# pool pump

Page 7 of 8
• posted on December 5, 2005, 6:18 pm
Do you need an address to send the new keyboard to. Dang that was funny. ROTFLMAO
wrote:

--
Science seeks to make theories that
are so beautiful, elegant, and logical
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 8, 2005, 1:12 pm
Then again, we could keep our Phoenix house comfy in June (84.1 F with w = 0.0056) by moving 2470 cfm of 72.9 F daily min outdoor air through 10563 ft^2 of blocks under a 2000 ft^2 slab with Gb = 1/2470+1/(2x10563) = 2211 Btu/h-F of film and fan conductance if 24h(88.2-84.1)425 = (84.1-72.9)2211T, in T = 1.7 hours per day.
Or less, with less airflow, if we add water.
How much less?
Nick
30 MET=1.1'metabolic rate (met) 40 WME=0'external work (met) 60 DATA 84.1,0.0056,0.5,0.5 70 READ TC,WA,VEL,CLO 80 TA=(TC-32)/1.8'air temp (C) 90 TR=TA'mean radiant temp (C) 100 PA).921*3377.2/(1+.62198/WA)'water vapor pressure (Pa) 110 DEF FNPS(T)=EXP(16.6536-4030.183/(TA+235))'sat vapor pressure, kPa 130 ICL=.155*CLO'clothing resistance (m^2K/W) 140 M=MET*58.15'metabolic rate (W/m^2) 150 W=WME*58.15'external work in (W/m^2) 160 MW=M-W'internal heat production 170 IF ICL<.078 THEN FCL=1+1.29*ICL ELSE FCL=1.05+.645*ICL'clothing factor 180 HCF.1*SQR(VEL)'forced convection conductance 190 TAA=TA+273'air temp (K) 200 TRA=TR+273'mean radiant temp (K) 210 TCLA=TAA+(35.5-TA)/(3.5*(6.45*ICL+.1))'est clothing temp 220 P1=ICL*FCL:P2=P1*3.96:P3=P1*100:P4=P1*TAA'intermediate values 230 P508.7-.028*MW+P2*(TRA/100)^4 240 XN=TCLA/100 250 XF=XN 260 EPS=.00015'stop iteration when met 270 XF=(XF+XN)/2'natural convection conductance 280 HCN=2.38*ABS(100*XF-TAA)^.25 290 IF HCF>HCN THEN HC=HCF ELSE HC=HCN 300 XN=(P5+P4*HC-P2*XF^4)/(100+P3*HC) 310 IF ABS(XN-XF)>EPS GOTO 270 320 TCL0*XN-273'clothing surface temp (C) 330 HL1=.00305*(5733-6.99*MW-PA)'heat loss diff through skin 340 IF MW>58.15 THEN HL2=.42*(MW-58.15) ELSE HL2=0'heat loss by sweating 350 HL3=.000017*M*(5867-PA)'latent respiration heat loss 360 HL4=.0014*M*(34-TA)'dry respiration heat loss 370 HL5=3.96*FCL*(XN^4-(TRA/100)^4)'heat loss by radiation 380 HL6üL*HC*(TCL-TA)'heat loss by convection 390 TS=.303*EXP(-.036*M)+.028'thermal sensation transfer coefficient 400 PMV=TS*(MW-HL1-HL2-HL3-HL4-HL5-HL6)'predicted mean vote 410 PRINT TC,WA,VEL,CLO,PMV
Temp hum rat air vel clo PMV 84.1 F .0056 .5 m/s .5 .506381
Innova AirTech Instruments has an excellent comfort web site...
http://www.impind.de.unifi.it/Impind/didattica/materiale/microclima/innova/thermal.htm
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 8, 2005, 4:28 pm
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

I like line 110, it is my favourite red herring. Would it not be (TA+273) if the line actually did something in your program anyways?
10 INPUT X,Y, Z 20 Nick$= "irrellevant crap" 30 Redherring$ = Nick$30 Print X,Y,Z,Redherring$
Virtually the same result :-)
You must have found "Nick's Physics in F Minor" amusing.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 8, 2005, 4:30 pm
actually my program would not run, need to make the last line '40'
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 8, 2005, 11:25 pm

Well?
Nope. This comes directly from the ASHRAE 55-2004 standard. You might notify all 31 members of ASHRAE committee 55 of this "error," if you actually owned a copy of the standard :-)
Nick
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 9, 2005, 1:13 am
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

Oh you were asking me how much less, I thought you were trying to prove it with metabolic rates. AT 84.1 maybe consider the clo value of being naked.
You seem to be claiming that you can cool off some blocks when it is 72.9 outside and then keep the house at 84.1 with the block cores having a surface area of 10563 sq feet. Some how the transfer area seems like it would \\be a lot smaller than that, assuming 16x8x8 block with 2 @ 4x4 cores.
So again you are saying that the 'coolth' you are storing will keep the space at 84.1 when it is 88? What exactly are you saying? Cause we could really look at how you are getting heat to actually transfer from the room air to the slab this time.
At least it sounds like you realized evaporative cooling inside the home is a bad idea finally. Did you check out evap cooling in the HOF yet?

Actually all that survived the hurricane and 4 foot flood was the 2003 applications and i had it on CD. Got 2004 & 2005 enroute tho.
So it would appear that you are blindly regurgitating something you read tho, 110 has no bearing whatsover in your drivel.
Half of your variables are red herrings.

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 9, 2005, 1:31 am

C = 500 cfm and G = 1/(1/C+1/(2x10563)) = 488 Btu/h-F and Pc = (84.1-72.9)G = 5466 Btu/h and 24h(88.2-84.1)425 = (1000P+Pc)T makes P = 48.02/T+5.466. w = 0.0056+P/(60C0.075) = 0.008029+0.02134/T = 0.62198/(29.921/Pa-1) and P = 0.1x10563(1.198-Pa) make T = 1.25 hours and P = 43.7 lb/h, with a 96.6% RH under the slab.
20 A.249 30 B=-14.114 40 C=-.02134 50 T=(-B+SQR(B^2-4*A*C))/(2*A) 60 PH.01/T+5.47 70 W=.008029+.02134/T 80 PA).921/(1+.62198/W) 90 PS=EXP(17.863-9621/(460+84.1)) 100 PRINT T,P,PA,100*PA/PS
T (h) P (lb/h) Pa ("Hg) RH (%)
1.2562 43.68845 1.156924 96.57744
Nick
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 9, 2005, 5:05 am
Well Nick, the floor seems dry this time, you are blowing air through blocks that apparently have fins internal fins inside the cores to increase heat transfer area.
You pulled a few numbers out of the air, and expect some one to translate exactly what you are doing.
So let's back up and see where you got film conductance form , which I assume is natural convection coefficient and then your 'fan conductance' which must be a forced convection coefficient from.
Then lets establish what heat load you are dealing with. It seems as though it is 88 outside, 84 inside, and over night when it is 72 you are cooling off some blocks. Your incorrect use of the specific heat of air, hides what you are doing at times as well.
Then let's see what the exact condition of this 72.9 degree air is to begin with. It seems later that it was 0.0056.
Then you can pat yourself on the back because you remember how to solve for one root of a quadratic equation. It is more impressive than deriving pi.
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 9, 2005, 3:22 pm

I have some figures reprinted from from 55-81 at hand, and the funny thing is, they are based on an "Operative Temperature". So in some cases you can take the dry bulb temperature of the room air (TA) as the operative temperature. In your case, you always neglect the solar gains so yes you could take the room air temp as the operating temp, BUT you also keep waffling in and out claiming a cooled slab and radiant cooling.
You have been pushing a radiant cooling angle here, especially since you have not established convection rates of room air to the slab whether it is forced (which will be the only real way that it will work) or natural which is not going to be too great. A cool slab, stratified air-- cold feet and a hot head= no comfort. At least the floor is finally dry now LMAO.
You were pulling some convection rates 'out of the air' and coming up with a conductance again, maybe by the time I finish typing this post you will have rationalized them out. Try to actually understand the convection coefficients you come up with. I see you had copied 12 times the velocity of air in m/s squared, but that has to be something worked out for air getting blown by a human body with a warm core temperature. Lets see you work out how air transfers heat to a slab.
So when there is a radiant cooling scheme, you cannot base the operative temperature on the "Room Air Temperature" alone. You would have to use the 'air temperature' and the 'mean radiant temperature' to come up with an 'operative temperature' to use. So your floor is cold, you just have no clue on exactly how cold, and walls and ceiling will be warmer than room temperature. Maybe read your copy of the standard, it must tell you how to do it.
Little more to line 90 then TR=TA there Nick.
I also 'love' "clo" values, especially when I explain to a heavy set ovulating woman that it is not the lack air conditioning that is creating discomfort, it is the fact that her 'clo' value is too high.
Have you ever really looked at 'clo' values. You regurgitated something based on 0.5 clos and as a best case then people wearing shorts and a tee shirt would be less than 0.5 clo and may feel comfortable at 80F.
So people being comfortable in dry air at 84F, maybe a few at "Zero" clo, ie "BUTT NAKED" and with ceiliing fans blowing by them at a little faster than 0.5 m/s.
But I really love line 110, I guess you copied it not realizing that it had no bearing on what you were trying to prove especially since you already set a value for humidity ratio.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 9, 2005, 3:50 pm
I designed a few jobs where I was cooling buildings housing diesel generators for remote communities, 100 miles from the grid.
Cooling was accomplished using outside air. Did not have to use that much air moving through the space during a -30F ambinet, but in the summer the airflow sure got high.
A requirement of the electrical utility was to limit air velocity to no more than 75 FPM, perhaps OSHA has a similar requirement as well. Maybe it is to not require protective eye wear, dust and insects getting blown into your eyeballs.
0.5 m/s is almost 100 FPM. Lets look at 100 FPM. Maybe it is fast enough to take a wet bulb reading, it is a fast enough face velocity for an engineered and non-listed grease hood complying with NFPA 96, for realistic air conditioning (cooling) is a noticeable draft, but with the sirocco would it still require protective eye goggles?
Maybe you could google goggles and let us know.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 10, 2005, 2:01 am
Geez Nick
I am giving you a chance to show how the cold slab will actually make someone feel comfortable in a hot room.
I just want to see you finally figure out the slab temperature first is the catch.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 25, 2005, 5:24 pm
Looks like a post of mine is lost, will repost tonight if it still has not shown up
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 25, 2005, 6:27 pm
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

I've been watching your thread with Abby N. and I just have one question for him? Just which Law of Physics does this "Mositure in the soil would be attracted to a cool slab" Attraction conform to? Is this "attraction" thermal, electromagnetic, or some neuclar type, large or small? Does this attraction cause movement? Ok well I guess that is 3 or 4 questions......Inquiring Minds want to know.......
Me I am always interested in NEW Physics Laws.........
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 25, 2005, 8:13 pm
Me wrote:

Normals comment is completely unscientific but perhaps it's simply an observation from an unscientific observer. For example, moisture is not "attracted" to a cool glass on a warm day but beads of water form on the outside anyhow. Perhaps this is the phenomena that Abby was trying to express.
Anthony
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 25, 2005, 11:17 pm
When the moisture beads are condensed on a cold surface the dry air surrounding it gets mixed with the normal damp air again. This continuous movement toward a cold surface is known as "attraction"
George and Weiner have an "attraction" for each other.
wrote in message wrote:

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 25, 2005, 11:38 pm

http://www.concretenetwork.com/bob_cain /
<snip> The problems of moisture in and under a concrete slab-on-grade are a problem of vapor transmission through the slab. The attraction or flow of moisture to the surface is the normal flow from a point of higher vapor pressure to a point of lower vapor pressure to create equilibrium. By controlling or lessening the rate of moisture transmission in slabs-on-grade, we can successfully use impermeable systems on these surfaces. <snip>
http://www.moisture-solutions.com/productpage.htm
<snip> A similar phenomenon occurs in concrete and masonry walls/slab floors. Capillary action is a function of the natural attraction between water and the capillaries found in concrete and masonry. <snip>
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 26, 2005, 4:54 am
Nice site. Thanx

â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 26, 2005, 2:22 pm
wrote:

Or the fact that a clear sheet of plastic on the ground will become damp on the underside. In many areas, water is evaporating from soil on sunny days (and replenished on rainy ones), so anything like a tarp that traps that evaporation gives the appearance of 'attracting' moisture on the underside.
daestrom
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 27, 2005, 3:22 pm
Think about it from this angle Einstein.
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.
â
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 27, 2005, 3:50 pm
Abby Normal wrote:

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