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.

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

"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.

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.

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/

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

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

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

Even 'if' humidifying wastes energy by using water, etc.... it gives you
health benefits, prevents your carpet fibers from drying out , wood
from cracking , and static shocks . ITs worth the expense....and : The
only free lunch is in a mousetrap !

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...

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

We might explore a different myth. Does anyone have any real non-anecdotal
evidence that low humidity actually causes health problems? Do people who
live in Arizona have more or fewer respiratory problems than the rest of us?

Swiss people open windows and crawl under thick quilts in unheated bedrooms
in wintertime because they believe that cold dry winter air is healthier...

Nick

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

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

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.

Rod Speed appears to be Irrelevant.

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

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

Rod Speed wrote:
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

TROLL, GET IT yet everyone

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?

Give up?

If an A ft^2 x 8' tall house leaks 0.3x8A0.075 = 0.18A pounds of air per hour
and a pound of 70F air at 50% RH contains 0.00787 pounds of water and a pound
of outdoor air contains 0.0025 pounds of water and we supply 2x8.33/24 = 0.694
lb/h of water indoors, 0.18A(0.00787-0.0025) = .694, so A = 718 ft^2.

Are you talking about igloos? :-)

Nick