|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > March 2006 > Underground air conditioning
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 |
Underground air conditioning
|
|
|
| I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember reading a
Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free air
conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was buried in the
ground about five feet down. I do not remember how long the pipe/vent
was, I would guess 1 to 2 hundred feet. The pipe/vent was connected to
the house in the basement and vents in the roof allowed hot air to
escape drawing in the cooler air from the buried pipe/vent. Of course
the distant end of the pipe/vent was terminated with a air intake from
above ground.
New England might work well for such a system. The concerns I have
are: 1, it just does not work well enough to be worth the expense and
2, what humidity it might add to the house.
Does any one have any comments on such an idea?
Abe
| |
| William.Deans@gmail.com 2006-02-24, 7:21 pm |
| Greetings,
The modern day version of what you are talking about is the geothermal
heat pump. It uses the earth as a BTU sink when it is hot and a BTU
source when it is cold. Check it out on Google. If you actually built
the system you describe with water-proof pipe then no humidity would be
added to the system, but you might have to deal with condensation
inside the pipes.
Hope this helps,
William
wabky wrote:
> I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember reading a
> Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free air
> conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was buried in the
> ground about five feet down. I do not remember how long the pipe/vent
> was, I would guess 1 to 2 hundred feet. The pipe/vent was connected to
> the house in the basement and vents in the roof allowed hot air to
> escape drawing in the cooler air from the buried pipe/vent. Of course
> the distant end of the pipe/vent was terminated with a air intake from
> above ground.
>
> New England might work well for such a system. The concerns I have
> are: 1, it just does not work well enough to be worth the expense and
> 2, what humidity it might add to the house.
>
> Does any one have any comments on such an idea?
>
>
> Abe
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-02-24, 9:21 pm |
|
"wabky" <wabky@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140818771.255650.272280@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember
>reading a
> Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free
> air
> conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was
> buried in the
> ground about five feet down. I do not remember how long the
> pipe/vent
> was, I would guess 1 to 2 hundred feet. The pipe/vent was
> connected to
> the house in the basement and vents in the roof allowed hot
> air to
> escape drawing in the cooler air from the buried pipe/vent.
> Of course
> the distant end of the pipe/vent was terminated with a air
> intake from
> above ground.
>
> New England might work well for such a system. The concerns
> I have
> are: 1, it just does not work well enough to be worth the
> expense and
> 2, what humidity it might add to the house.
>
> Does any one have any comments on such an idea?
The buried pipe will have to be large enough in diameter to
allow the air to flow naturally by natural draft. As a wild
estimate if you have an average sized house, wood construction
you will need about 1 cfm air flow through your underground
loop for every square foot of floor space...less if its stone
or brick walls, the thicker the walls the less air flow you
will need, same with glass etc.
guessing Id say you will need 1,000 to 1,500 CFM of air flow,
naturally drafted... that will be something in the range of
28" diameter ducting underground...
if you go smaller you will need to use a fan to force the
draft.
You put the system in a little undersized and see how you like
it..add more to the pipe loop if you want more cooling.
Humidity will approximate the outside ambient air, plus maybe
10% because your inside air will be cooler...but not cooled by
aparatus operating below the due point... so there will be no
dehumidification...that shouldnt be a problem in your area.
Rain water filling your underground loop and it becoming home
for a small colony of rats etc will be issues you need to
address with provisions for drainng, heavy screens, and
cleaning access.
Cost will be approx. 2,000 dollars. You can buy a chinese
window ac for about 250 dollars that will do the same job.
Interest on the 2,000 will probably be 200 dollars a year
approx... labor will be extra...
so it will not be cost effective. But you can brag that have
'free' cooling.
Phil Scott
>
>
> Abe
>
| |
| Robert Allison 2006-02-24, 11:21 pm |
| wabky wrote:
> I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember reading a
> Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free air
> conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was buried in the
> ground about five feet down. I do not remember how long the pipe/vent
> was, I would guess 1 to 2 hundred feet. The pipe/vent was connected to
> the house in the basement and vents in the roof allowed hot air to
> escape drawing in the cooler air from the buried pipe/vent. Of course
> the distant end of the pipe/vent was terminated with a air intake from
> above ground.
>
> New England might work well for such a system. The concerns I have
> are: 1, it just does not work well enough to be worth the expense and
> 2, what humidity it might add to the house.
>
> Does any one have any comments on such an idea?
>
>
> Abe
>
I did some work on a house that had a system like that. The
house had two large stacks coming out of the roof and painted
flat black. It gave you the impression of a steam boat from
the Mississippi. I asked about it because I thought it was an
architectural feature (maybe the guy was into steam boats). I
was then shown the system.
He had two 18" diameter steel pipe stacks coming out of the
roof. These were the black stacks that were visible from the
road. They extended above the roof about 16', and vented the
attic space not much differently than a large turbine vent
except for the bracing needed for their support (which was
considerable). They had guy wire bracing like an antenna.
Beneath the house (pier and beam with about 4' of clearance
between earth and bottom of floor joists) were the outlets for
two 24" diameter plastic pipes. Both of these had damper
valves at the termination under the house. These 2 pipes
extended 150 out from the house at about 6' depth. The ground
behind the house sloped downward and these pipes vented to
atmosphere at a concreted point that allowed air passage into
the pipes. A screened enclosure kept out insects, rodents,
etc. The slope of the pipe did not allow water intrusion.
The house itself had floor and ceiling vents that allowed air
(heated in the attic and black pipes) to rise up through the
vents and into the attic and out the stacks. The natural
convection could easily be felt at the vents.
I was amazed at the ability of this system to cool this house.
It was a two story house about 3000 sf and was as cool as an
air-conditioned house. Mind you, this is in central Texas in
the summertime. (I thought that the house had normal air
conditioning until he showed me the system.)
He said that he had a normal AC system but had only had to use
it a few times during the 5 years that he had lived there (it
can be brutal here in the summer with many days of 100 plus
temperatures). He said that he plays with the dampers to
control the temperature, but did not go into a lot of detail
about how.
All in all, I was very impressed. I did not ask him about
humidity which can also be a real problem here. I would
assume that a dehumidifier could handle that fairly well.
I will probably use such a system in my next home if I have
the land for it. It would make a nice supplemental system, if
not the main system. It does require some real estate, and to
some, the stacks might be considered ugly (I liked them).
They could probably be disguised in some way if you were
inclined to not like them.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
| |
| Al Bundy 2006-02-25, 12:21 am |
| "wabky" <wabky@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1140818771.255650.272280
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember reading a
> Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free air
> conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was buried in the
> ground about five feet down. I do not remember how long the pipe/vent
> was, I would guess 1 to 2 hundred feet. The pipe/vent was connected to
> the house in the basement and vents in the roof allowed hot air to
> escape drawing in the cooler air from the buried pipe/vent. Of course
> the distant end of the pipe/vent was terminated with a air intake from
> above ground.
>
> New England might work well for such a system. The concerns I have
> are: 1, it just does not work well enough to be worth the expense and
> 2, what humidity it might add to the house.
>
> Does any one have any comments on such an idea?
>
>
> Abe
>
Lumbee River Electric in NC puts out a monthly magazine. I think it was
in one of them I saw an article about geothermal heat pumps.
A study of these were tested around the country including New England;
specifically, Burlington, VT. You go much further north than that you are
in Can-uh-duh,
Their website is http://www.lumbeeriver.com if you want to try to contact
them for the article. But I'm sure you can get oodles of info via Google.
| |
| CWatters 2006-02-25, 8:21 am |
|
"wabky" <wabky@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140818771.255650.272280@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember reading a
> Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free air
> conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was buried in the
> ground about five feet down.
http://www.igshpa.okstate.edu/
They use electricity to move heat energy from outdoors to indoors (or the
other way) - bit like a fridge. It takes around 1KW to move 3KW of heat.
That's like having electric heating but only paying say 33% for the
electricity. However in some countries electricity is three times the price
of gas or oil - so it's not allways a good deal. Do your own sums
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-02-25, 2:21 pm |
|
"Al Bundy" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9774E852FE44AAlBundy@216.196.97.142...
> "wabky" <wabky@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1140818771.255650.272280
> @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> Lumbee River Electric in NC puts out a monthly magazine. I
> think it was
> in one of them I saw an article about geothermal heat pumps.
>
> A study of these were tested around the country including
> New England;
> specifically, Burlington, VT. You go much further north than
> that you are
> in Can-uh-duh,
>
> Their website is http://www.lumbeeriver.com if you want to
> try to contact
> them for the article. But I'm sure you can get oodles of
> info via Google.
ground source heat pumps are efficient.... talent that
understands how to do a proper installation is scarce though,
same with repairs..so the cost of ownership is high in most
cases that Ive seen....first costs are also high... thats not
withstanding the inflated air cooled estimates used to make
ground source look to be the same.
the larger the house and the higher utility costs in the area,
the more sense ground source makes... for smaller homes, in
termperate areas or with less than peak rate utilities, ground
source might be the most expensive way to go in the end.
theses days totally disposable appliances and even disposable
HVAC is fast becoming the way to go if its a fit for your
house style.
Phil Scott
>
| |
|
| Phil, we have been installing water source heat pumps on several
of our complexes. The systems are extremely efficient and the
buildings have been easy to regulate. Each room has its own heat
pump working off the well loop. We do have two complexes with
small redundant boilers and a cooling tower with no chiller and a
plate frame heat exchanger. These systems have eliminated long
term problems and anyone debating a new install should at least
look into them. The oldest system we have working is about 6
years old. Only time will tell about the longevity of the heat
pumps, but right now we are very pleased.
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
dgriff237@7cox.net
"Phil Scott" <philscott@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:dtq5pb$r3q$1@news.tdl.com...
>
> "Al Bundy" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Xns9774E852FE44AAlBundy@216.196.97.142...
>
>
> ground source heat pumps are efficient.... talent that
> understands how to do a proper installation is scarce though,
> same with repairs..so the cost of ownership is high in most
> cases that Ive seen....first costs are also high... thats not
> withstanding the inflated air cooled estimates used to make
> ground source look to be the same.
>
>
> the larger the house and the higher utility costs in the area,
> the more sense ground source makes... for smaller homes, in
> termperate areas or with less than peak rate utilities, ground
> source might be the most expensive way to go in the end.
>
> theses days totally disposable appliances and even disposable
> HVAC is fast becoming the way to go if its a fit for your house
> style.
>
>
> Phil Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-02-25, 9:21 pm |
|
"DanG" <dgriff237@7cox.net> wrote in message
news:nE5Mf.1144$kp3.580@fed1read03...
> Phil, we have been installing water source heat pumps on
> several of our complexes. The systems are extremely
> efficient and the buildings have been easy to regulate.
> Each room has its own heat pump working off the well loop.
> We do have two complexes with small redundant boilers and a
> cooling tower with no chiller and a plate frame heat
> exchanger. These systems have eliminated long term problems
> and anyone debating a new install should at least look into
> them. The oldest system we have working is about 6 years
> old. Only time will tell about the longevity of the heat
> pumps, but right now we are very pleased.
What you have sounds like a properly installed larger system,
the plate and frame heat exchanger is the give away.. thats
high end and easily cleanable. The system should serve you
well for the long term.
The smaller systems are a different story, more
complexity...less net savings and often with a non cleanable
heat exchanger...that usually goes along with a bad
installation.. and a system too small to service economically.
as you get larger and take the approach you mentioned it is a
much better idea.
there are still regional ground water quality issues... that
has to be workable especially for a smaller systems with non
cleanable heat exchangers.
I did my first heat pump installation in 1962. they made some
real crap back then. These days, the 4 way valves are much
better and the compressors have one moving part, more or less
bullet proof, especially in a heat pump application.
Phil Scott
> ______________________________
> Keep the whole world singing . . . .
> DanG (remove the sevens)
> dgriff237@7cox.net
>
>
>
> "Phil Scott" <philscott@philscott.net> wrote in message
> news:dtq5pb$r3q$1@news.tdl.com...
>
>
| |
| m Ransley 2006-02-28, 1:21 am |
| The design has been used for at least 1000 years, I was in an 80 yr old
mansion with one, the owner liked the Central Ac better since you have
no humidity removal with natural cooling. The cost to install is alot
since the heat load of earth must be factored, as it gets hotter out and
you use it more it cools less as the ground warms, and it is still
humid.
| |
| Al Bundy 2006-02-28, 1:21 am |
| ransley@webtv.net (m Ransley) wrote in
news:3824-4403CF0F-63@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net:
> The design has been used for at least 1000 years, I was in an 80 yr
> old mansion with one, the owner liked the Central Ac better since you
> have no humidity removal with natural cooling. The cost to install is
> alot since the heat load of earth must be factored, as it gets hotter
> out and you use it more it cools less as the ground warms, and it is
> still humid.
>
>
> no humidity removal with natural cooling.
WOA. If that's the case it's a big Aw Crap! Thanks for that info.
| |
| Chas Hurst 2006-02-28, 2:21 am |
|
"m Ransley" <ransley@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3824-4403CF0F-63@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
> The design has been used for at least 1000 years, I was in an 80 yr old
> mansion with one, the owner liked the Central Ac better since you have
> no humidity removal with natural cooling. The cost to install is alot
> since the heat load of earth must be factored, as it gets hotter out and
> you use it more it cools less as the ground warms, and it is still
> humid.
If there's no removal of humidity then there's not much cooling going on.
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-02-28, 7:22 am |
|
"Al Bundy" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9778205F25CBAlBundy@216.196.97.142...
> ransley@webtv.net (m Ransley) wrote in
> news:3824-4403CF0F-63@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net:
>
>
>
>
> WOA. If that's the case it's a big Aw Crap! Thanks for that
> info.
that would be the case in the east, south east US and
florida etc... in the south west or the western states
humidity would not be an objectionable problem with that kind
of cooling... in the arid states ground cooling would raise
the humidity from say 10 or 20% to 30 or 40% ... thats good.
On the calif coast it would raise the humidity from approx 50%
to 65 or 70%.... a little moist but still not bad.
In florida ground cooling would take the inside humidity to
100%....an 'aw shit' for sure.
..
Phil Scott
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-02-28, 7:22 am |
|
"Chas Hurst" <hurst1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:guqdnYV8ma_4QJ7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "m Ransley" <ransley@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:3824-4403CF0F-63@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
>
> If there's no removal of humidity then there's not much
> cooling going on.
that statement would be nearly 100% true in florida for
instance, and not true to any great extent in New Mexico for
example... where the ultra dry air would rise in humidity when
cooled ... to more a more ideal conditions range.
the key word in 'relative humidity' is 'relative'... that
word means to say that cool air holds less moisture than
warmer air...
,,,,so when you cool warmer air without adding moisture as
with ground cooling, or taking any moisture out as with air
conditioning.., the 'relative' humidity of the cooled air
rises...
there is no more water added to the air actually... but the
cooler air holds less water, so its 'relatively' more humid
with the same moisture content. Understand that and you will
be ahead of more than a few mechanical engineers.
the term 'relative' is not understood by a lot of folks in
this business.
Phil Scott
>
>
| |
| m Ransley 2006-02-28, 4:21 pm |
| Im speaking of the midwest. You can have cooling and high humidity.
Humidity is the real reason we here are uncomfortable. Even an oversized
AC will leave you clammy and uncomfortable. Id guess above 55-60% at 72
is minor but above that it isnt great. 45-50% at 72 is the best
combination. With a passive system you will rarely get comfortable in my
location. It is truely location dependant on what works.
| |
| Al Bundy 2006-03-01, 12:21 am |
| "Phil Scott" <philscott@philscott.net> wrote in news:du1ab8$jkh$1
@news.tdl.com:
>
> "Al Bundy" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Xns9778205F25CBAlBundy@216.196.97.142...
>
> that would be the case in the east, south east US and
> florida etc... in the south west or the western states
> humidity would not be an objectionable problem with that kind
> of cooling... in the arid states ground cooling would raise
> the humidity from say 10 or 20% to 30 or 40% ... thats good.
>
>
> On the calif coast it would raise the humidity from approx 50%
> to 65 or 70%.... a little moist but still not bad.
>
> In florida ground cooling would take the inside humidity to
> 100%....an 'aw shit' for sure.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Phil Scott
>
>
Well Phil, where I am now, for two months straight daytime highs are
never below 90. You don't need instruments. You can pretty much guess
the temp, RH and dew point are all the same; 95 :-)
It's still better than previous location where the annual winter cold
snap was -20 to -30 nights. One super cold night when the wind chill was
about minus 45, I tried what I had heard can be done for so many years.
Boiled a pan of water and threw it off the deck. Indeed, water never hit
the ground. Just ice crystals. Absolutely cool to actually see. I've
heard unboiled water will do that at -60. Fortunately never got to try
that one!
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-03-02, 12:21 am |
|
"Al Bundy" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9778E3F2F9E40AlBundy@216.196.97.142...
> "Phil Scott" <philscott@philscott.net> wrote in
> news:du1ab8$jkh$1
> @news.tdl.com:
>
>
> Well Phil, where I am now, for two months straight daytime
> highs are
> never below 90. You don't need instruments. You can pretty
> much guess
> the temp, RH and dew point are all the same; 95 :-)
Thats nasty... I was in Houston for a while..it was like
that so hot that when you walked out the door the first leg
was sweating before the other leg got out.
>
> It's still better than previous location where the annual
> winter cold
> snap was -20 to -30 nights. One super cold night when the
> wind chill was
> about minus 45, I tried what I had heard can be done for so
> many years.
> Boiled a pan of water and threw it off the deck. Indeed,
> water never hit
> the ground. Just ice crystals. Absolutely cool to actually
> see. I've
> heard unboiled water will do that at -60. Fortunately never
> got to try
> that one!
The hot water goes to vapor in that situation, the surface
area of the water dropplets is much larger than with cold
water so it freezes faster
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-03-02, 12:21 am |
|
"m Ransley" <ransley@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15973-4404AAC2-1177@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net...
> Im speaking of the midwest. You can have cooling and high
> humidity.
> Humidity is the real reason we here are uncomfortable. Even
> an oversized
> AC will leave you clammy and uncomfortable. Id guess above
> 55-60% at 72
> is minor but above that it isnt great. 45-50% at 72 is the
> best
> combination. With a passive system you will rarely get
> comfortable in my
> location. It is truely location dependant on what works.
To avoid clammy conditions, first the AC should not be
oversized by very much... a little is fine though. then the
indoor blower can be slowed down, this will provide a colder
evaporator coil that will remove more water from the air.
there are charts by most mfgrs for selecting coil/ fan and
condensing unit combinations to provide various levels of
dehumidification...(called the sensible to latent heat ratio)
In summary the unit must run enough of the time to accomplish
the dehumidification and do it without over cooling the
space.... a small evap coil and a larger condensing unit, and
a slightly smaller fan work to provide that.
most furnaces these days have 3 speed fans...in most cases you
can just wire a lower fans speed for cooling and get the
dehumidification you want.
however..... over charging the system with gas will keep the
evaporator coil too high to provide de-humidification... a
good HVAC guy knows all that...there is no doubt such an
outfit in your town.
Too much gas in the system will also result in a much higher
operating cost.
beyond that is air infiltration...if you have too much humid
air infiltration into the home, it takes more AC etc to get
rid of it.
primarily though the problem is caused by the issues
mentioned.
also a dirty condenser coil will run up the 'head pressure'
the inside coil pressure will then also rise, the coil temp is
a function of the pressure in the coil/
its not as complex as I am making it sound... call some ac
shops and discuss the cures, you will be able to judge who
knows the score
Phil Scott
HVAC contractor since 1141
>
| |
| Al Bundy 2006-03-02, 1:21 am |
| "Phil Scott" <philscott@philscott.net> wrote in news:du5ppp$mkd$1
@news.tdl.com:
>
> "Al Bundy" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Xns9778E3F2F9E40AlBundy@216.196.97.142...
>
> Thats nasty... I was in Houston for a while..it was like
> that so hot that when you walked out the door the first leg
> was sweating before the other leg got out.
>
>
>
>
> The hot water goes to vapor in that situation, the surface
> area of the water dropplets is much larger than with cold
> water so it freezes faster
>
>
>
>
>
> when you walked out the door the first leg
> was sweating before the other leg got out.
LOL <literally>
That may be old as the hills but first I heard it. Hopefully can remember
it.
| |
| m Ransley 2006-03-02, 9:21 am |
| I have had pros out, the cure is a smaller compressor unit, my fan is on
low. My unit is 50% oversized, I insulated and new windows after the ac
was installed. so I run dehumidifiers.
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-03-03, 3:21 am |
|
"Al Bundy" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9779EFAFA255AlBundy@216.196.97.142...
> "Phil Scott" <philscott@philscott.net> wrote in
> news:du5ppp$mkd$1
> @news.tdl.com:
>
>
>
>
> LOL <literally>
>
> That may be old as the hills but first I heard it. Hopefully
> can remember
> it.
that was an original...and factual too.
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-03-03, 3:21 am |
|
"m Ransley" <ransley@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20071-4406EADD-167@storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net...
>I have had pros out, the cure is a smaller compressor unit,
The cure IS a smaller compressor unit if the previous one
was not running enough to keep the coil cold and
dehumidifying... however if the condensing unit is not grossly
over sized, a smaller unit will just have the evaporator coil
running too warm to do any dehumidification.
your experts correctly diagnosed that and solved the problem
if the AC de-humidifes properly now... the solution however
varies along the lines Ive mentioned.
my fan is on
> low. My unit is 50% oversized, I insulated and new windows
> after the ac
> was installed. so I run dehumidifiers.
the ac is still not right then if you must run
dehumidifiers... see my previous posts on the physics issues.
My background for the last 40 years is HVAC. mostly larger
tight tolerance systems, in semi conductor, and pharmaceutical
industry ..I do a lot of consulting, some for the US Dept of
Energy on these issues. Its not new in the industry though,
virtually all manufacturers have selection charts to avoid
this problem on the original installation... so someone
involved in your job is unaware of that. Thats why you have
to run the de-humidifiers.
Phil Scott
>
| |
| m Ransley 2006-03-03, 9:21 am |
| I went from a load calc of 100000 btu to 45000 with Tyvek covering
walls, with 2" R 7.2" foamboard and blowing in walls making walls R 30,
Attic from R 6 - R 110. Triple pane replacing crap, and a fully
insulated basement even under concrete, foamboard. My Ng for 1800 sq ft
Zone 5 in 04 was 465 for the whole YEAR. so it is my fault I need to run
2 dehumidifiers, but my AC electric bill is never more than 35$. My
house is 110 years old and now about as efficient as possible. Im going
VS DC with Freeze stat on coil, that will help. My unit was expensive a
14.5 seer Lenox, so for now I will keep it and run dehumidifiers with
drain hoses, it is still cheap to run.
| |
|
| Thank you to all that responded. I think I will try it. One item that
I do not understand regarding the concerns about humidity though, if I
bring in air having passed it through cool pipes in the ground, why
would I have a worse humidity problem than having a window fan pulling
outside air inside? Warm air is OK yet cooler air is bad?
Thanks again,
Abe
wabky wrote:
> I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember reading a
> Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free air
> conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was buried in the
> ground about five feet down. I do not remember how long the pipe/vent
> was, I would guess 1 to 2 hundred feet. The pipe/vent was connected to
> the house in the basement and vents in the roof allowed hot air to
> escape drawing in the cooler air from the buried pipe/vent. Of course
> the distant end of the pipe/vent was terminated with a air intake from
> above ground.
>
> New England might work well for such a system. The concerns I have
> are: 1, it just does not work well enough to be worth the expense and
> 2, what humidity it might add to the house.
>
> Does any one have any comments on such an idea?
>
>
> Abe
| |
|
| Thank you to all that responded. I think I will try it. One item that
I do not understand regarding the concerns about humidity though, if I
bring in air having passed it through cool pipes in the ground, why
would I have a worse humidity problem than having a window fan pulling
outside air inside? Warm air is OK yet cooler air is bad?
Thanks again,
Abe
wabky wrote:
> I am planing on building a home in New England. I remember reading a
> Popular Science or Mechanic from around 1960 about a "free air
> conditioning system. What was done was pipe or vent was buried in the
> ground about five feet down. I do not remember how long the pipe/vent
> was, I would guess 1 to 2 hundred feet. The pipe/vent was connected to
> the house in the basement and vents in the roof allowed hot air to
> escape drawing in the cooler air from the buried pipe/vent. Of course
> the distant end of the pipe/vent was terminated with a air intake from
> above ground.
>
> New England might work well for such a system. The concerns I have
> are: 1, it just does not work well enough to be worth the expense and
> 2, what humidity it might add to the house.
>
> Does any one have any comments on such an idea?
>
>
> Abe
| |
| Phil Scott 2006-03-19, 7:21 pm |
|
"wabky" <wabky@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142800156.054172.168470@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thank you to all that responded. I think I will try it.
> One item that
> I do not understand regarding the concerns about humidity
> though, if I
> bring in air having passed it through cool pipes in the
> ground, why
> would I have a worse humidity problem than having a window
> fan pulling
> outside air inside? Warm air is OK yet cooler air is bad?
the cooler air is not bad... its just that it will hold LESS
water...so the water already in the air before it entered your
underground pipe still has that water...when the air is cooled
the R E L A T I V E humidity goes up...its not a
problem...you still got SENSIBLE cooling... thats actual
cooling.. you just did not get any dehumidification. You don
not need dehumidification to any great degree unless it gets
too high... ASHRAE guide has about 10 pages of fine print and
charts on that.... dont bother. for your situation and
considerations its not relevant.
|
|
|
|
|