Swamp Cooler to Refrigeration A/C

Page 2 of 3  
I was responding to what I have shown in quotes below Big Al. I was mentioning that it is a bad idea to use evaporative cooling on indoor air. It is best to cool the outside air, force it into the home and displace room air outside,
Using an evaporative cooler on indoor air will either require more water and higher volumes of air being moved and exhausted, or it will just simply over humidifiy a home.
"From: snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu - view profile Date: Sat, Mar 11 2006 12:31 am Email: snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu Groups: alt.home.repair, sci.engr.heat-vent-ac, misc.consumers.frugal-living, alt.architecture.alternative
You might try a different configuration with better controls, eg turn on the swamp to cool recirculated house air when the indoor temp rises to 80 F and turn on a small exhaust fan when the indoor RH rises to 65%."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In your opinion. Then again, I proved it was, using numbers :-)
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

Well alt.home.repair appears to have missed the thread.
How about this as a Swamp Cooler idea????
High pressure water (160-200psi min - up to 2000psi) thru very small orifice nozzles parallel to and pointing slightly away from the condenser coil of a Refrigeration A/C. You DO not want ANY of this spray to HIT the coils of the condenser even if you use ultra high purity water (i.e. RO or Distilled) as mineral plating will occur. The evaporation of this fine spray is rapid and will lower the temps of the air entering the condenser, thereby cooling the working fluid faster and to a lower temperature, shorter runtimes for the compressor, faster cooldown of the dwelling, etc.
With a 160psi system I built, 4 nozzles consume about 2 gallons of water per hour of operation. Higher pressures with smaller nozzles will produce a much smaller droplet of water that will evaporate faster. These higher pressures will use more water, but produce a MUCH more impressive effect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And Nathan tried it out in Melbourne and said it worked fine, with an indoor swamp cooler that ran on a rising temp and a small exhaust fan that ran on a rising RH. So far we have a) basic physics with numbers, b) a successful experiment, and c) Abby's qualitative rants :-)

It's been there...

Yogi Goswami tried that in Florida, with an energy savings of about 20%. But it seems better to trickle rainwater over the coils.

Distilled water contains minerals? :-)
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Gammon wrote:

Rheam used to make a condenser with copper coils. They sprayed water directly on the coils. It had a tank and pump similar to a swamp cooler. To prevent mineral buildup, about 1/3 the way down on the condenser coils there was a small trough that caught some of the water and drained it off. My understanding is that with the water cooking the efficiency improved at least 30% in a relatively dry climate.
A big factory building in Southern California had a large decorative pool with fountains. It was the cooling pond for their air conditioner. The water began to get too warm so they raised the fountains about a foot or two to get more evaporation and cooling.
Another method for home in a dry climate use would be to set a window swamp cooler on the ground in front of the condenser, cooling the freon with cooled air.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

No Nick
I pointed out the flaws in the numbers you 'dreamed up' with real numbers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong again :-)
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ever time they are right I just say they are wrong, I dream up bullshit numbers after a hit from my bong"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Odd that groups.google cant actually find anyone saying that except you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

Why yes troll king, I coined that prose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Where as all you can come up with is 'blotto' and 'wet paper bags'
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You might try a different configuration with better controls, eg turn on the swamp to cool recirculated house air when the indoor temp rises to 80 F and turn on a small exhaust fan when the indoor RH rises to 65%.
This works in Melbourne Australia...

Nick
Lol it sounds like the ozzies were just pressurizing the house then and letting it 'efiltrate out' where ever it could and exhaust fans turned on when humidity hit 65%. Funny how if you followed a constant wet bulb line from 28C/35% it pretty much hits 22C/65%. But you do not have much faith in wet bulb lines because they don't fit your 'physics' lol.
Does not sound like your 'humidify the indoor air scheme' and turn on the exhaust fan at all, the swamp cooler sure sounds like it was working normal treating the outside air, except there was no obvious relief opening. Lol so they used power to run an exhaust fan rather than open a window. Way to go Nick you saved them some energy there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


There was no pressurization.

No. It was exactly the scheme I suggested.
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

I just don't see the part where the ozzies mentioned recirculating air.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That wasn't explicitly stated above, but I know the ozzie in question, and we've discussed his experiment in detail, and that's what he did.
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Double check the facts because the comment about closing windows against standard practise really makes it sound like they were pressurizing.
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

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

An indirect clarification from the ozzie:
Ok, I've read the posts on this newsgroup, and I do have to wonder about the sort of people who have time to pointlessly argue and flame each other but not enough time to learn the basic physics about their topic of interest. I'm certainly not interested in posting directly to the group.

That's correct...
We have a 'closed room' with an evaporative cooler in the room. A duct taped box fan sits in the window and is run whenever the humidity rises above 60%. Conceptually it is the same as forcing the air into the house, except that it is demand driven, which seems to make it more efficient. The room also seems to cool down faster, as we use the existing somewhat cooler air for cooling first, and perhaps we heat exchange the air with the walls and doors as fresh air leaks in.
Two potential improvements: 1) exhaust house air to an attic ("upducts") or some other cavity bordering an exterior surface, eg a garage or sunspace or storage space, and thereby reduce the usual conductive heatflow from the warmer outdoor air into the living space, or 2) use a humidistat and a reversible fan like Lasko's $55 2155A 16" window fan (90 watts at 2470 cfm on high speed) and Grainger's 2A179 $88.15 programmable cycle timer and its $4.37 5X852 octal socket to periodically reverse the fan direction when it needs to run, making a "Shurcliff lung" that turns all the cracks and crevices in the house envelope into bidirectional air-air heat exchangers.
We need to get rid of moisture vapor, but it's more efficient to do that using cooled vs uncooled outdoor air. For optimal ventilation, run the fan long enough to actually move some outdoor air in through the wall cavities (vs moving a smaller amount of cavity air back and forth), but not so long that the wall thermal mass heats all the way to the outdoor air temp on the intake cycle.

What complete crap (do you normally spout unsubstantiated rubbish?). Evap coolers outsell heat pumps about 3 to 1 I'd be guessing. Every new house seems to come with a roof mount evap cooler.

I wonder whether people are thinking of Melbourne, FL. (Perhaps these illiterates don't actually read before posting.)

Any time you move air around you are creating a pressure difference. I'm not sure what you are claiming here.
I believe Abby was thinking the swamp cooler was trying to push outdoor air into the living space vs recirculating indoor air, ie "pressurizing" the living space. But the exhaust fan would DEpressurize the living space...
The reason the windows are closed is because extra air coming in through an open window would simply add more heat, which we would have to remove. Once we are cooling enough to overcome infiltration extra air has no long term benefit. Commercial systems attempt to overcome this with a very big blower. Blowers are inefficient and noisy.
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

No not pointlessly flaming
Just saying that they ozzies made a big point about stating the windows were closed. With any air conditioning except traditional swamp cooler you would want the windows closed.
My interpretation of the post was that it is a traditional air swamp cooler. They closed the windows and were getting natural exfiltration therough cracks to relieve pressure until the ehaust fan turned on.
The combination of indoor temperature and the humidity being exahusted had the same wet bulb temperature as the ambinet air as well. This constant wet bulb always is neglected when you argue the physics of evaporative cooling nick. the constant wet bulb makes it sound like it was outdoor air being cooled as well.
They were only up against an 82 ambient at night, but as numbers have shown before under a real load, humidifying recirculated air uses more water and more airflow than dierectly treating outside air with evaporative cooling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We ran the numbers before and it shows that more airflow and water was needed when you treat the indoor air.
When you get down to micrscopic cooling loads it may be possible for it to work on recirculated air.
A recent article on evaporative cooling, used in industrial applications not home comfort. Note there is an importance of the ambinet wet bulb, a point nick does not want to acknowledge.
http://www.hpac.com/member/feature/2006/0406/0604_robinson.htm#fiction
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong.
Nick
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.