*EXP(-.036*M)+.028'thermal sensation transfer coefficient
420 PMV=TS*(MW-HL1-HL2-HL3-HL4-HL5-HL6)'predicted mean vote
430 PPD=100-95*EXP(-.03353*PMV^4-.2179*PMV^2)'predicted %
dissatisfied
440 PRINT TC,RC,PMV
450 NEXT CASE

69 35 -.5376486
69.74 19 -.5372599

Engineering VP Mark Hogan said Lennox was embarrassed by all this and
he didn't know where their numbers had come from, and he thanked me
for bringing this to their attention and said they are changing their
printed brochures and Aprilaire web site energy-savings claim.

This reminds me of David and Goliath :-)

Nick

Most of us have jobs though.

"Steve Spence" wrote in message
...
A tea kettle on the woodstove doesn't waste much energy, and helps our
breathing a lot.

Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org

Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html

wrote:
Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark Hogan,
after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with
calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web site."
:-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

I just have pot. It's done wonders too.

I'd like to see his response, can you post it?

VP's don't get to be VP's be saying things like "Lennox is embarrased"
and "he didn't know where the numbers come from".

Not that I even understand any of it, but -

I don't buy it.

Steve Spence wrote in message
...

A tea kettle on the woodstove doesn't waste much energy,

Irrelevant to the Lennox claim about their humidifiers.

and helps our breathing a lot.

Irrelevant to the Lennox claim about their humidifiers.


wrote:
Just got a call from Lennox International's Engineering VP Mark Hogan, after
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with
calculations.

He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web site." :-)

Nick

http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Len...umidifiers.pdf

Nomad: Non sequiter.
Kirk: I AM the Kirk unit.
Spock: Illogical.
Bones: I'm just a simple country doctor.
Scotty: She'll not take much more.
Sulu: Aye, Captain.
Uhura: Star fleet on ch 9, captain.
Chekov: Aye, Captain.

..........TIMPANI PLEASE......

ROD SPEED: Irrelevant.

wrote:

Serendipity wrote:


...I posted a link where it explains that extra humidifacation
actually saves you energy.


Post it again. So many myths. So little time...

Nick

That precisely is what google is for. I don't need to waste energy
posting the same thing twice