Problem with winter dryness

Page 3 of 4  


Here's my opinion:
Advantages Disadvantages
A) Natural leakage Lower first cost Higher fuel consumption More reliable in winter and summer Possibly better IAQ: Can't use HRV CO, CO2, H20 often Lower RH in winter diluted with a Wet insulation and drywall large flow of Possible wood rot, mold, fresh air and mildew inside walls No ventilation at all                          on still mild days
B) Positive ventilation More uniform fresh air              and temp distribution around the house It's always easier to bring air in than to keep it out, turning B) into A) if needed...
Nick (who just got a call from two Lennox lawyers saying they may change the energy-savings claim on their humidifier web site "if it turns out to be inaccurate in the opinion of our engineers" :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Nov 2004 17:14:38 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

An ERV would make more sense than an HRV, providing another plus in the form of humidity recovery.
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:55:24 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote:

http://www.aexusa.com/enthalpy/aaex1.htm
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:08:05 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote:

I should point out that I am by no means an expert on HRV/ERV, but I am not aware of any residential ERV which is recommended for subzero temps, because they freeze up. I included the above link to very expensive high volume commercial warm weather/cold weather ERV's just to show that it is possible. I suspect however, that the humidity transfer has a price.
Should someone come up with a residential ERV capable of economically transferring humidity in both warm and cold climates, these presumably would have a huge potential market beyond the deep south, and would go a long way towards justifying supertight construction.
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:40:18 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote:

I can not get the make/model info at the moment since I don't live in Maine. But ME certainly experiences subzero temperatures and residential ERV's are required in all new construction. The person I visited with one no longer lives in that house (or new construction) so I can't call and get the information.
One such unit is:
http://www.xpedio.carrier.com/idc/groups/public/documents/techlit/erv-2pd.pdf
It uses a periodic defrost cycle below 23F.
"The ERV is equipped with a special energy recovery core which exchanges both sensible and latent heat with the fresh incoming air. The ability to transfer moisture however, allows the core to build frost to cold outdoor air in winter time. For temperatures below 23F, the unit will automatically operate with periodic defrost."
gerry
--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've always been more than a little suspicious that the units which try to transfer moisture between airstreams will also transfer other stuff (dissolved in the moisture) between airstreams, which you might rather exhaust. An obvious example would be ammonia fumes from cleaning products.
I'm also innately suspicious that this type of core is a better breeding ground for unplesant life-forms.
--
Cats, Coffee, Chocolate...vices to live by

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While in Wisconsin we added 12 drops of bleach per gallon of water put into the humidifier to assure minimum possibility of live transfer. The Humidifier had ceramic plates to provide large evaporation surfaces and I used to have to soak the plates in vinegar once every three months to remove the lime deposits that formed on them. I know now that distilled water would have helped a lot for this, but there was no reference to the water purity in the directions with the humidifier. The did sell replacement ceramic plates though!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Nov 2004 17:14:38 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

In case you haven't noticed, what I've been trying to do here is to get you to present a case for your strategy that is based upon why this is good for the homeowner, rather than why it is good for your political agenda. I remain unconvinced.
At the very least, there should be enough *passive* introduction of outdoor air, be it through leakage or controlled flow, to keep people from passing out (over 5 CFM per person), and then pump in the rest.
And I am also not convinced that people outside of acclimated desert dwellers are comfortable and/or healthy at 20% humidity.
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pity. BTW, I'd call the information above unbiased, albeit my opinion, and that of many others. How would you change it?

Sounds good to me, on the coldest day. Airtightness costs money. Why overdo it? Those few cracks and crevices can be bidirectional air-air heat exchangers with a bidirectional fan in an indoor partition wall. BTW, extra air leakage also increases AC bills.

Pity. You might look at the ASHRAE 55-2004 standard.

With these "credentials," it's darkly amusing that you know so little about building science :-) I'm only one of thousands of engineers and architects around the world who recommend reducing air leakage in houses. You might correct your lonely arrogant ego-filled ignorance by taking an ASHRAE short course on ventilation or joining the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE). They have a nice web site.
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

drywall
mold,
walls
Your many others are being challenged..simply address the issue...or dont.

Something we have been installing for years....

I am sure that Gary is more familiar with it than you expect. Do you own any of his books? Read any? Might be worth your time..and you might learn something new. I sure did.

about
short
Even more amusing is that many states have now relaxed, or will relax the standards of sealing a home. You are making one point, and overlooking others.
I think the only ego maniac here is you....thank God your ideas wont fly here...nor is there a contractor in this state that would allow you to design a home for him, when we have several here that are NOT sealed up tight as a drum, and the owners can claim power bills that have not exceeded $75 a month here...and we are talking fairly large square footage. There is a limit to what you want to do, and maintain a healthy enviroment.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah but...
Nicky has a website or a magazine that says...
Bet he pulls a formula out of his ass trying to dodge this one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:35:47 -0500, "Steve@carolinabreezehvac"

How tight is "as a drum"? Our home is constructed of SIPs, has fixed glazing, and filtered ventilation. About as tight as reasonably practical. Even with the vents closed (and they're closed most of the winter), going in and out, and letting the dogs in and out, provides more air exchanges than we need for health and a clean-smelling home. For anyone who lives a normal life, I think it might be difficult to seal a home to a level that could be considered a risk to health. The idea of building-in uncontrolled leaks seems nuts to me... although there's no accounting for some tastes. For example - I can think of one couple who, between expensive visits to specialists attempting to cure severe allergy symptoms, insisted on sleeping next to an open window in pollen season. Also, many humans prefer driving with their car windows open instead of using the vents, and many dogs require their nostrils to be hanging out in the highway breeze even though their chauffeurs would be perfectly healthy with the windows shut. If dogs could type, a pack or more would be weighing in on this thread... :-)
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

Well, you genius engineers seem to have IAQ problems and sick building syndrome everywhere, regardless of climate. When you fix your piss poor implimentation of IAQ that has caused more problems than it's solved you get back to us.
Step off your hobby horse Nicky. It's legs have been cut off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Anything that is politically motivated is highly suspect. The mixture of science and politics is giving science a bad name.
I am not necessarily opposed to tight construction, and would encourage experimentation, but not legislation, in this area.
A measurement is worth a thousand calculations. Show me the real numbers, preferably presented by someone without a political ax to grind, or by someone who is honest enough to set the politics aside.
First comes health, then comfort, then energy savings, preferably expressed as payback on investment.
If the strategy lives up to its billing, homeowners will want it, with or without legislation.
Gary R. Lloyd CMS HVACR Troubleshooting Books/Software http://www.techmethod.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:04:11 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote:

Legislated stuff can really backfire without REAL WORLD data CORRECTLY interpreted.
In MA (and many states) the EPA's Clean Air Act requires reformulated gasoline (RFG) burning gasoline was mandated. Well, they never studied what happens when deployed!
Despite intentions, the additive MBTE is causing toxic ground water contamination. Here in Eastern MA, well water is very common even for cities and towns with town water.
So much for science without extensive field tests!
gerry
--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gerry wrote: ...

Legislated stuff often backfires because it's implemented based on political reasons and not scientific or rational ones.

The risks of MTBE were well known long before they legislated it's use. The oil companies lobbied heavily for the use of MTBE over ethanol because it was slightly cheaper and they didn't want to give the agricultural industry more power and money. Remember, biodiesel and ethanol are the two main competitors for diesel and gas.
The toxic nature of any leakage also had the effect (in California) that nearly all gas stations had to get their tanks replaced. This produced a shakeout of almost all the independent stations because they didn't have the deep pockets to afford it.
Anthony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thanks I hate to see electrons wasted.
Joel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
wrote:

Hey, I'm an electron hugger, all electrons recycled here! Waste not, want not ;-)
gerry
--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Ye-o-o-oo-w-w-w-w-ww-w-w!
Don't touch that socket!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:37:20 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gatecom.com (Gary R. Lloyd) wrote:

I concur - the difficulty with "positive ventilation" is it isn't "positive", it's "active" and far from fail safe.
Controlling "passive ventilation" certainly is difficult, any minimum will likely be grossly exceeded under some weather conditions. At least it remains safe (death not being the sole criteria).
gerry
--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.