this is "a revolutionary system," the indoor environment is "unhealthy," with "dripping wet ceiling slabs," 100% RH, actual swimming pools, and mold and mildew, bathtub experiments say a lot about house cooling, psych charts and wet bulb temps are needed for understanding, heat gain by sun on walls matters for understanding, ASHRAE's 80 F with w = 0.012 and a cool slab isn't comfortable, case a) with no fans and b) with fans are the same, slow ceiling fans use lots of power, air moving parallel to a cool slab loses no heat, air can collect moisture without losing heat, ceiling radiation and convection are linked, using radiation conductance requires knowing a temp diff, an 80 vs 78 F mean temp makes a "very significant difference." heat required to evaporate water doesn't come from a house, concrete cannot store coolth, vapor barriers don't keep soil dry, cool slabs lose lots of heat to dry soil, they "attract water" up through 800 feet of dry soil, cooling incoming air is unaccounted for here, indoor swamp cooling requires "a high airflow," outdoor swamp coolers use "only a thousandth" of that, and 300-year-old physics is "unproven fantasy" :-)
Pointing out spelling mistakes was lame so now you are resorting to paraphrasing me out of context.
You said you like numbers, yet you have two posts now and you keep avoiding my calculations that prove the problem with your scheme.
I produced numbers, based on a low but realistic cooling load on a 1225 square foot house in a 106 ambient. This house was better insulated and more shaded than what is deemed 'good'.
It shows the flaw of your scheme -- the sensible heat of the make up air. Your scheme adds this sensible heat directly to the room air and this creates an 'upward spiral' in the amount of air that needs to be exhausted and the amount of water consumed.
Without even considering the additional heat from the soil into your cooled your cooled slab, the numbers show a swamp cooler will maintain the temperature using less air flow and less water.
When you factor in the extra heat gain and the extra water needed because you are cooling the earth, it will only show that the swamp cooler will maintain a lower temperature using less air and less water than your flawed scheme.
Which soil would tend to hold more moisture. Ground below ambient air at 106F with the sun blaring down on it, or soil which is shaded from the sun by a 66 degree slab?
Or go read Doctor Joe's comments on bricks. They get moisture in them and then when the sun heats them up, the moisture gets driven through the bricks and into the space. Seems there is something to do with a temperature gradient.
Once you are signed into google, it does not like to show directly who you are quoting. The Einstein barb is directed to the trained scientific mind of Anthony Matonak
For the umpteenth time, that sensible heat is accounted for.
I disagree.
About 9621/(22.47+ln(460+80+56.66-Twb)) = 526.6, 528.0, 527.4, 527.7, 527.6 R, ie 67.6 F in 80 F air with Pa = 0.566 "Hg.
About 80-4.6 = 75.4 F, with suitable controls.
Nick
Abby's song:
I am the very model of a modern HVAC criminal. I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral. I know the charts psychrometral and quote wet bulbs historical From Freon to swamp coolerdom in order categorical. ...
In short, when I've a smattering of elementary physicstry, You'll say a better criminal has never pumped a gas refridgery :-)
Well, please clearly account for it one more time. Again, I did a complete set of calculations based on some realistic conditions, and they show you scheme needs to move more air and evaporate more water.
So take the same load, same ambinet conditions if you dare.
Yes because you would have to admit you were wrong otherwise :)
Well you are going to have to clarify this one for me, seems like you are close to coming up with the wet bulb temperature of what you are trying to maintain the room at. Perhaps the difference is an error in the accuracy of the empirical formula?
Again take the loads I have established and prove how your suitable controls will do this.
Like I said, you are avoiding my numbers like the plague, come on take them on you can do it. You have avoided them three times in a row now. Must be "No joy in Pineville, tricky Nicky has struck out."
OK. It's 93.5 F on an average June day in Phoenix, with wa = 0.0056.
We want to make 5.7K Btu/h of NET house cooling to keep it 80 F with wi = 0.0120. If we add P pounds per hour of water to the house air and bring C cfm of outdoor air into the house, that outdoor air needs to be cooled to 80 F with approximately (93.5-80)C Btu/h, no?
Air weighs 0.075 lb/ft^3, so P = 60C0.075(wi-wa) = 0.0288C lb/h of water move out of the house, so we need C = 34.7P cfm of outdoor air to make that happen, right?
If P lb/h of evaporation provides 1000P = 5.7K+(93.5-80)34.7P of total cooling, including the required makeup air cooling, P = 11 lb/h and C = 34.7P = 372 cfm, no?
This is more efficient with cooler outdoor air, so we might well turn off the system and use stored slab coolth during the warmest part of the day. This is easier with a slab than a swamp cooler, because the slab is cooled directly and daytime setbacks are possible, since the slab can stay cool while the room air is hot.
That's an iterative wet bulb approximation based on a Clausius (1822-1888)- Clapeyron (1799-1864) approximation and Bowen's 1926 equation, mere 80-year-old simple physics :-)
So the house might need (88.2-80)425 = 3485 Btu/h.
If we add P pounds per hour of water to the house air and bring C cfm of outdoor air into the house, that outdoor air needs to be cooled to
80 F with approximately (88.2-80)C Btu/h.
If P lb/h of evaporation provides 1000P = 3485+(88.2-80)34.7P of total cooling, including the required makeup air cooling, P = 4.9 lb/h and C = 34.7P = 169 cfm.
This would be a good time for you to smack yourself on the forehead and say "We might do exactly the same thing with an external swamp cooler if we turned on the pump with a room temp thermostat and turned on the blower with a room humidistat, using exactly the same water and air flows" :-) But swamp coolers aren't usually controlled that way, and the motor heat ends up in the house, and it's nice to avoid the big box.
It might make sense to add these controls to existing swamp coolers.
This might also be more efficient and comfortable with a hollow slab that allows indirect cooling with a higher RH between 2 vapor barriers. If we evaporate water at close to 100% RH at 80 F with wi = 0.0223 and move C cfm of outdoor air under the slab, P = 60C0.075(wi-wa) = 0.0752C lb/h of water, so we only need C = 13.3P cfm of outdoor air... 1000P = 3485+(88.2-80)13.3P of total cooling makes P = 3.9 lb/h and C = 52 cfm. The RH of the 80 F house air would be about 100x0.0056/0.0233 = 24%.
See you have to go back to using an average temperature again. :)
5,700 Btu/hr covers the internal gain of the space with not much else to spare. A completely unrealistic load under with an unrealistic outdoor ambient. I will play along with your numbers for the sake of argument.
You do not have the license to round off numbers like your friend, but in this case you are conservative.
I get 9.77 lb/hr 339 CFM of exhaust with your scheme based on water evaporating at 68F. This neglects the extra heat and water needed because of the slab.
You are running ceiling fans or not?
Under this completely impractical load your scheme does work out to less air and water than a swamp cooler. A swamp cooler would be 500 CFM, 12.2 pounds/hr which ignores fan heat which would be minimal under this low flow. The floor would be dry though.
With a REAL load and using a REAL ambient condition, not the average temperature, you will find the upward spiral of exhaust rate and water consumption as I have demonstrated with PREVIOUS calculations.
Yes the scheme works when it is cool outside, but let's avoid the science fiction here.
Your scheme is all based on an 'average temperature', therefore the 'cooler outdoor air' is already factored in. You cannot use this for a 'credit' and then ignore the triple digit heat.
Your average scheme would have to run 24/7 in an average day. You have to try and cool the home down below 80F at night, in order to limit how many degrees above 80 the space rises to in late afternoon and early evening. You are trying to maintain the extreme warm/humid edge of the comfort zone as an 'average' so it sounds like cool and clammy when everyone wakes up, not bad from late morning to early afternoon, hot and humid from late after noon till about midnight, and Goldilocks would find it just right (80F) when she could finally fall asleep.
That floor is going to always be WET in June, it is an average condition design. The floor will only have a chance to dry when is cooler than average out. Maybe it is cooler than average when it is raining. Spores only need a wet food source and they are off to the races.
Chapter Two of the Pine Chronicles, still science fiction. Like saying "My 10W PV panel cannot run a stove element, but if I charge a bank of batteries for two weeks, I can fry some eggs."
The system cannot keep up during the hottest part of the day,so you are saying 'simply shut it off and it will'. You have to run 24/7 as you are designing around an average temperature. If it was designed for a peak, it would not run 24/7.
Ah you editted yourself here and added 'Twb' to the left of the equal sign, anything else you want to change? Sure there are no typos still? No subscript error perhaps? No decimal point in the wrong place?Is it wet bulb temp to the left of the equal sign? Is it wet bulb temp that you are taking the natural log of? One of those temps supposed to be a dewpoint? Is 56.66 a constant or a temperature or a multiple of the vapour pressure?
I do not see how you can approximate the wet bulb temperature from that equation as written.
Bowen did not like Willis?
Under a real load and a design temperature, a swamp cooler can work. Under the same set of REALISTIC circumstances your scheme needs a higher airflow rate than a swamp cooler and uses more water than a swamp cooler.
Your scheme has to run 24/7 on an average day so it willl grow mold and the hot make up air will make the occupants uncomfortable. On an 'average day' the condition you maintain will average out to the extreme temperature/humidity combination that is classified as comfortable. In maintaining this average, you will also have to keep the place cool and clammy at night and then allow it to be hot and humid in late afternoon. When it is hotter than an average day,as in a typical air conditioning design situation, your system it is doomed to create the comfort level typical of an indoor swimming pool.
When you factor in the heat gain of the slab, a swamp cooler will maintain a lower temperature with less air and water. Your exhaust rate will be high and triple digit make up will feel like a sirocco.
I have shown this based on a design ambient temperature and a LOW but REALISTIC cooling load on a small house. A house with better insulation and more external shading than is typical in the SW. I mentioned the flux plot before, that may help you work things out.
Fourth and final chance to take a stab at my numbers.
Lol, again with even a lower average number and once again not comprehending that cooling loads depend on more than just the difference between indoor and out door temperature.
Conveniently neglects internal and solar gains yet one more time. But then again, your scheme only maintains comfort after the sun has set for several hours and then again after the sun has only risen for a few hours.
But swamp coolers aren't usually controlled that way, and the motor heat ends up in the house, and it's nice to avoid the big box.
Under your microscopic cooling loads, fan/motor heat from a swamp cooler would be would be negligible. Under REAL conditions, as I already have shown, even when allowing for fan/motor heat, the swamp cooler will maintain a lower temperature and use less water, than your scheme.
Indirect evaporative coolers already exist.
You could have a floor made from hollow blocks and use a swamp cooler to blow air through the core. Have you ever poured a hollow slab? :)
Looks like you are finally seeing the benefit of not making the inside of the home a swamp cooler :) Wow a light bulb finally illuminates.
The chance for the Inverted Pool of Pine. A concrete roof, beams infilled with hollow blocks. Be three inches of concrete with mesh above this along with inappropriate red barrel tiles in an environment that does not really need a big overhead thermal mass.
formatting link
In the UK, you get a flooring system similar to this roof and they use it for radiant heat. Nice to walk on a warm floor in winter, no one will like a 68 degree floor in the summer.
Instead of the dripping wet cathedral ceiling, maybe I could put PEX tubing through the roof cores and heat some hot water. I will put the storage tanks which I will also paint black on top of the peak so that I can turn the roof into a solar collector and have a thermosyphon system set up.
Then I can use this hot water to drive an absorption chiller (mounted on the ground) utilizing the solar heat you neglect in your cooling calculations. I can syphon hot water out of the roof storage tanks to the chiller below but I am afraid I will need some mechanical energy to run a pump to deliver chilled water through some tubing in the slab.
I can put a donkey on a treadmill and transfer this mechanical energy to run a pump. I just have to work out the 'suitable controls' that dangles a carrot on a string in front of the donkey when the space temperature rises.
I was thinking of ordering some thermal links from grainger to trigger the relaes from the carrot storage hopper, but I can seem to find any that are set for 78F. Can you help me out with the controls?
This would "have to" appear as "the truth hurts". Average temps are great for estimating fuel consumption, but that is it. A system designed for an average temperature will not maintain comfort when it gets warmer than average.
You don't like published values, then use the average high temperature.
Your stored coolth is the convenient rhetoric you use all the time. Your average system has to run 24/7 and cannot keep up.
A system designed for a peak temperature (ie published design dry bulb) could perhaps store some 'coolth' and limit the indoor temperature when the outdoors exceeds published design ambinets if wanted.
Use the electrical power and water when you need it. Trying to store an excess wastes energy everytime, because there will be storage losses ( remember the extra heat into the slab). In addition, what you need to do is to ultimately cool the air. Your system makes the slab a middle man, everytime there is an exchange there is a loss.
Well historically you never correctly allow for the specific heat of air and I was looking at the actual amount of heat required for evaporation of water. Perhaps that is why your numbers are a little on the high side. I thought you would like a low exhaust rate and less water.
Thanks I guess were are back to the natural convection of heat to the floor, or is it the house and contents radiate all their heat to the floor, and then the objects inside and the structure of the house cool the room air.
Well for about 5 times you have avoided putting your system up against some REAL situations. You keep talking about loads of 5,700 Btu/hr and LESS and use low average temperatures. The only practicality in this stance is it provides you with rhetoric and a means to stall in an attempt to save your battered ego.
Arrogance, pride, obtuse -- just look in a mirror Nicky.
Thermostat, line voltage or 24 volt, take your pick
It is based on an average.
Lol, your first admission that it will not miantiian temperature.
dampish coolth lol, you will be constantly adding water to it.
Sorry Nicky, maybe try Chapter 7 of ASHRAE's Humidity Design Control Manual - it is an excellent book
formatting link
All it takes is one spore and a wet food source and you goose could be cooked. Mold does not eat concrete but there will be plenty to eat off of that floor. At least the swamp cooler keeps the floor dry and does provide some filtration of the outside air.
High RH in the space could cause some localized condensation in a cool corner or place where air gets trapped, then the mold starts. It needs to be wet to get going and your slab is the perfect place. No baseboard trim I hope, no capillary action up exterior and partion walls.
Here is a place that was flooded with 46 inches of water. Driving rain got through to the ceiling as well. The photo is about two weeks after the flood. no electrical power. Rampant heat and humidity.
formatting link
Note the mold only made it four feet up the wall, a little capillary action above the flood level. The dry sheetrock above shows no mold. The ceiling was infested as well although the photo does not show it.
You said you can shut it off during hot weather and the 'stored coolth' will take care of it.
I keep substituting 527.6R into the left side of the equation and the Twb term that you are taking the natural log of keeps coming up as (80+56.6)F. That is why I asked for the clarification. Is there a typo error?
Maybe try newton-raphson for the iteration. I am wondering about the
56.66 term, you confirmed its based on the water vapour pressure but the constant you multiplied it by changes its units to degrees R?
well your ego must be hurting then
No not snotty, you just cannot base the load on temperature alone like you always do.
So far you have shown that you can theoretically maintain a temperature in a house with a load so small that it is pathetic, during an average outdoor temperature. It is the only way your numbers can work.
You yourself keep harping on how you are going to 'store coolth', so the only way you will store excess cooling with this scheme is to get the house cooler than it has to be when the outdoor temperature is cooler than the average, and then hopefully use this 'stored coolth' to help to limit how much warmer the space will be when the outside temperature is hotter than the average. Your system design for an average temperature cannot keep up in the afternoon and so conditions are going to rise up out of the comfort zone even with whatever 'stored coolth' you have.
At best the indoor condition you will maintain 'averages out' to the extreme corner of the comfort zone. You will have to get cooler inside overnight with high RH and by afternoon you will be warmer and more humid than the comfort zone.
Under a real scenario your scheme has more holes than Swiss cheese, you will be growing mold, you will be moving more air through the home than an evaporative cooler,you will be using more water than an evaporative cooler and, you will be maintaining a higher temperature than an evaporative cooler.
Your ego must be really suffering.
Well you could try cooling your house by spraying water on the floor.
Should we referred to you as "Your Majesty", I can't say I ever witnessed PJM praising you. You are PJM's sister, or do you just feel like trapped in a male body?
How so, there is a significant drop in the temperature that the water evaporates requiring even more Btu/lb to evaporate?That won't happen and you always round down to 1000 anyways. You must have meant to say that your scheme is less penalized on the make up air sensible heat gain at night?
It could even drop down to below 80 at night, but because you are dealing with an average temperature, this already is covered in your
24/7 water rate that must be used. If your system was designed for the peak outside temperature, you could shut it off at night. Or you could try running it steady all night to maximize the stored coolth taking advantage of the free make up air. Just have a sonic sensor listen for the splashing as someone tries to go down the hall to the bathroom in the middle of the night and shut of the water. :)
A swamp cooler designed for the peak load could have the pump shut off and then just run the fan to keep up with the small internal gain in the middle of the night if the temp dropped a couple below 80.
Well, what can I say, if a swamp cooler would have beat your system under the microscopic load, I would have been the first to tell you. You just might have to use a chart for that one, or maybe keep your plus and minus signs straight and keep the wet bulb temperature constant :)
Before you had 10,000 Btu/hr on a 2,000 square foot slab. That was idealistic at best. Then you went down to 5700, now 3485 Btu/hr gain on a 2,000 sq ft house. Try 15,500 Btu/hr on 1225 sq ft. air temp 106, 7% RH.
You will not be able to shut it off, your design is for the average outdoor temperature. You are below that temperature at night so you have to keep running the system, store what ever the hell you can, so that when the outdoor temp rises up above that average in the afternoon, you will limit how much you exceed the comfort condition by.
If you had some system designed for a peak load, then like I have already conceded, you can try and see exactly how cool you could get that slab. But with a system designed to make comfort during an average, it has to run all the time, to keep it 'comfortable' for at least a few hours each day. You can over cool at night, but you will still be outside of the comfort zone each afternoon. Sq Lit's link of this past June's weather data showed a lot of triple digit days.
Accepted, I will just keep the insults to humourous now and not degrading. Queen's English, don't start counting 'u's
I can see why you base it on temperature only, because it allows you to attempt to rationalize cooling loads of 3485 Btu/hr so that your scheme can be shown to theoretically work.
The sun is a big part of the picture. The slab is wet, you neglect the sun so it's dark and you spread a lot of bullshit, so I say you are all set to grow mushrooms in Arizona. :)
You overcool at night, for a while in the day you hold your condition, late afternoon the "comfort zone" is history.
You want the capability of being able to store some useful 'coolth' to save on something in the heat of the day, then design a system for the peak temperature and load. Just that when the ambient gets into triple digits, you are stuck with the spiral of make up air sensible heat and the extra water meaning more exhaust. It is the big flaw in your scheme. A swamp cooler does not face this problem as it directly deals with the outside air.
No, a swamp cooler can actually work. They are out there providing cooling during triple digit ambients in homes with a poorer insulation and less external shading than I am trying to get you to apply your scheme to.
Your scheme will theoretically work, but will use more water, need to move more air, plus the issue of having a wet floor and mold. You are going to have to use ceiling fans to blast the air down though. I looked at some winter heating losses from Canada, and the portion through a slab 4 ft below grade was pretty minor and the soil is a lot colder than 80 :)
I have been jesting with this latest side track of yours. You can hook a swamp cooler up to an HRV, some one has something like this already. You could also run swamp cooler at more than 80% effective and blow pretty damp air through the block cores as well. Cleaning out the block cores is yet another problem along with all the critters that will move in there. Plus it is a cold floor, poor idea to begin with.
I looked at an old heating load from Canada, -24F ambient, 72 indoor temp, basement slab about 4 ft below grade, R12 insulated walls, uninsulated slab, soil temp about 42 F.
Lower level below grade about 1600 sq ft, upper level 1600 sq ft - well insulated R22 walls, R40 ceiling, triple pane low e windows with argon, Total heat load 45,894 Btu/hr. Sensible cooling load for 86F ambient,
48 N lattitude, blinds drawn on windows --15,321 Btu/hr.
Heat loss through floor in winter 3,197 Btu/hr . 2 Btu/hr/sq ft. So let's forget a cold floor cooling system in Arizona, with 3485 Btu/hr heat gains.
The idea of radiant floor heat is great. You get radiant transfer of heat, and some natural convection, the air does not stratify too bad and it is sure nice to walk on with bare feet.
I also mentioned before, radiant ceiling panels that will provide some sensible cooling in summer and they have natural convection working with them and some heat will directly transfer from you to the ceiling. I did not read about these panels, they yanked me from my nice comfortable desk and made me rebuild and improve the machine that makes them.
But relying on a cool slab, only really seems to work for miniscule cooling loads. It is unhealthy, it works against natural convection, your feet are going to be wet, and you will be miserable.
So why on earth do you want to keep trying to plead your case? This scheme was a dog at best and I will concede that you have have proven it can work for a dog house.
A real house, a real load, a swamp cooler is the lesser of two evils.
Sure, just like a swamp cooler. Storing coolth at night and turning the water off during the hottest part of the day uses less daily water than running it all day. The slab can store coolth. Might as well use that, vs pretending it isn't there and keeping its temperature constant all day.
As simple seekers of truth, I suggest we call this "an indoor scheme," vs "your scheme," so we can discuss it more objectively, with more respect and fewer male egos, personal attacks, ridicule, and so on.
That would use more daily water.
That's a more efficient direction. Davis Energy Systems has an evaporative system that switches from swamp cooling to dry ventilation at night, at
formatting link
but a damp slab can lose more heat to room air than a dry slab, at the same air temp, with less airflow, since its effective air film conductance is a lot higher.
Exactly the same, vs "beat," but it appears you still disagree with that.
And I suggest we drop this idea of a "microscopic load," for now. The load can be large or small, depending on the house size, the amount of insulation, and so on. For simplicity of discussion, I picked a house with 425 Btu/h-F of conductance to outdoor air (quite buildable, though maybe atypical in the southwest) so the cooling load increases with the outdoor air temp. If you like, you can imagine the load isn't entirely conductive, with sun on walls, air leakage, internal heat gain, and so on. We can talk about larger loads later, if you like, once we sort out the performance in this case.
No thanks. It's OK to say "I don't know," but better to answer the question. Q = 3485x6h = 20.9K Btu. C = 2000x4/12x25 = 16.7K Btu/F... dT = Q/C = 1.25 F, ignoring the soil's heat capacitance.
I disagree. That's easy to do, with a little precooling.
I disagree. Wide comfort ranges are possible here.
Or just eliminate them. A comment like "You're crazy if you believe that" doesn't explain how a system performs or fails to perform as described.
Arrogance aside, the first step is to determine whether it works on paper.
If we turn these words into numbers, I believe we will find the contrary, that any kind of evaporative cooler will have less daily water consumption if it runs harder at night and shuts off during the hot part of the day, because of the lower makeup air penalty at night that you mentioned.
And who is to say internal evaporation cannot? :-)
I disagree. It can equal or better swamp cooler performance.
That's plan b), with 2 watt ceiling fans. Again, let's forget that for now.
It's OK to say "I don't know," but better to answer the question...
Why clean the block cores? Your pet Gila monster might take care of critters. Ernie the Ermine takes care of Rich Komp's solar hypocaust hollow block floor in Maine.
No thanks. I'm not clear on your logic here. Arizona isn't 24 below, and dry soil is a great insulator, with helpful thermal mass.
I disagree. We might discuss larger loads later.
I disagree. You might say it's ungodly as well. In rhetoric, an assertion demands no more than a counterassertion. Numbers are more useful... :-)
Yes and it will at least maintain the condition. Your scheme cannot maintain the condition.
Or you just open the windows at night.
No Nick, not the same amount of water.
Try a real load and a real temperature then. It is a microscopic laod, that barely covers the heat from a refrigerator and a deep freezer. Show me a house with such a microscopic cooling load.
Nick, I jumped through a hoop for you and showed how much water air has to be moved with the flooded floor scheme vs a swamp cooler and it shows that under a real load and a real design temperature your system is flawed. So you keep countering with smaller loads on bigger houses.
Disagree all you want, your system can only keep up when it is at an average temperature.
It works on paper for a microscopic load and when it the ambient temperature is 12 degrees or more cooler than what a system should properly be designed for.
Because it indirectly deals with the outside air and adds this hot air directly to the space it is inherently flawed and will need more water and a higher exchange of air than a swamp cooler will. Try it at 106F,
7%RH, sensible heat gain of 15,500 btu/hr on a 1225 sq ft home.
I am getting bored of asking you to do this. You want to shut me up, put your numbers up against this test. Plain a simple, else go start another thread on bunnies.
You will find that there is an upward spiral- sensible heat of make up needs more water to cool it off, more water means more exhaust, more exhaust means more make up air.
Hey I already through down the gauntlet 10 posts ago, but in case you forgot, scroll up a few lines.
No, no comparisons at all, A slab in contact with 42 degree soil collects so much heat from the space, but a wet slab on 80 degree soil will cool a house in Arizona.
Nick, I gave you some numbers to try, put up or shut up. Its that simple.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.