\
Maine requires very tight construction and power heat recovery ventilation. My guess is they must have _some_ science behind it.
Sustaining life is an intriguing question, I wonder if they addressed it. Since the ventilation is powered and extended power outages are common in the coastal areas of the state!
gerry
Not necessarily. politics + science = junk science
Those who put energy savings first tend to fluff off the unimportant stuff like health and comfort.
Possibly I am wrong on this, but quoting from the ASHRAE bible and long involved formulas are not going to do much to convince me.
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
People just dont die in well sealed houses.
Its really only seen much in trucks and people smugglers etc.
Interestingly, in all the writings I've seen on hyper-efficient houses, the consensus was that air-air exchangers are needed to remove the moisture given off from humans, showers, laundry, cooking, and such. Besides to make O2 available. Of course, condensing that moisture saves huge heat loss.
Wouldn't know about such a house, but trying. I'm told people don't "spend a fortune" sealing up houses, and do it regularly in Scandinavia. Maybe leaves them some funds for aquavit? I'd call it "investing."
More so each year, it seems advisable to seal it up, insulate to the max, monitor r.h. and do whatever is best for human health, like air-air. Expect I'll be going that route in a year or two.
John
Thus the "_some_" qualification I added. Your description is better ;-)
I certainly agree with your statement. Of course, natural infiltration is very hard to control, but the concept of being dependent upon powered ventilation doesn't thrill me. The two installations I have examined in ME (Maine) had the ERV in the basement. No alarm would sound if the fan failed meaning the ERV system useless.
gerry
Well, many of these homes have propane cooking stoves (handy for power outages) and AC powered CO detectors. Only the fire detectors are required to have battery backup with low battery alarms. Houses sealed very tightly.
Seems likely the average person might be tempted to use the cooking stove since most furnaces need AC to provide heat. (Oil furnaces seem most common). I haven't seen a ODP on a cooking stove yet.
A couple winter days without power might just be poor for one's health! I don't think these codes mix very well when the power goes off.
gerry
The obvious fix for that is to either have battery powered CO detectors or an UPS for those if power outages are common.
I doubt they are actually sealed tightly enough to kill anyone.
You certainly dont see examples in the news of people being found dead in that situation.
Another obvious possibility is to just have something that can be opened manually when there is a power outage so it isnt as very tightly sealed.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
And I havent noticed anyone ending up dead like that either.
The short story is that it clearly isnt a significant problem.
Unlikely.
Completely trivial to fix by requiring the CO detector to work thru those.
Wouldnt be much harder to mandate a CO detector that provided some ventilation as well even when there is a power failure.
well clipped to make a point
So there are no health issues unless someone dies?
gerry
Sure there can be health issues without death. CO causes headaches, nausea and sleepiness. It'll affect some people faster than others.
In order for someone to die there would have to be a combination of circumstances and very poor decisions. This is a good reason to have battery backup on your CO detector and not use stoves as a source of heat.
Anthony
Not as far as well sealed houses are concerned.
And if you consider that say humidity levels are a problem health wise, its completely trivial to have that automatically controlled too.
Even if they do, its worth it to save Iran.
_______________________________
Liberals are thieves and dictators, unlike conservatives who are dictators and thieves.
Yes saving Iran is uppermost in my thinking too ... now can you please explain why?
Yeah Nick... explain why?
_______________________________
Liberals are thieves and dictators, unlike conservatives who are dictators and thieves.
ASHRAE's "15 cfm per occupant" standard is designed to avoid health issues. Smoking, radon, and so on may require more. It's surprising how little hvac "tech method gurus" know about ASHRAE ventilation standards.
We've recently found more of our oil under their country. China did too, and they are willing to pay for it, so now we feel a need to invade Iran to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and bring them the joys of democracy, by force.
I'm just back from a Bruderhof weekend. They picked me up at the Rhinecliff train station in one of their 10 used-French-fry-oil-powered Diesel Jettas. They kept the original Diesel fuel tank and added a heated 5 gallon plastic tank in the trunk. Their newest versions switch to and from Diesel to veg automatically, with a 20 sec Diesel fuel purge cycle as you turn the key off, leaving Diesel fuel in the system for easy starting.
Nick
Do you know what a non sequitur is?
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
For a family of four, that comes to 60 CFM.
You have stated that miners have been shown to pass out at 5 CFM per person. For our family of four, that comes to 20 CFM.
You advocate the Canadian model, where the passive leakage is reduced to 2.5 CFM. Then you would make up the difference by forced ventilation.
Is this a fair representation of your position?
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
These 19th century coal-mining experiments were an early basis for ventilation standards.
Sure. This also works in most of Europe, and in many books on efficient home design, eg The Superinsulated Home Book, by Nisson and Dutt (Wiley and Sons, 1985.)
Sure. It may be time now to look for better solutions instead of problems.
Nick
FACTS about Iran's "nukes"
Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned in the US press:
1- The Bushehr reactor--which was started under the Shah with US support--is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a lightwater reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits that much.Proof: UN clears Iran nuclear facility The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of concern. (SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)
2- Note how the articles confuse a nuclear "weapons" program with a plain "nuclear program". In fact according to Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an "INALIENABLE RIGHT" to possess nuclear technology, as does any othe country. Several other nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and Japan. So a nuclear program is not the same as a nuclear weapons program. 3- A common refrain is that Iran's nuclear program can't possibly be for anything except weapons because Iran has so much oil and natural gas. In fact Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive oil and gas because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on the sale oil and gas for earning hard currency. The Stanford Research Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest hydroengery dam. 4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to build a weapon of POSSIBLY desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY TECHNOLOGY "could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country. And the reason why Iran would want to build nukes is to DEFEND ITSELF.Proof: "IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found 'no evidence' Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons... SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003
" 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no smoking gun.' " SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28
5- Iran can't be compared to Iraq: The bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor did not signficantly affect Iraq's nuclear program, since the centrifuge sites were not bombed. If anything, it encouraged them to speed up the process. But in any case, Iran has signed the Additional Protocol which permits IAEA inspections anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had not. Iraq also used chemical weapons and invaded its neighbors- with the blessing and support of the USA, by the way. 6- In fact, according to the NonProliferation Treaty, not only is Iran entitled to have nuclear technology, but other countries are required to share their nuclear technology. That was the quid-pro-quo that the nuclear-haves and have-nots agreed upon when they signed the NPT. However, the nuclear-haves are not living up to their side of the Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain. 7- Don't mix up Iran and North Korea either: Currently, Iran has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear installations are all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North Korea. 7.5- Kerry has said that he'll offer nuclear reactor fuel to Iran, and if Iran refuses to accept the stuff and continues the program to makes its own nuclear reactor fuel, that's proof that Iran is secretly building a bomb. This of course is total bullshit. Lots of countries make their own nuclear reactor fuel, that doesn't mean they're secretly building nuclear weapons. Iran has the natural uranium deposits and the know-how to makes its own fuel, why would it want to become reliant on a foreign source of fuel? How can Iran be guaranteed that the fuel won't be "sanctioned" some time in the future? Asking Iran to be reliant on Kerry's good will is a lot like Asking the USA to not use any of its own oil and become solely reliant on King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. 8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed - and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6 mos. the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads. 9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full support of the people of the government too, so changing governments will not change the decision to build nukes. Iranians know that their country has a right to nuclear technology, they are proud of their nuclear accomplishments, and have a long history of resenting foreign superpowers trying to deprive them of their rights. 10- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a deterrence. There are already many Iranians who believe that Iran should withdraw from the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has failed to abide by ITS OWN obligations under the same treaty (to share nuclear technology, and to get rid of its own nuclear weapons) Furthermore, Iran is surrounded by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten Iran's security.So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb or try to invade Iran and see what happens.
11- The people of Iran support their government's nuclear development and are proud to defend it.Unlike U.S., Iranians believe Tehran needs nuclear ability
By Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson Knight Ridder 19 November 2004 San Jose Mercury News (c) Copyright 2004, San Jose Mercury News. All Rights Reserved.
ISFAHAN, Iran
Electrical engineering student Roozbeh Rahimi reflects a common sentiment among Iranians when he expresses hope that this famous tourist city will gain fame soon for its nuclear technology.
``We need nuclear power. And if it's used for military purposes, all the better,'' said Rahimi, 22.
12- Iran's nuclear program started under the Shah, with the encouragement and support of the USA.US offered uranium enrichment, reprocessing to Iran: documents Islamabad, Nov 1, Kyodo/OANA/IRNA -- The United States offered uranium enrichment and reprocessing plant facilities to Iran in the mid-1970s if it bought nuclear power plants from US companies, invested in an enrichment plant in United States and shared plutonium reprocessing plant with Pakistan, recently declassified US documents reveal. The documents were found on the website of the Gerald R. Ford Library and Museum in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Two documents in particular, dated April 22, 1975 and April 20, 1976, show that the United States and Iran held negotiations for cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the United States was willing to help Iran by setting up uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing facilities.
LINKS: National Security Decision Memorandum 292 US-Iran Nuclear Cooperation April 22 1975
Page 1:
National Security Memorandum 324 Negotiation of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran April 20 1976
What are the pros and cons of tighter construction with forced ventilation versus passive ventilation (leakage), assuming they both result in roughly the same amount of ventilation?
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software
The obvious pro with tight construction and active ventilation is that you have real control over the ventilation and can vary it depending on stuff like CO CO2 and humidity levels.
The only real downside is that you may need some form of small UPS or internal battery power or failsafe to an automatic shutter etc if extended periods without power are possible/likely.
I'd personally just have a decent warning system with a completely unambiguous warning message where its clear what is warning about.
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.