|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > June 2007 > Re: Honeywell Humidicalc Recommended Instead of Outdoor Sensor? (Automatic Humidity Control)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Honeywell Humidicalc Recommended Instead of Outdoor Sensor? (Automatic Humidity Control)
|
|
| Smarty 2007-05-22, 8:25 pm |
| Since the dew point and condensation on your windows and inner walls is
directly related to outdoor temperature, I personally can see no compelling
reason to prefer a software algorithm which attempts to "infer" when the
humidifier is called for or not.
The Aprilaire, in addition to using the outdoor sensor, has a consumer
adjustable control to correct for the individual effects of furnace size /
blower speed / insulation / etc. This in concert with the outdoor sensor
measurement very nicely compensates for all of the external and internal
effects of importance.
It is my personal belief that the Honeywell solution has one and only one
virtue.....it allows the installer to not have to deal with running a wire
to the outside, drilling a tiny hole for the wire to pass through, mounting
the sensor, and thus spending another hour putting it in.
Having lived with older, non automatic humidifiers, and now using the
Aprilaire and outdoor sensor in a widely varying northeast climate, I would
never want to do it any other way. This Aprilaire just works superbly and
with no issues whatsoever. The extra hour spent running the outdoor sensor
was very well worth it.
Smarty
"poster3814" <poster3814@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:aTJ4i.9209$296.6916@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Is there a consensus whether Honeywell's Humidicalc is better or worse
> than using an actual outdoor sensor, as with Aprilaire humidifiers that
> automatically adjust the humidity?
>
> The following is from a Honeywell PDF manual:
> "The HumidCalc+™ software inside your automatic humidity control is
> designed to measure or infer outdoor temperature and automatically
> adjust the humidity based on the frost factor setting that the homeowner
> sets to allow for variances in furnace size, window type and insulation."
>
> In trying to find info on the web, I found this:
>
> "Honeywell humidistat wins 'Seven Wonders' Engineering Award.
> Contracting Business, April, 1999
>
> "No outdoor sensor needed for most applications Honeywell's new
> humidistat has earned a Seven Wonders of Engineering Award from the
> Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers. The H1008 Automatic
> Humidity Control with HumidiCalc+[TM] Software is the first standalone
> humidistat to control to dewpoint instead of relative humidity."
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...04/ai_n13102640
>
> Thank you very much for any helpful information.
> --
> Please respond to the newsgroup only. Email sent to this account goes
> unread.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-05-23, 9:25 am |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>Having lived with older, non automatic humidifiers, and now using the
>Aprilaire and outdoor sensor in a widely varying northeast climate, I would
>never want to do it any other way. This Aprilaire just works superbly and
>with no issues whatsoever...
It raises the fuel bill. Airsealing can raise
the indoor RH, while lowering the fuel bill.
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-05-23, 9:25 am |
| It really doesn't raise the fuel bill, since the furnace cycle is exactly
the same whether or not the humidifier is installed. The humidifier has a
very small fan inside which does draw a negligible amount of electricity,
but this is the only "fuel" required. Since the Honeywell humidifier also
draws electricity, I don't see how the Aprilaire using an outdoor sensor can
in any way whatsoever use any additional energy / fuel when compared to the
Honeywell.
If your point is that adding ***ANY*** humidifier requires energy, (in this
case a very small amount) versus better sealing of the house, then I agree
that airsealing the house does raise the relative humidity. In my case, I
still need a humidifier even when the house has been carefully insulated,
weather-stripped, and sealed.
The original poster is merely trying to compare the merits of the Honeywell
which does not use an outdoor sensor versus the Aprilaire which does use an
outdoor sensor. I know it would be very attractive not to use any humidifier
whatsoever, but in the area where I live where subzero temperatures occur
commonly in the long winters, the only way I have been able to get a
comfortable house which has no dew on the windows but is nicely humidified
to avoid dry throats, dry noses, itchy skin, huge electric shocks when
walking on carpet, sticky doors, sticky drawers, etc. is to use a powered
humidifier and to control it with an outdoor temperature sensor.
Smarty
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f30ucq$8cq@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>
> It raises the fuel bill. Airsealing can raise
> the indoor RH, while lowering the fuel bill.
>
> Nick
>
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-05-23, 5:25 pm |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>It really doesn't raise the fuel bill, since the furnace cycle is exactly
>the same whether or not the humidifier is installed...
Wrong. It takes 1000 Btu to evaporate a pound of water.
>The humidifier has a very small fan inside which does draw a negligible
>amount of electricity, but this is the only "fuel" required.
Wrong. That's a tiny part of the fuel requirement.
>If your point is that adding ***ANY*** humidifier requires energy, (in this
>case a very small amount)
Wrong. How much energy do you need to keep your house RH 50% at 70 F
with an indoor humidity ratio wi = 0.00787 pounds of water per pound
of dry air when the outdoor humidity ratio wo = 0.0025, with 200 cfm
of natural air leakage?
>... In my case, I still need a humidifier even when the house has been
>carefully insulated, weather-stripped, and sealed.
Sounds like you need more airsealing. How much fresh air would you need
for wintertime DEhumidification, given Andersen's estimate that an average
family of 4 evaporates 2 gallons per day of water indoors by breathing,
showering, cooking, washing floors, and some green plants?
>... I know it would be very attractive not to use any humidifier whatsoever,
>but in the area where I live where subzero temperatures occur commonly in
>the long winters, the only way I have been able to get a comfortable house
>which has no dew on the windows but is nicely humidified... is to use
>a powered humidifier and to control it with an outdoor temperature sensor.
Wrong. Given your natural indoor humidity sources, you might keep a more
airtight house at a comfortable indoor RH with a lower fuel bill with
simple ventilation controls.
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-05-23, 5:25 pm |
| Nick,
Let's go through this point by point.
>
> Wrong. It takes 1000 Btu to evaporate a pound of water.
>
I disagree. Since the furnace cycles exclusively on temperature and the
burner cycle is determined by the thermostat, the only way your claim would
have the potential to be correct would be if the moist humidified air
requires more energy to heat than the same air if it were to be dry. If this
is indeed your argument, then your claim is wrong and specious, since your
alternative "airsealed" humidification approach would, in fact, require this
additional energy as well. Whether the moisture was added by my humdifier or
retained naturally by better weathersealing, the incremental cost of energy
to heat the same moisture-laden air which is aritificially humidified with
the humidifier should therefore be ***the same** as the energy to heat the
moist air resulting from better airsealing.
>
> Wrong. That's a tiny part of the fuel requirement.
Again, I disagree. This is the ***ONLY*** incremental energy use, since
moist air requires the same energy to heat regardless of where the moisture
comes from.
>
>
> Wrong. How much energy do you need to keep your house RH 50% at 70 F
> with an indoor humidity ratio wi = 0.00787 pounds of water per pound
> of dry air when the outdoor humidity ratio wo = 0.0025, with 200 cfm
> of natural air leakage?
>
>
> Sounds like you need more airsealing. How much fresh air would you need
> for wintertime DEhumidification, given Andersen's estimate that an average
> family of 4 evaporates 2 gallons per day of water indoors by breathing,
> showering, cooking, washing floors, and some green plants?
>
>
> Wrong. Given your natural indoor humidity sources, you might keep a more
> airtight house at a comfortable indoor RH with a lower fuel bill with
> simple ventilation controls.
>
> Nick
>
Nick,
I have used and applied all conventional methods of both blown-in and
stapled-in insulations, weather-stripped everyplace, have excellent windows
throughout, and still come up extremely dry. Your "typical" example is
worthless in my case.........I have no family of 4 since my kids moved out
decades ago, do very little cooking since I eat out daily, vent my dryer to
an external outside vent, have no plants, no pets,.....and most important,
know from very practical experience that without supplemental humidification
that this place is dry as a bone in the winter months.
I therefore reject your entire set of counter-arguments entirely. Even if I
were to accept your premise that the evaporation of a gallon or so of water
per day was an incremental cost of a five or ten thousand BTU daily, this is
still on the order of way less than 1% of my daily heating consumption.
Smarty
| |
| Smarty 2007-05-24, 1:25 pm |
| Nick,
You answered your own question several times now. It takes 1000 BTU of
energy to evaporate a pound of water. It matters not whether this energy is
expended in my hot water tank, dryer, or any other contributor to the
moisture in my house.
If my humidifier supplies moisture rather than my cooking, drying, etc. the
net energy penalty is precisely and exactly the same.
The house is a closed system, as closed as I can make it with all sorts of
"airsealing"." Any incremental energy needed to raise the humidity has to
come from someplace, and it matters not whether this is the humidifier,
bathing hot water, or any other friggin source.
I have 2 degrees in engineering, and have plenty of thermodynamics in my
education, so if you want to discuss this in terms of entropy, enthalpy,
sensible heat, or any terms, let's go at it.
Smarty
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f33ubo$909@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
>
> Hint: 70 F air weighs about 0.075 lb/ft^3.
>
> Nick
>
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-05-24, 5:25 pm |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>It takes 1000 BTU of energy to evaporate a pound of water.
So now you disagree with yourself? :-)
>The house is a closed system...
If that were true, you would need DEhumidification in wintertime.
>I have 2 degrees in engineering...
So this should be a piece of cake:
[color=darkred]
A typical US house leaks about 200 cfm. An "airtight" US house might
leak 60 cfm. A 2400 ft^2 house that meets the Canadian IDEAS standard
might leak 1 cfm...
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-05-25, 3:25 am |
| Nick,
I did not state nor have I assumed that my house is an idealized, perfectly
closed system with no flows in or out. There are, however, no longer
economical ways to further reach a 60X improvement to go from my present
"airtight" house to the Canadian 1 cfm "ideal" you refer to.
My original reply talked directly to the question raised by this specific
thread, namely, whether the Honeywell Humidicalc algorithm is recommended
versus the use of an outdoor temperature sensor. Your series of attacks and
comments have not offered any insights or contributions whatsoever on this
thread's topic. Since you have chosen to hijack this thread on another topic
with remarks which are critical and disparaging to my original reply, I have
felt obliged to respond. I do so reluctantly since my basic opinion is that
this exchange does not serve the original poster in answering his question
in any way, but instead, leads off in the path of your digression.
My prior comments center on the premise that energy to evaporate moisture
into the home is expended regardless of whether the humidifier, the furnace,
the hot water tank, the clothes dryer, or other appliance provides it.
A house with a less than perfect seal does indeed require more energy to
heat and humidify, and neither of us needs to further elaborate on such an
obvious distinction.....no doubt homes built to the newer Canadian standards
will use less energy and require less humidification.
I have never disagreed with the physical fact that energy is required to
evaporate water. My only disagreement was, and is, your assertion that a
humidifier inherently demands more heating fuel, and my reasons for so
believing are as simple as the observation that moisture evaporated into the
air requires energy from someplace. A family of 4 (to use your example)
burns additional energy in the activities you cite (cooking, bathing,
washing and drying clothes, etc.) to evaporate equivalent humidity that a
humidifier would provide. And in a perfect world where true adiabatic homes
with no flows or losses exist, the need for either would be moot.
Perhaps in some home in the future where there is only 1 cfm of 'leak' it
will be, as you assert, possible to avoid a humidification method entirely,
but I, for one, will reserve judgment until much more is known about the
consequential issues of mold, oxygen deprivation, smells, radon effects, and
other poor air quality issues.
Since the original topic remains unanswered by opinions other than my own, I
welcome your thoughts from Villanova's Electrical and Computer Engineering
Department as to how a Honeywell humidistat using only a software algorithm
might, as the original poster asks, compare to the method used by several
other manufacturers who add an outdoor temperature sensor to allow their
algorithms to adjust to outside changes.
Smarty
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f34rs9$960@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> So now you disagree with yourself? :-)
>
>
> If that were true, you would need DEhumidification in wintertime.
>
>
> So this should be a piece of cake:
>
>
> A typical US house leaks about 200 cfm. An "airtight" US house might
> leak 60 cfm. A 2400 ft^2 house that meets the Canadian IDEAS standard
> might leak 1 cfm...
>
> Nick
>
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-05-25, 9:25 am |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>I did not state nor have I assumed that my house is an idealized, perfectly
>closed system with no flows in or out. There are, however, no longer
>economical ways to further reach a 60X improvement to go from my present
>"airtight" house to the Canadian 1 cfm "ideal" you refer to.
Have you sought professional help with a blower door test?
Why 1 CFM? How many min CFM do we need to keep a house RH 50% at 70 F with
an indoor humidity ratio wi = 0.00787 pounds of water per pound of dry air
when the outdoor humidity ratio wo = 0.0025 (Phila in January) and you and
your pint-a-day green plants naturally evaporate 1 gallon of water per day?
Hint1: 8lb/24h = 60CFMx0.075(wi-wo).
Hint2: ASHRAE suggests 15 cfm of fresh air per full-time occupant.
>I have never disagreed with the physical fact that energy is required to
>evaporate water.
You may well find that you did, if you re-examine your words carefully,
but it's nice to see you reagreeing with yourself :-)
>... moisture evaporated into the air requires energy from someplace.
Sure. Aprilaire's advertising ignored that for years and claimed people
could save energy by turning the thermostat down, but they dropped that
claim after I pointed out that the thermostat savings were 10X less than
the heat required to evaporate the water, in a typical US house.
>Perhaps in some home in the future where there is only 1 cfm of 'leak' it
>will be, as you assert, possible to avoid a humidification method entirely,
It's perfectly doable today with more than 1 CFM.
>but I, for one, will reserve judgment until much more is known about the
>consequential issues of mold, oxygen deprivation, smells, radon effects, and
>other poor air quality issues.
"Build it tight and ventilate it right" with a mechanical system, eg
a bathroom or kitchen exhaust fan with a humidistat that turns it on
when the indoor RH rises to 50% in wintertime. For extra credit, you
might figure out how to automatically decrease that 50% setpoint when
it's colder outdoors to avoid condensation on indoor window surfaces.
>... a Honeywell humidistat using only a software algorithm might...
>compare to the method used by several other manufacturers who add
>an outdoor temperature sensor to allow their algorithms to adjust to
>outside changes.
Clever Honeywell thermostats measure indoor air and wall temps and
temporarily raise the air temp to compensate for initially colder walls,
which can save energy by prolonging night setbacks, compared to air-temp-
only thermostats. Maybe clever Honeywell humidistats are mounted indoors
on exterior walls, so they can get an idea of the outdoor temp, which
would be colder with a larger air-wall temp difference, but how would
it know the wall or window insulation values? It might get calibration
help from an owner who pushes a button when there is condensation.
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-05-25, 9:25 am |
| Nice try but a failing grade, Nick. Go to the back of the class.
The Honeywell Humidicalc is a duct mounted device, and does not use the
exterior walls in any way whatsoever.
Smarty
http://electronicaircleaners.com/da...Code=H1008A1008
> Clever Honeywell thermostats measure indoor air and wall temps and
> temporarily raise the air temp to compensate for initially colder walls,
> which can save energy by prolonging night setbacks, compared to air-temp-
> only thermostats. Maybe clever Honeywell humidistats are mounted indoors
> on exterior walls, so they can get an idea of the outdoor temp, which
> would be colder with a larger air-wall temp difference, but how would
> it know the wall or window insulation values? It might get calibration
> help from an owner who pushes a button when there is condensation.
>
> Nick
>
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-05-25, 5:25 pm |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>Nice try but a failing grade, Nick. Go to the back of the class.
No thanks, XXXXXXX :-) Then again, my two hints were insufficient for you?
>The Honeywell Humidicalc is a duct mounted device, and does not use the
>exterior walls in any way whatsoever.
http://electronicaircleaners.com/da...Code=H1008A1008
So they have something like that button, in the "frost control" knob.
Maybe their patented Humidicalc software (what's the patent number?)
estimates the outdoor temp by the furnace duty cycle, ie the percentage
of time the duct air is more than (say) 120 F.
[color=darkred]
>... How many min CFM do we need to keep a house RH 50% at 70 F with
>an indoor humidity ratio wi = 0.00787 pounds of water per pound of dry air
>when the outdoor humidity ratio wo = 0.0025 (Phila in January) and you and
>your pint-a-day green plants naturally evaporate 1 gallon of water per day?
>
>Hint1: 8lb/24h = 60CFMx0.075(wi-wo).
>
>Hint2: ASHRAE suggests 15 cfm of fresh air per full-time occupant.
Hint3: CFM = 8/24/60/0.075/(wi-wo) = 13.8.
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-05-25, 5:25 pm |
| Nick,
Your original reply to my one (and only) attempt by others on this newsgroup
to answer the stated question was dismissive, not at all to the point of how
the two humidistats compare, and digressive since it answered only the
question which you (yourself) posed...regarding water evaporation.
When I answered the original reply, you found it necessary to treat my
answer (which was directly on the poster's topic) in a sophomoric, pedantic,
and rude manner with your "I'll give you a hint" form of arrogance.
When I went to engineering school and for the 40 years thereafter, I was
taught to do research to solve a problem. A mere 90 seconds of research on
the poster's question revealed Honeywell's description and ads for the
Humidicalc duct-mounted humidistat.....clearly something incapable of making
any inference about external wall temperatures.
So now your reply, rather than addressing the topic is a personal attack. Is
name-calling part of what they teach at Villanova Computer and Electrical
Engineering School? It is very juvenile, and displays how angry and
embarrassed you truly are.
Smarty
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f37fhl$9hv@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>
> No thanks, XXXXXXX :-) Then again, my two hints were insufficient for you?
>
>
> http://electronicaircleaners.com/da...Code=H1008A1008
>
>
> So they have something like that button, in the "frost control" knob.
> Maybe their patented Humidicalc software (what's the patent number?)
> estimates the outdoor temp by the furnace duty cycle, ie the percentage
> of time the duct air is more than (say) 120 F.
>
>
> Hint3: CFM = 8/24/60/0.075/(wi-wo) = 13.8.
>
> Nick
>
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-05-26, 9:25 am |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>When I went to engineering school and for the 40 years thereafter, I was
>taught to do research to solve a problem. A mere 90 seconds of research on
>the poster's question revealed Honeywell's description and ads for the
>Humidicalc duct-mounted humidistat...
"When I was a lad I served a term as office boy to an attorneys firm..."
>...clearly something incapable of making any inference about external
>wall temperatures.
You never learned to think? :-)
>So now your reply, rather than addressing the topic...
And you never learned to read? :-)
[color=darkred]
That would be consistent with their statement that we need the outdoor
temp sensor with multizone systems...
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-06-01, 5:25 pm |
| poster3814,
Very glad to try to help you answer your question. In researching this
matter, I also found your post in the home do-it-yourself web site forum,
and hope you have been able to get some additional insights.
Having installed humdistats of both the "outdoor sensor" type (the later
model Aprilaire) as well as those of the earlier type (Sears, Aprilaire,
Autoflow), no doubt it is much simpler to install a humidistat directly in
the furnace plenum with no wiring going to either a separate humidistat
upstairs in the heated space or wiring going to an outdoor sensor. The time
saved in not wiring, and also time saved in not mounting an outdoor sensor,
adds up to at least an hour or two, maybe more. It is my belief that the
Honeywell solution appeals to installers for this reason.
The extra labor invested in installing an outdoor sensor and wiring it seems
to pay off well, based on the limited sample of systems I have had in this
house. Not until I installed the outdoor sensor Aprilaire did I truly reach
the total automation I was seeking, where the dew point is dynamically
adjusted and there is never, ever, ever,.....any moisture, frost, or dew
forming on my windows or anyplace else, yet the humidification is always
extremely comfortable with none of the problems arising when there is too
little humidity. My kids were prone to allergies when they were young, my
wife complained on dry skin, we frequently drew big sparks as we walked
across the carpets, and drawers and doors would begin to stick. The outside
sensor eliminated any misadjustment issues entirely.
As to whether a Honeywell Humidicalc with no outdoor sensor sitting in a
basement cold-air return plenum can infer enough from the surrounding air
and plenum temperature / humidity to make really appropriate guesses about
what the dew point is remains to be seen in my opinion. Given the option of
a direct measurement of outdoor temperature versus a software algorithm
which, at best, knows only current and past temperatures, and current and
past humidity local to the duct, it is hard for me to imagine a superior
outcome, particularly since the Aprilaire humidistat also sits in the same
location when installed and also has humidity and temperature data to work
with, or so it appears. Moreover, Honeywell also adds an optional outdoor
temperature sensor when controlling either multizone or heat pump systems,
since in either / both cases the local duct measurements are insufficient.
Good luck with your decision and glad to be of help. I am sorry for the
digression which occurred in this thread earlier regarding energy needed to
evaporate water.
Smarty
"poster3814" <poster3814@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xs%7i.12352$296.6628@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Thank you very much for your replies, and the time, etc., spent on them. I
> appreciate it. Other helpful opinions from knowledgeable people are also
> welcome.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Please respond to the newsgroup only. Email sent to this account goes
> unread.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-02, 3:25 am |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>As to whether a Honeywell Humidicalc with no outdoor sensor sitting in a
>basement cold-air return plenum can infer enough from the surrounding air
>and plenum temperature / humidity to make really appropriate guesses about
>what the dew point is remains to be seen in my opinion...
It's easily seen, given the frost control knob feedback, if it measures
the furnace duty cycle, ie how often the duct air is moving. A system with
an outdoor temp sensor and no user feedback might do a lot worse, with
no knowledge of window R-values.
>... I am sorry for the digression which occurred in this thread earlier
>regarding energy needed to evaporate water.
That's the important part, you pompous XXX :-) Caulking and humidification
can both increase indoor humidity, but caulking reduces fuel consumption,
and humidification can dramatically increase it.
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-06-02, 9:25 am |
| Nick,
Here we go again.
For starters, had you replied to the original poster's question, and had you
done even the slightest amount of research before expounding on how external
wall temperatures were being used by the Humidicalc, I would have respected
you.
Maybe 40 years of professional engineering seems like an old man's tale to
you since you find it necessary to mock my experience, but I am here to tell
you 2 crucial and basic things which you apparently have not been taught yet
in your Villanova engineering program which were basic to my engineering
education and even more important to my eventual success in managing
thousands of engineers in a large aerospace company:
1. Listen to the stated question, in this case how do 2 humidistats compare,
and reply to it.
2. Do the research..........and only then offer an opinion. A 90 second
Google search would have revealed to you (as it did to me) that the
Honeywell Humidicalc humidstat is a duct-mounted device, is *** N O T P L
A C E D O N A N E X T E R N A L WA L L *** to indirectly measure
outdoor temperature, and furthermore, actually needs an outdoor Honeywell
temperature sensor to be installed in some circumstances. You would also
find that Aprilaire and other duct mounted humdistats with outdoor sensors
also have the very same "Frost Control" to apply manual feedback, and thus
the Humidicalc has absolutely nothing novel or different in this regard,
contrary to your unresearched opinion. Offering this group an uninformed
and unresearched position such as you did damages your credibility.
There is a 3rd rule which is never taught in school, but is simple basic
manners. Don't rely on name-calling. It looks and is childish, and
undermines the integrity of your thinking process and your up-bringing.
It gives engineering a bad reputation when its' trained practitioners ignore
the question, provide the wrong answers based on opinion rather than
published facts, and use name-calling as a discussion tactic.
Smarty
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f3r044$cur@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's easily seen, given the frost control knob feedback, if it measures
> the furnace duty cycle, ie how often the duct air is moving. A system with
> an outdoor temp sensor and no user feedback might do a lot worse, with
> no knowledge of window R-values.
>
>
> That's the important part, you pompous XXX :-) Caulking and humidification
> can both increase indoor humidity, but caulking reduces fuel consumption,
> and humidification can dramatically increase it.
>
> Nick
>
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-02, 9:25 am |
| Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>Don't rely on name-calling. It looks and is childish, and undermines
>the integrity of your thinking process...
My thinking process is fine, thanks :-)
[color=darkred]
If your average US house naturally leaked 224 cfm on an average 30.4 F
Philadelphia January day with an outdoor humidity ratio wo = 0.0025,
how would the fuel consumption change if you
a) airsealed it to reduce the natural air leakage to 24 cfm, or
b) humidified it to 50%, with no airsealing?
Your thinking process doesn't seem up to these simple calcs,
even with 2 engineering degrees. Consider your bluff called.
Perhaps you should give up now :-)
Nick
| |
| Smarty 2007-06-02, 1:25 pm |
| Nick,
As earlier, you want to answer your own question and not that of the poster.
Since you think I am, to use your word, "bluffing", I will answer your
digression. It is patently obvious without doing the "calc" as you call it
that a sealed house will require less evaporation energy than an unsealed
house. There has never been either a question or a dispute in this regard.
An order of magnitude drop in water / evaporation energy consumption occurs
when a corresponding order of magnitude drop in air leak takes place (from
224 to 24), and the exact water used / evaporation energy delta depends on
what assumptions you want to make about desired indoor temperature and
desired indoor humidity, neither of which you specified. For 70% indoor temp
and 30% indoor humidity, you avoid evaporating about .09 gallons of water
per day with the correspondingly tiny drop in energy consumption.
Conversely, if you wanted to raise it to 50% humidity inside, you need more
water / energy, the amount of which is again determined by what initial
indoor temperature and humidity you specify. Since you do not specify the
initial amounts, I used 70% and 30% once again, and, on this basis, see an
increase of .15 gals of water to be evaporated per day.
I have no desire to discuss or debate with you the relative merits of
airsealing versus active humidification, and indeed this is the digression
for which I previously apologized, even though you were (and continue to be)
the one who pushes for it in this thread.
Enough of your nonsense!
*****Plonk*****
Smarty
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:f3rsp5$d3o@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>
> My thinking process is fine, thanks :-)
>
>
> If your average US house naturally leaked 224 cfm on an average 30.4 F
> Philadelphia January day with an outdoor humidity ratio wo = 0.0025,
> how would the fuel consumption change if you
>
> a) airsealed it to reduce the natural air leakage to 24 cfm, or
>
> b) humidified it to 50%, with no airsealing?
>
> Your thinking process doesn't seem up to these simple calcs,
> even with 2 engineering degrees. Consider your bluff called.
> Perhaps you should give up now :-)
>
> Nick
>
|
|
|
|
|