On Sunday, 28 July 2002 19:35:07 UTC+1, KP wrote:
If the front of the fire place is totally blocked, I don't think the hot
air will rise quick enough.

The AC unit is pumping air into the chimney - if it doesn't go anywhere, the pressure will rise and the air will move because of the pressure differential.

I would have thought that as long as the temperature of the air in the intake of condenser cooling circuit is cool enough for the condenser to lose its heat then the only problem would be the moisture content.

I was also thinking of doing this and was thinking I would do a couple of things:

1. Put a sort of U-bend on some rigid ducting up into the chimney so things falling down the chimney would not fall into the AC duct. You can do this, I think, by just having some flexible ducting on the end of some rigid so that it flops over once it is through the hole and unsupported.

2. Find some sort of coupling mechanism that can be fastened to the plasterboard that closes the chimney so that it is easy to attach and detach the vent, and so that I can put a cap over the end in the cooler months.and potentially pus this kind of thing in multiple rooms with only one AC unit that is moved to where it is needed.

The first bit I can see how to do, but the coupling and capping bit I haven't managed to find anything yet.

Pete

Peter Riocreux wrote:
On Sunday, 28 July 2002 19:35:07 UTC+1, KP wrote:

[snip]

Well that's got to be some sort of record.

Oh, a Google Groups user. Never mind. Move along, nothing to see.

Scott

On Monday, 8 July 2013 12:06:09 UTC+1, Scott M wrote:
Peter Riocreux wrote:

On Sunday, 28 July 2002 19:35:07 UTC+1, KP wrote:


Well that's got to be some sort of record.


Curious, not spotted that.



Oh, a Google Groups user. Never mind. Move along, nothing to see.

I used to post via a USENET client (since about 20 years ago), but have been much less active on USENET, so stopped maintaining my feed.

Is this a known problem with GG? I was not aware of it.

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:06:09 +0100, Scott M
wrote:
Peter Riocreux wrote:
On Sunday, 28 July 2002 19:35:07 UTC+1, KP wrote:
Well that's got to be some sort of record.

It's certainly pretty rare to see a follow up to a ten-year-old thread
that's not spam.

On Monday, 8 July 2013 14:10:26 UTC+1, Caecilius wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:06:09 +0100, Scott M

wrote:

Peter Riocreux wrote:

On Sunday, 28 July 2002 19:35:07 UTC+1, KP wrote:

Well that's got to be some sort of record.



It's certainly pretty rare to see a follow up to a ten-year-old thread

that's not spam.

Brain not functioning well this morning - I see, I was following up a long-dead thread.

Because I cut my uk.d-i-y teeth on USENET, I am not used to seeing old threads - Google has clearly rotted my brain.

The thing I can't solve though might still be a current topic - how to have a quick attach/detatch mechanism and a cap on some ducting.

Pete

On 08/07/2013 12:06, Scott M wrote:
Peter Riocreux wrote:
On Sunday, 28 July 2002 19:35:07 UTC+1, KP wrote:

[snip]

Well that's got to be some sort of record.

Oh, a Google Groups user. Never mind. Move along, nothing to see.

Well the response was comprehensive and well informed in spite of being
a tad "late", so I think you are being rather too harsh.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Peter Riocreux writes

Because I cut my uk.d-i-y teeth on USENET, I am not used to seeing old threads -
Google has clearly rotted my brain.

Hey, welcome back if you're re-joining us.

GG is definitely the deprecated interface, much nicer (for both poster
and reader) with a usenet client and a (free, text based) usenet server.

Many here are using Thunderbird and using Eternal September as a server.

See the recent recommend a usenet server thread.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

In article ,
Caecilius wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:06:09 +0100, Scott M
wrote:
Peter Riocreux wrote:
On Sunday, 28 July 2002 19:35:07 UTC+1, KP wrote:
Well that's got to be some sort of record.

It's certainly pretty rare to see a follow up to a ten-year-old thread
that's not spam.


I dunno, I've got diy jobs that have that sort of lag :-)

Just a roundtuit...

Darren