ERV Vented to Garage?

[Rick Blaine]

Is it generally permissible to exhaust an ERV to an insulated, but vented garage? Was thinking that might be useful for a bit more energy recovery.

[Steve Scott]

[dantheman]

I'm sure that the heat from the car exhaust will greatly improve the effeciency of the ERV... : )

I don't think this would even be allowed in the local code. I'm guessing that the garage is on the same side of your house as the ERV? And the basement is finished all around so the only way out is into the garage? I had the same issue--so I just ran insulated ducts out and up right through the ceiling of the garage and to the outside... it was only an extra 10ft (plus height).. and there seems to be no issues / problems whatsoever... just the extra cost of the insulated ducting--which isn't cheap for non-pros like me...

Peace, Dan

[Steve Scott]

Dan, if you're going to trim a post you're replying to, please learn how to do it properly. I wasn't asking the question. I was responding to the OP.

Here's how you should have prepared the post.

I'm sure that the heat from the car exhaust will greatly improve the effeciency of the ERV... : )

I don't think this would even be allowed in the local code. I'm guessing that the garage is on the same side of your house as the ERV? And the basement is finished all around so the only way out is into the garage? I had the same issue--so I just ran insulated ducts out and up right through the ceiling of the garage and to the outside... it was only an extra 10ft (plus height).. and there seems to be no issues / problems whatsoever... just the extra cost of the insulated ducting--which isn't cheap for non-pros like me...

Peace, Dan

[Rick Blaine]

Sorry - I said vented into (ie exhausted), not sourced from. The ERV input would still be from outdoors.

[Rick Blaine]

Yep - similar situation. The input vent would still run from outdoors. Just thought I might be able to dump the exhaust into the vented garage.

[gofish]

pot, kettle, black?

Speaking of usenet etiquette, ya think you can learn how NOT TO TOP POST ???

I know, I've heard your argument before, ya cant think past MS outlook..... :-)

"Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message is at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read from top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this convention: Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the question, and going back to the top to continue. This annoyance increases even more than linear with the number of top-posts in the message. If someone replies to a thread and you forgot what the thread was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some reasons, it will be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was all about, due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been removed."

[Steve Scott]

Sorry, Fish, I prefer it when people top post and plan on continuing. FWIW while it does happen, it's rare for people to jump in the middle of a thread. Most often the thread is familiar to both the participants and those following it. So the argument of top posting making posts incomprehensible is BS. Someone has arbitrarily decided bottom posting is the way to go. I have arbitrarily decided top posting makes more sense.

BTW, I don't and won't use MS Outlook.

Finally, my point was not about netiquette but rather making sure a quote is properly attributed. Sort of like someone attributing one of Paul's rants to you. Everyone wants credit for their own, not someone else's.

In case you're interested here's another's take on top posting: "In the years that I have been following this debate and in which my own habits were formed, bottom-posters have relied on three arguments, two spoken and one unspoken.

1. People have bottom-posted from the beginning. It?s tradition. It?s the badge of my geekdom, the sign of my tribe.
2. Bottom-posting follows more naturally the conventions of a conversation or narrative. You get a more natural flow by bottom-posting.
3. (Unspoken). Microsoft?s email clients encourage top-posting. Only by bottom-posting can we resist the ever-encroaching darkness.

Only the second argument has enough substance to warrant a reply.

I think that it has its origins in the early years of the Internet, when email was a new thing. ?What?s an email like??, people asked themselves. It?s like a novel or a letter or the transcript of a conversation (e.g. Hansard, a legal transcript), they decided, in which the newest thing comes after what followed before. By analogy, new stuff belongs at the end. Bottom-posting is born.

I don?t find this argument convincing in theory or practice.

In fact, the metaphor of email as letter or transcript sucks.

Internet communication is more like a notice-board or the bits of paper on the front of your fridge. The most recent, currently-important stuff is on the top. Blogs understand this. They top-post. Discussion boards and forums understand this. News sites understand this. They have a better metaphor; they all top-post.

In practice the situation is just as bad. Bottom-posting means scrolling down past inches of text that you already remember or don?t need to know, in order to read the poster?s contribution. The Mighty Mouse gets a good work-out, but it?s a bad result for efficiency or sensible communication. Imagine burrowing down to the bottom of the pile of notes on your fridge to find the newest. Who would put up with that?

What?s more, it leads people to top post that there is a bottom post.

All talk of metaphors to one side, top-posting is smarter in practice too. From a functional perspective, it is far more efficient to scroll down on the rare occasions when you need to double-check something than being forced to scroll down every time.

It?s polite. It?s respectful of the reader?s time and intelligence.

It?s just better."

[Power's Mechanical]

Well there you go Fish. SS is special and will continue to be a top posting moron if he wants to.

[Power's Mechanical]

Rick Blaine wrote: Is it generally permissible to exhaust an ERV to an insulated, but vented garagee?

Doh!

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Plonk

[gofish]

no worries.

from now on every time I quote your top posted posts they will be attributed to Top Poster. We'll all know its Steve Scott. :-)

[Steve Scott]

[dantheman]

Ooops--just an oversight. You're right. But I do prefer to shorten the original posts up so it all looks neater and simpler... sometimes it takes more time to scroll down and find the actual new response--and what a disapointment when you actually read it... hehehe

Peace, Dan

[dantheman]

I still don't like the sound of it--I'm no airflow expert, but you would have some resistance to the exhaust? How much airflow out of the gargage vent compared to the forced-air flowing from the ERV? There would be a two different lengths of duct for in and out too... not sure if that makes a difference? But I don't understand the motivation.... Are you trying to heat up the garage a bit? It's vented??

I still say you run two lengths across the garage to the outside and terminate with a "tandom" connection (both go into one connection with a cap that separates in and out). Very tidy and seems to be working great in my case.

Peace, Dan

[Rick Blaine]

Yeah, that was exactly what I was thinking the drawback would be. If there was any difference in resistance in the garage as compared to outside, it would be harder to get the airflow balanced.

I was just thinking that it might maker the garage a little more conditioned for free given that I was essentially throwing that heated/cooled air away.

That would certainly be a cleaner way to do it. Do you run into cross contamination issues with that though? All the install instructions I've read suggest at least 6 feet between the exterior inlet & outlet.

[dantheman]

Don't think so--the "tandom" came with the factory recommended install kit... It's Venmar and their pretty reputable around here...

Peace, Dan