*
What’s the reason for not using Heat/Energy Recovery Ventilators for
mechanical ventilation and latent heat
recovery in north east ?
Tedd
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Listeners write in about haunted pipes and building-science tomes, and they ask questions about roof venting and roof leaks.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Tedd,
I don't know why? I don't think there's much difference between where you are and here in Eastern Ontario. We use them in most new home construction. Our houses are sealed up tight and the inside air has to be changed, and these units are the most efficient to prevent unwanted heat loss.
I know that heatpumps ( in our climate) are a waste of money, could it be that you were given the wrong information and it was the heatpumps they were refering to?
*
Hi Gabe ... I had/have the same view as you but in another string or two someone -- I can't remember who -- told someone else that ERV's aren't needed in the NE U.S. (I presume it applies to the Atlantic Provinces as well). I'm casting for an explanation -- but I would rather throw a fly into the Little SW Miramichi.
I live in Toronto now and work around the Lakes. The Great Lakes climate is not so different from the east coast - humidity levels high - cold winters and hot summers. The post I am referring to was saying that abasic bathroom fan is adequate and an ERV wouldn't be needed.
My view -- but I can always change -- is that ERV's can be ducted to conttrol whole house humidity levels, save money by recovering latent heat and are a cheaper way to handle cooling as well .. and a must in a place with less than .5 ACH.
Tedd
*
Tedd
Gene L. has written in threads here that studies done in the U.S. indicate that HRV's are not cost effective in most applications. Check the archives, there's been a few discussions over the last year. I've asked him recently, in another thread what he uses
i instead
to provide the usual 6-8 air changes per day,but still keep his heating bills so incredibly low. . . but he must have missed the querie.
-Patrick
*
Thanks Patrick
Oh Gene ... where are you.
Tedd
*
Gentlemen. FredL is the one who argued against AAHE(Air-to-air-heat-exchangers) Heat Recovery Ventilators(HRV) and whatever else they are called. In a very tight heavily insulated house they are not necessary, nor cost effective, as was the case in the first Leger house.
If you listen to manufacturers of HRVs every house should be equipped with an HRV. That houses need mechanical ventilation is unquestioned. That they need HRVs is debatable.
The NorthwestPower Planning council (Super Good Cent Program (SGC)) found that AAHE were generally not cost effective.Higher costs and less air-tightness (the air-tightness achieved by builders in the SGC program were off by a factor of 2 spelled the end of the widespread use of HRV, particularly in Washington and Oregon, where milder climates prevail.
In south Dakota under programs funded with state money, engineers found that AAHEs were not cost effective.Installed costs of HRVs at the time ranged from $500 to $2000, and effectiveness ranged from 55 to 75 percent. The most effective units realized incremental savings of only $18.00 annually.
The need for an HRV depends on (1) the energy cost of ventilation; (2)cost savings from heat recovery; (3)the cost of an HRV. The cost of ventilation depends on (a) the rate of ventilation; (b)the coldness and duration of the winter; (c) fuel costs; (d)furnace efficiency.
The energy cost of ventilation over a heating season can be computed from the formula Q=0.18xACHxVx24xDD. Where Q = the required energy in Btus, 0,018 is the heat capacity of air, ACH is the ventilation rate in air changes per hour, V is the house volume, and DD is the number of degree days.
Example. given, a 2500 sq.ft house with a volume of 17,400 cubic feet, located in a 7000 DD year, heated with propane costing $.99 per gallon, and an air change rate of 0.5 ACH, what is the energy consumption annually?
Q=0.018x 0.5x17,400x24x7000= 26,308,800 Btus per year.
The cost of this energy is founbd from: C=[q/(Uxe)]xP
Where C is the yearly cost in dollars, U is the number of Btus per unit of purchased energy,e is the furnace's efficiency and P is the cost of the purchased energy.
C= [26,308,800/(95,000 x .75)x 0.98 = $365.55 per year. The 95,000 is the number of Btu's in a gsallon of propane, .75 is the furnaces efficiency.
The ventilation costs of this sample house are high and an HRV might make sense. If the ACH were 0.25 the cost would be reduced to $182.78. If natural gas were available, and a 95 percent efficiient furnace was used the cost would be:
C= 13,154,400/(100,000x .95)]x0.65=$92.77. We have assumed a new ACH of 0.25 and a fuel cost of ).65 cents per 100,000 Btus. The cost of running the fan is not included in these calculations. Because ventilation costs are low, heat recovery is less feasible.
Clearly then, a number of factors must be considered before purchasing an HRV": ventilation rate, climate, energy costs. In Saskatchewan with a 12,000 DD an HRV provides substantial savings. In milder climates savings are marginal. The 1977 Leger House located in a 6700DD area, uses natural gas, and has an ACH of 0,25. The savings from an AAHE were only $25.88 annually. Hope this helps. GeneL
*Gene and partnerTo even suggest that a bathroom fan in a tight house (avg. 1500 sq. ft.) will keep the air clean and healthy is a mockery. To suggest that all the companies in North America are only interested in giving out misinformation in order to make millions is a sad statement indeed. 1000's of houses are built every year, by builders who never heard of either of you and have done so for 100's of years and guess what, the houses are still standing and doing quiet well.Thank God you have only been able to befuddle a dozen followers. When P.T. Barnum said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time", I never thought of it as the salvation for the sanity of the construction industry.
*
Fred ... are you saying the bath fan will manage whole-house, all-season ventilation requirements -- fresh air and humidity expulsion.
The NE can get pretty humid in summer, how does the bath fan help when its moving indoor and outdoor air with same RH. What about the summer cooling benefits of an ERV with a dehumidification function?
How do you withdraw and distribute fresh air from all corners/rooms with a single bath fan or are you installing centrally with network of room by room supply and exhaust ducts? Or are you saying that each room doesn't need the managed air exchange?
Where in house are you installing the bath fan?
Where are you getting the cost information on the ERV's -- is it available and are there comparisons between models and with your option ?
Tedd
Tedd
*
Gene
I remain ever inquisitive as to how you achieve heating bills of just $35/yr, while maintaing at least .25AC/H . Surely there is a loss of heat over a 24 hour period when, excluding all other factors, the interior air is completely exchanged at least 6 times and yet at $35/yr in heating it is apparently insignificant. Even though the interior air is being exchanged slowly, it is still being diluted with colder exterior air at a presumably constant rate, thereby needing an equal injection of heat to maintain a constant indoor temp. Even with your super insulated design, this constant dilution must have
i some
effect???
Thick as a brick sometimes. . .
Oh, and what do
i you
use for mechanical ventilation???
-Patrick
*Some of the biggest builders around here (Chicago area) - measured in 100's or 1000's of units a year - seem to be having a very high success with these strategies: no venting, no poly, and cells in the attic - with help from Joe Lstibrue (forgive mispelling please).
*Gabe,You are missing what I see about 1000's of homes built without proper understanding's of Building Science...My home that was built by a typical builder has many faults in it's weatherization details (and caulk's not the answer!)...I think building knowledge was higher in the "cave days" than now...Yes my house "still stands," but that doesn't mean it was built as well as Building Science would lead me to beleive is possible...And I repeat, since it seems necessary, that I am an independent thinker and came to this forum well informed on weatherization issues and and am not a part of a "group" opposed to your views...To me it's all about...proper drip edges...capilary breaks...stopping air leaks...using windows and doors for air exchange...Building Science makes sense to me.Near the stream,J
*
Jack ... are you on BS's payroll :-(
Good old BS, eh :-)
Tedd, in need of a smile so he laughs at his own joke.
*
tedd,
I went to an energy conference a few years back put on by the State of New York at West Point....Joe L was one of the most interesting speakers and had me as well as every other builder dumbfounded and mesmerized by the huge volume of basic Building Science to understand....I audio taped most of the conference and listen to all every few years...great stuff.
On my own payroll, near the stream,
J
*Fellow pilot, get down to 3,000 ft. you need oxygen NOW!!You are a total contradiction. You constantly flame caulking, but support "building science" housing theories which are totally dependant on caulking.Which is it Jack?If you hate conventional construction practices that much, what made you buy one instead of building your own? It's a fact that, as builders, we do build our own for less than we can buy houses built by others.
*The measure of success Bill is defined many way. A con artist would consider success by the number of people he sold magic beans to. It's like FredL's claim that all you need to vent an air tight house is a bathroom fan running, as long as the windows are open!False claims are easy, it's the rest of the story that I'm after.
*Lower energy cost, increased customer satisfaction, additional profit because of the appeal of these features, greater comfort, generally considered a healthier house, a.h.j. acceptance, good press, no reported failures (like in some polybattvent afflicted houses). I'd call that generally accepted success in the context of Fine Homebuilding.Do you ever have anything constructive to say Gabe? I haven't seen it. Junk yard dogs are more fun to be around. And most of the Canadians I have associated with are so polite and pleasant and generally willing to discuss things in a genteel manner - what happen
*I'm just curious about one little thing Bill, what has been YOUR contribution other than backup singing.Everytime one aspect of your total package theory is challenged, you all run to another topic and try to make it personal.I will ask you two very simple questions. Have you had the opportunity to examine a R-2000 house or the R-2000 program and if you don't agree with it, WHY?
*Gabe. If you were as circumspect as you allege you would not claim that I "...suggest that all the companies in North America are only interested in giving out misinformation in order to make millions..." I said they would all have you believe that every house needs an HRV. I further noted " That houses need mechanical ventilation is unquestioned. That they need HRVs is debatable."The Bonneville Power Administration and the state of S.Dakota--why do I have to repeat this--both found that AAHE s were uneconomical. There is considerable ongoing European research into Natural Ventilation that shows natural ventilation is often sufficient, without any assistance from mechanical ventilation.A true skeptic does not say it's all smook and mirrors. He withholds judgement until evidence is presented to support claims.Even without the evidence he still withholds judgement. When was the last time an HRV manufacturer provided you with the mathematical formulas--as I have--to determine if--IF an HRV is required? Or do you just install them because the R2000 program says they are a must? GeneL
*Dear Gene,It's like talking to a ventriloquist and his puppets. You ask one a question and the other answers without moving his lips.To support a concept that a bathroom fan will ventilate an entire house is simply the most ridiculous statement that I have heard in years."We open our windows in the summertime" is as technical as it gets.Seeing that I'm dealing with a clique, I will ask the entire group the same questions.(remember FredL already stated that I was wrong in saying that 90% of all the houses in North America could be heated with a 150,000 btu furnace.)Why can't 90% of the houses in North America be heated with a 150,000 btu furnace?Gene, you first.
*I read some about R2000 program some years ago - before internet at least - like late 80's. I got to point that next step was to buy manual and wasn't interested. I was unimpressed.No I haven't seen a house built to that spec - there aren't many and I doubt if any near me.I've never run and have generally responded to any challenges worth while. I've never focused on the personal like you have so stop lieing. You misquote and mistate a lot.I shared my experiences with using shellac - and by the volume of email many people benefited from that. Also on d.i.y. cellulose blowing. And helped dispell the notion pressure diagnostics could be done with a barometer.I haven't seen anything constructive contributed from you.So I answered all your charges and questions - you'll probably criticize me for posting so much. Predictable
*There you go again Gabe. Fred said "Or why it's never appropriate to put a 150K Btu heater in a house." He didn't say Gabe "was wrong in saying that 90% of all the houses in North America could be heated with a 150,000 btu furnace." Big difference.
*Wrong Bill,Your post sounded honest.
*Sorry Bill, but wrong again, in the previous post, FredL's answer was a 200 word "no" when I asked if my statement was fact.Now I will have to see if he can defend his critique.
*Gabe,What's the point of poisoning this and all of breaktime that you touch?...With arguement that is not relevant...We all know you have no respect for Fred L and that it spills over to anyone who differs in opinion from you and even hints at agreeing with what Gene or Fred or Joe L are working hard to understand and implement in construction. R2000 as you often talk about probably works fairly well...I don't know...but it is based on perfecting the age old fiber/poly/vent methods...Where as SIPs and DP cels without poly and the idea of sealing the shell so as to go without venting or minimise the need for it are just alternatives...You must be in favor of diversity in thinking...Yes?...Lets build homes each our own way, let's discuss our ways, and other peoples ways, civily if possible, without the sand kicking, biting, and name calling...150k btu's will heat most homes...You dislike Fred L and his disdain for poly/vent/fiberglass...And you think a few of us are Fred L groupies in a tranz or whatever...We've got that memorized forever...Lets move on!@!!???Near the stream,JTennis season has started...and I truly love my fun (work)!!!!....Gabe you're not a tennis expert too are you?
*Gabe,I have rewritten your post to see what it might be like if we all weren't so anger invoking to you....What do you think? (Looking for peaceful debate)Hi Bill,Glad you're part of the debate here...As you know I am very knowledgable about the r2000 program in Canada and would like it discussed more compared to what Fred L and Gene have to say about weatherization. Your posts sound like you're more in favor with Fred L and Gene's ideas than r2000 and I respect you for your differences. With that said...I'm just curious about one little thing Bill...Have you had the opportunity to examine a R-2000 house or the R-2000 program and if you don't agree with it, WHY? Thanks,Gabe
*It might be a good idea to take a nap before one goes on line.
*Gabe. Please explain how bringing up Fred's bathroom fan answers my post? I have been off the net for two days and some of Fred's and your posts I have not read. The reason a 150 K Btu furnace cannot heat 90% of all the houses in North America is because it doe not exists. It is still in the design stage.To quote Fred correctly "...it's never appropriate to put a 150K Btu heater in a house." For 20 wome odd years now I have urged builders to stop concentrating on the furnace and pay attention to the house. Your knowledge of what Canadian building scientists are doing in Canada seesm to be limited to the outdated R2000 house. Let me introduce you to Canadian David Eyre, and what he said in September 1981: "Furnace technology is not d eveloping in the right direction. There is too much concern with improved effcicency and scarcely any concrn with low prices and reduced capacity. The main obstacle here lies in thinking of the furnce as an isolated self-sufficient unit, rather than as a small element in the larger entity of the house. When it is looked at in this way, the furnace becomes an interactoing unit within a retrofit package. In this light, many of the current furnace developments are seen to be inappropriate. For as long as these present developments persist, the stnadard furnace, with its efficiency in the range 65% to70%, is bound to be more cost-effective and more marketable." I can only wonder at your reaction to this. But what led Eyre to say this? "If a house is retrofitted to a very high level of energy efficiency, its space heating demands will fall well below the capacities of the existing range of furnaces (natural gas type).One solution is to use the domestic hot water tank to heat the house..."Given all of this, it makes perfect sense for Gene Leger--he's been saying it and practicing it for 20 years-Dave Eyre, and FredL to argue against just "dropping" a 100K Btu furnace in the house.Concentrate on air sealing and beefing up insulation levels and finding a furnace small enough will be you main problem, and concentrate on the house. Because we concentrated on what matters: the house, the first Leger house was and is heated with a Japanese Paloma natural gas instantaneous wtare heater, rated output 46,000 Btus.,Of course all the experts said it would not fly. If 90% of the houses in America were MESH houses, the Paloma Pac or something snaller would heat them very well.What is wrong with an exhaust only--yes, it does have some negatives--ventilation system? Or a natural ventilation system? If my gas appliances are all vented to the exterior, and equipped with outside air intake where appropriate. what is wrong with my bathroom exhaust fan ventilating the whole house? GeneL.
*I'll admit I'm wrong if you can reference the post by number or som such identifier. I looked through a lot of threads and never saw Fred say all those houses couldn't be heated with 150k btu unit.
*Dear Bill,The last word in paragraph 3 I think in "heat Loss Modelling with FredL Input" 3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. FredL 09:44 April 1.The "no" is camoflaged inside 200 words of nothing.
*Sorry Gabe - he said "no" to this question posted by you: "Do you not beleive that 90% of the houses in North America, could be adequatly heated with a 150,000 btu heating system or not?"You, who complain about verbosity, have a few too many "not"s in this to be right or wrong. Leave out both "not"s and if Fred answers "no" you're right. Add first "not" and your wrong. But a technical reading will show, I believe, that any answer to your question could be right or wrong no matter what the facts with your "or not" at the end.More significantly, in context with all of your's and Fred's posts, he has been very clear that he believes that this large of unit is unwarranted for most house if they are properly weatherized. I suggest taking a few more lessons from our president when it comes to splitting verbal hairs.
*Gabe? If I'm wrong I'll admit it and give you the credit.
*I don't think a 150K BTU furnace will heat my house, I can't find a duct reducer to 3/4" copper on by baseboards. Ha HaHow about a HRV with a small water coil in it as the only distribution for heat in a well insulated tight house.
*Good Morning Gene,One of my clients builds 2 million btu, low pressure boilers for construction sites and crop drying. We use the same boiler for jobsites requiring only 500,000 btu's. On some projects they run at 20% capacity and on others they run as high as 90% capacity. The cost of running them is controlled by fuel demand. On what information do you base you statement that there no such thing as a 150,000 btu furnace or boiler because it hasn't been invented yet?Fact. If only one heating system was available, and if that heating system, (forced hot air, electric, oil, gas, low pressure, high pressure, boiler, hotwater, glycol, whatever) was standardized at 150,000 btu's.a) it would meet the heating requirements for 90% of all homes built in North America. Some heating requirements would run at 0% demand and others would run at 100% demand. Heating cost would still be governed by demand on the unit, not by the size of the unit.b) the cost of such a standard unit would be a fraction of what it is today.c) technology would have to focus on quality of this standard unit in order to gain or control market share. Now, you accuse me of living in the past, why do you quote early 80's to make brownie points? The R-2000 is not outdated, your Leger House is. Houses of century past used open windows to ventilate, we now heat, cool, filter and condition air that we breath inside.To suggest to others that they ventilate their houses with bathroom exhaust fans, inside of a sealed home is irresponsible. When it's minus 30 you don't crank open the windows to freshen the air or exchange it, and you shouldn't be subjected to recycling used air that is full of bacteria, molds, off-gassing etc.I wouldn't want to be present in such a house, during a winter storm and have Jack in the living room, farting.
*Gabe. It is easy to write something and think its clear. It happens to me every now and then. My response was to the way you wrote that sentence: what you meant, was obvious, what you wrote was at odds with what you intended. Of course 150k furnaces exist, but one that will heat 90% ofall the houses in North America does not exist,and that is what I said: "The reason a 150 K Btu furnace cannot heat 90% of all the houses in North America is because it does not exist. It is still in the design stage." .What Dave Eyre said 18 years ago is as fresh as ever.Stop and think of what happened as a result of the OPEC crisis: well meaning but misguided individuals rushed to convert to high efficiency gas furnaces, install thermopane windows, thermal shutters ans so on.Oh yes, there was an immediate advantage. But tempest fugit and the claimed savings were not forthcoming. In a properly designed and built house a heating system in not necessary. More later. GeneL
*Dear Gene,What do you mean, "In a properly designed and built house a heating system is not necessary." Something other than body heat is required to heat a house, even if the only exhaust were a bathroom fan.Regarding, the 150,000 btu unit not being invented yet, this will come to a great shock to some of my business partners. Heat on demand is the same as fuel on demand and we've been doing it for decades.
*Gabe? Still claiming Fred was WRONG in his answer to you?You said "Everytime one aspect of your total package theory is challenged, you all run to another topic and try to make it personal." But now it looks like you ran off.Well, if you can show me wrong I'll be man enough to admit it and apologize.Regards, Bill.
*Good evening Bill,Didn't know it was a challenge of sorts. How about not fueling the fire, and let FredL speak for himself. He ran off and tried a little MacCarthyism and now he's going to sulk until he gets his way. Does the phrase "when hell freezes over" give an indication of when that will be. So be a good boy, and stay out of the cross fire.
*Gabe - There you go again with your denigration - calling me "boy". You made a statement - and now you are running from defending it.And don't accuse me of speaking for Fred. He is more than able to speak eloquently for himself.Bill
*Things a little slow tonite Bill,surely you must have something else to do, other than stand in front of freight trains.FredL doesn't speak "eloquently" and what he writes is hate literature, which puts him in a league all by himself, for sure. He is not versed enough to discuss this subject and would have to rely on Gene for information anyways, so I cut out the middleman.Right now, I'm discussing this subject with Gene, and I fully intend to stay with this discussion to it's conclusion. You are not part of it, take some of your own advise and don't be antagonistic.
*Gabe,I think Gene means a variable output and variable blower furnace that goes up to 150K btu and down to about 5K.
*
I get it, Gene. Just think of the duct work connecting 90% of the homes in North America to that furnace! You'll have to forgive Gabe, he's a little slow.
*
I guess I am really backwards. I enjoy passive cooling from 6 surrounding sugar maples by "opening my windows." What a concept. The sad thing is that in many suburbs all you will hear are the condenser fans kick on and off at night.
Gabe - I don't think anyone here argues what the HRV does. The point was that it really isn't needed.
I think Fred's point was that a cheap 80 cfm bath fan will exhaust 115,200 cubic feet per day. This was the simple example. The more involved one was the central fantech unit that exhausted from all areas and mixed incoming air. You failed to mention this example because it is reasonable.
I wish you would stop this childish crap.
I am glad someone has explained the economics of whole house venting. Thank you again Gene and Fred. Again Gabe, you failed to support your assertions. I mentioned this before in the Heat Loss thread that has apparently been deleted. Please provide evidence to support yourself. This just occured to me - you sound just like a politician. Speak in flowering generalities, lull people over. When serious questions come start the mudslinging, because the truth is that most politicians are just talking heads.
This is how we Americans got stuck with Bill.
Gabe - what is your goal in this website? We all know you are tons better than we are, and obviously much smarter. Your "clients" are lucky to be allowed to pay you large sums of money - why bother with us dolts?
-Rob
*Good Afternoon Rob,The fact that you believe that an 80 cfm will exhaust 115,200 cubic feet of stale air out of a sealed house is proof enough that my work amongst the flock is not over yet.In a sealed house, where, praytell, will the 80cfm fan get the air to exhaust? The concept of a SEALED house is "It's sealed off from the outside" No air coming in, get it? Only an amoeba would fall for that kind of BS. For air to go out of a sealed house it has to be EXCHANGED with outside air. THIS WHY THEY CALL IT AN AIR EXCHANGER ROB.Mud slinging? I'm not the one that started hate treads because I got kicked in the teeth and couldn't take it. Not to mention the "good loyal followers who had to put in their "two cents worth" all in the name of constructive, building related advice. So Rob,take your cheap, unsolicited comments and put them where the sun don't shine. For once in your life, let Gene answer his own discussion.Just be glad that Bill did it to Monica, and not you.
*Gabe,Why the insistence that nobody else join in on whatever particular topic is being discussed? Is this not a public forum? I thought one of the goals here was to share knowledge. If Rob can add to the discussion and help clarify things, why not? It's about communicating, not about winning.Steve
*Good evening Steve,I saw examples of your communications in the other post, you tell me why you found it so important to stand in judgement over others? You can play judge jury and executioner if you want, I don't have time for it.
*Gabe, let me clarify a bit. I guess I see the ideal situation being one where the furnace has an outside air intake that blends "outside air" (note ASHRAE stopped calling it "fresh air" back in the 80's) that would provide a continuous supply of mixed return air. In big industrial cooling we call these economisers. This would also provide the required short circuit for when an exhaust fan was running.How would you suggest connecting a kitchen exhaust fan in one of these "sealed" houses? Can anyone quantify the term "sealed" for me. It occurs to me that every bit of air exhausted from a kitchen fan has to be wasted because HEX's would just foul up with tons of moisture and grease. Did it occur to all of you that upwards of 90 percent of existing houses are considered "loose" in terms of airflow?You didn't comment on the fantech central fan idea. Based on your previous behavior I will call this "passive consent" as opposed to "active disagreement."As an engineer I like to explain things to myself in terms of a black box. I've been doing this during my career in totally different industries and has worked thus far. The house is a box. The simpleset way to ventilate would be natural convection - cut a hole in the top and bottom. This is difficult to control so we add mechanical ventilation - a fan. Note - this can be any fan regardless of cost, brand or trade name. This exhaust could also be addressed with the flue vents from combustion appliances. Furnaces and water heaters will take handle this nicely. The situation then becomes makeup air for the exhaust to work. An outside air intake anywhere in the house will work. A door that opens when people step in or out will also do this. A mail slot will do this. Every window currently sold leaks some air. So to me the issue becomes regulating makeup air. Is it economical to precisely regulate this makeup air and exchange the heat in it? The answer appears to be "no."I will put all of my unsolicited comments in my basement, per your advice, but I don't know what that will prove. The amaryllis do well down there.-Rob
*If a blower door test has been done you could easily extrapolate what flow a given exhaust fan would do from it's pressure-volume curves. I have built some ridiculously tight structures and even they leaked in some air.
*Gabe,In answer to your question, I admit I make judgements every day of my life. Critical evaluation is the key method by which I sort the useful information from the useless bafflegab that congests this world. In all things, consider the source.Steve
*Excellent Ron, see we can use science and data, just like a plan.-Rob
*Good Afternoon Rob,The simplest way to explain this it to compare the air in a house to be like water in a large open tank with baffles to duplicate the doors and rooms of a house.A) If you had a tap at the bottom and you openned it, the water would drain out and soon would be dry. B) However,if you wanted to maintain the level of water, you would have to replace that water that you were draining with fresh water. Obviously, it would never replace all the water, even if it ran all day.Some areas of the tank would have virtually clean water while others would have stale water.And that, in simple, easy to understand terms, is why a 80cfm bathroom fan cannot change the air in a common house.
*Even an inline ducted (bathroom)fan with ditributed inlets?Wouldn't simple diffusion, molecular activity, and thermal currents eliminate "stale" corners in your tank or my box?-Rob
*Hi Rob,If you're using a bathroom fan connected to ductwork, branched out throughout the house, all you're doing is building a miniturized air exchanger. One that isn't big enough to work.Going back to the tank to explain the second part of your question. Now, picture the same tank, with a dribble tap (80cfm) add a bathroom blue toilet bowl cleaner into the water. This would duplicate the stale air being produced by occupants and lifestyle, also the offgassing created by carpeting, various products and finishes. The small capacity of an undersized fan, just wouldn't cut it.It's not a matter of cleaning the air once and it's done, it's a matter of cleaning the air AND maintaining the air quality, as the day goes on.With regards to using, diffusion, molecular activity and thermal currents to eliminate "stale" corners, I think we can all agree that this would be an engineering nightmare to design and not practical to even attempt.
*Hi all,Can someone explain how air exchangers (what's the difference between an ERV and an HRV) are rated? Is it in CFM? How do they work? Where are they installed? What kind of ductwork is involved? Is it a point-source kind of thing or distributed ductwork? Do they run constantly or periodically?Ignorantly,Steve
*You can refer to post titled Steve Zerby 0:832 April 7th, 12.1.1.1.2
*Gabe,Thank you for the insightful post.Steve
*Freddy,As usual you're the only thing that's full of holes. The air or water does all mix, what the point is, is that it doesn't REPLACE entirely, which means, the air is always stale to some degree. Which probably explain the chronic lethargic answers or formulas that spew from your mind.
*Freddy, your mindless comments are as refreshing a winter manure being spread in the spring air.The water tank explaination, may have been above your ameoba mind, but I do believe the people that it was directed to, got the jest of it, quiet well.Where's your buddy Gene, these day's? It's strange to see the dummy talk without the ventrolaquist.
*
I am totally lost in this thread but perhaps it can come back on track.
Is the research showing ERV's are not cost-effective in the 50th latitude region taking into account four season applications of:
(1) heat recovery;
(2) summer cooling;
(3) winter humidification;
(4) summer dehumidification; and,
(5) all-house/all room exhaust and fresh air intake ?
I can see that if the Heat Recovery function was the only consideration, that it might not have a payback. Wouldn't the payback begin to emerge when the other funtions are added ?
It would also seem to me that even though a .3 ACH house has 8 complete airchanges every 24 hours by inflitration, that this is not a desirable condition to rely upon. Wouldn't ad hoc infiltration pathways be expanded/gaps widened by using them as default entry ways for fresh air infiltration due to the negative pressure caused by relying only on kitchen and bathroom fans as the primary exhaust units? Wouldn't we be inviting moisture infiltration through wall and roof cavities and at headers, footers, sills, ridges and soffits ?
Wouldn't we set up undesirable and perhaps uncontrolled drafts ? What about heat and fresh air zone control; the idea opening and closing selected use areas ? What happens to manged climates ?
Drawing stale and humid air through a series of rooms until it gets to the bath or kitchen would also draw the odors and particulates and volatiles through the house as well. What if someone is shineing shoes, glueing a model airplane, cooking curry, lighting a fire in the fireplace, buring a candle in the bedroom, smoking in the bathroom, using oil paints in the den, cleaning with a solvent in the basement ?
It would also seem to me that if I distribute exhaust and fresh air supply and humidification ducts in each room, that the ERV will have more cycles and these will be shorter. Doesn't this imply a savings in electricity?
What about the rewarming of fresh air that would otherwise cool the home and increase the heating bill; the cooling of fresh air at night in those hot summers, which otherwise require an air conditioner ?
Still in need of an explanation.
Tedd
Tedd
*FredYou mean you want me to do my homework ! What fun would that be ? In other words its case by case, building by building.Tedd
*
Hi all,
Still hoping for a concise description of how HRV's are installed and ducted, how they are rated, and how they function. It may help others besides me decide what is true and what is false about all the "facts" being thrown about regarding their efficacy or lack thereof.
Perhaps it is too much to hope for amid all the venom. Very sad indeed, if so.
Steve
*SteveYour post implies that you know absolutely nothing about HRV's (hope this isn't redundant)Since no one else is offering the basic info I'll give you what I know. I run into them a lot when I work in the city, but have never had one installed on any of my own projects. The ones that I know about are a seperate 'box,' about 2'x1'x1', hanging suspended by chains, beside a forced air furnace with four 4"-6" flexible insulated ducts attached, two per end. Two ducts are connected to the furnace return air plenum near the furnace, the other two run from the unit to the exterior of the building, one of which is an intake and the other an exhaust. Fans inside the HRV run continuously (24/365) at a very low speed, drawing plenum air through a series of baffles within the HRV before being exhausted to the exterior through the flex exhaust duct. The incoming outside air is drawn into the HRV by way of the intake duct, along the i other sideof the same baffles where they draw heat from the exhasting air (but don't mix with it, being seperated by the baffle walls) before entering the plenum and thereby into the heating ducts to be distributed throughout the house. This air circulation continues regardless of whether the furnace is 'running', 24 hrs/day-365 days/yr. I don't recall them having any sort of timer.I can't give any info on their 'rating'.regards-Patrick
*Hi Patrick,Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. I do indeed know nothing about them other than that they are some type of air-to-air heat exchanger.Is there a type that can be used without the benefit of a ducted scorched-air heating system? Say for those with hydronic heating systems?Steve
*Steve,They all can be used with there own duct system...It's really all about whether one believes there home is so tight that the air will be quickly or slowly killing the occupants...Fred and many others live well without any sign of losing a pulse and possibly in tighter homes than most I don't know...There is nothing wrong with using HRVs but there are other ways to accomplish varying degrees of equivalent air freshening...In LA during smog warnings people hide inside tight air conditioned spaces and hope for the best...I have heard ideas of slightly pressurizing verses depressurizing as being a better solution than all...The idea is that if you run a small fan to add incoming air and give it no exit, that it will keep all radon gas out of the home and also work better with all the negative pressure producing objects like kitchen fans, furnaces, boilers, firplaces, etc........I am also not a "fan" of forced air, ducts, or complicated systems..for that matter of utilities and taxes based on foundation footprints multiplied by number of stories...Amphibious aircraft home...That's me!Near the stream, sometimes flying far overhead, sometimes you'd better duck!J
*
That description of an ERV sounds like some ancient instrument of torture. Canada requires fresh air ventilation (exhaust the bad air and unwanted humidity and bring in fresh air) in air tight buildings. This is for health reasons as well as to supply adequate o2 for combution appliances etc (which should be vented outdoors anyway).
Fresh air should be conditioned to an appropriate Relative Humidity (RH)in all seasons. The incomming air should also be warmed (prewarmed) in winter to not compromise the heating; and, it should be pre-cooled (dried) in summer.
The technology has progressed through several generations from passive air to air exchangers that allow fresh air in and stale air out to more sophisticated heat/cold exchangers and heat/cold recovery functions and on to humidification and dehumidification.
The "heat exchange" is usually a passive process where the discharge of stale indoor air containing "latent heat" (unused heat) moves across the HX to condition incomming air. The dehumidification is done by using dessicants of one type or another or condensing surfaces; each captures and driects humidity to dry or humidify the air.
The current generation is called an Energy Recovery Ventilator. It captures (passively), latent heat that would outherwise be exhausted outdoors. The latent heat is then channelled back through the intake and distributed (independently or with existing furnace distribution) via ducts to reduce heating loads.
In hot weather these ERV's are reversed so that they exhaust the heat to the outside and lower the RH of incomming air. The humidity and heat capturing functions can be regulated and reversed as required seasonally.
The distribution is the only part of the system that is active (needs a source of power) -- it requires a fan to create negative pressure in the house by drawing out the indoor air, passing it through the ERV and sending the exhaut outdoors. Parallel supply and exhaust ducting is often installed in each room or zone with strategically placed grates in ceilings or tops of walls.
Zone control is accomplished by manual shut offs -- preferably adjacent to the ERV as opposed to in the rooms themselves. These ducts can be metal or high density fiberglass or even wired-plastic dryer-vent hose. The same installation rules apply here as with any heating and air conditioning ducts.
ERV's are promoted as a way to capture latent heat and save heating bills (recovery and return of heat that would otherwise be lost). Fresh air is required in air tight houses so why not condition the intake and recyle the best parts of the exhaust. ERV's are also promoted as alternatives for air conditioners in mixed climates since ERV's can control RH. They are not adequate for conditioning in very hot climates.
So, in airtight, super insulated energy efficient and environmentally responsible and healthy houses, the hype is that ERV's are (the ?) core component of the HVAC system -- working in unison with and enabling selection of smaller furnaces and eliminating the need for air conditioners and separate ventilation systems.
They are usually only about 2 cubic feet in area and can be mounted on a wall directly in any area of the building. They are usually centrally located to make ducting more efficient and the fans are of course powered by electricity.
The question -- is there a savings and worthwhile investment ?
*
Tedd,
They are a "user preference" and "added value" item. This means to me that they are only of value to those that seek and believe in the value...Many a patient has been cured of disease with a placebo sugar pill and their belief that they were getting a medicine that would cure them. For those of you who prefer to poly. caulk, and gasket oneself tightly into their abode, I'd say you better have one at what ever the cost.
I prefer open windows and doors and am even trying to imagine and design a "home" with less walls and roofs than 100% cacooning...Maybe just area barriers to the worst of Mother Natures fun without limiting the sensing of all...
Enjoying many a wind, a rain, a moon rise, a t-storm, outdoors...near the stream,
J
*Jack,How about a super insulated house with BIG windows for the gerat outdoors and insulated shutters for when you don't want it. And a Home-Built (cheap) HRV for when you have the windows closed.Ron
*Gebe. I believe the meaning of my statement, "In a properly designed and built house a heating system is not necessary." is obvious.Had I listened to the HVAC experts I would have installed your 150 K Btu furnace and hundreds of feet of HW baseboard. I chose instead an instantaneous Japanese Paloma natural gas water heater. The smallest available was rated at 46K Btu, half again as much as needed. Forty -six feet of baseboard was installed. All the experts claimed it would not work.When April approached and the thermostat was set permanently--until Novemeber--at OFF, we learned that the forty-six feet of baseboard was unnecessary.(You should know that the thermostat was always OFF and only turned on when the interior temperature was at 60 F or less. The long time constant of the house, the MRT of the walls, amnd the lack of drafts and high humidity allowed us to do this).All that was needed was a single point spource of heat. The piping, in this case, or the ductwork in a FHA system was unnecessary.Twelve feet of baseboard was sufficient. This "theory" was proved in the 2nd personal Leger Residence. This house was the last double-wall super insulated I ever built. It was 60 feet long and 32 feet wide. The only source of heat was an Australian catsalytic wood stove located in the family room at the far end of the house. Monotoring showed that temperatures in all rooms was constant and the same. Floor to ceiling showed th same.The stove was a point source of heat. No piping or fans or ductwork were required to circulate heat throughout the house.Humidity, as measured with a calibrated hygrometer was a constant 50 to 60%.According to all the old wives tales the wood stove should have made the house dry. We kept a window cracked all winter long to keep the humidity down. And we opened windows at every opportunity, even at 20 below zero. We had a small air-to-air-heat exchanger, but inspite of the ductwork being heavily insulated they froze. So we shut down the AAHE used it again..So what if the Co2 wa a million parts per million? Whai is it in nuclear subs? By the Bye. When the 1st Leger house was opened to the public (1979) we asked visitors what did we havew for supper or dinner. There were no odors that would tell them, even though we did a lot of ethnic cooking. Oh yes we had no AAHE or ventilation system except for opening windows. The lack of an AAHE led us to some interesting discoveries, which I have posted on this web page last year.GeneL.
*An over simplified example of a house that doesn't need a heating system would be:A heat loss at the design temp of 5000btu. and an average electric usage of 2KW.2KW = over 6000btu Therefore the lights , appliances etc. are putting out more heat than the house looses.
*Hi JackHow about, mosquitoes, black flies, etc. Mother nature can sure be cruel.Flew by you going to Florida, try not to drop anything over you on the way back.Enjoying the heat and gators.Poor construction though.
*Dear Gene,Don't you use anything American in your houses? Japanese and aussie heating systems?Have a lot a difficulty believing anything you say about your Leger house. You must be an allful guy to golf with, keeping your own score, and all.
*
Dear Gene,
It seems you are required to draw products from all over the world when searching for something that meets your particular needs.
As far as the Ledger houses are concerned, is there any way to independently verify your findings? An external audit maybe. This would be very helpful.
Respectfully yours
Gabe Martel
*
Ron,
Great little heat note....Please keep adding these ideas...
Thanks, near the tennis courts, near the lakes,
J
*I'd like to meet these builders who have been doing anything for hundreds of years. Perhaps they're old enough to remember that it was Abe Lincoln who said "You can fool...etc". And that what P.T. Barnum said was that there's a sucker born every minute.
*Dear Jack,You turned down, bible faced, pidgeon toed, flea bitten, camel lovin, son of a sea cook, YOU WRITE YOUR WAY AND I WILL WRITE MY WAY, GOT IT.I may not write the most gentleman like letters, but I do write the truth. Your friends write nice, but knowingly mislead in order to profit and that puts them very low on the totum pole my friend.Your fellow pilot, Gabe.
*
Dear Jack,
Your need to rewrite my posts such that its meaning is inferred in a less inflammatory manner aggravates me a great deal. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from paraphrasing my typically captious diatribes.
My contributions to this Board often leave the reader with a bad taste in his mouth, but they contain a certain amount of veracity. The other individuals with whom you converse on this board elucidate their ideas in a genteel manner, however I question the motives of these individuals when they derive personal wealth by perpetuating these ideas. I, for one, do not profit on my philosophies surrounding the building trades, and therefore am the voice to be trusted.
Your fellow aviator, Gabe
*
Thanks all, for the lengthy descriptions of ERV's. Now I have a fuller understanding of what's involved in installing such a unit.
It seems to me that it's not unreasonable to conclude that it may not be cost effective in the lower 48's to use them. Especially in a house that has no existing ductwork.
Gene,
I really would love to talk to you about how to build your way sometime. Can you e-mail me?
Steve
*Steve,If it's for your own house, you can build a HRV for under $100.What kind of prices and brands have all of you seen?
*It's the ductwork that seems not worth the effort in my particular case, especially in my timberframe two-story house. I think I'll concentrate for now on getting the place tight enough to even have to worry about enough fresh air.Steve
*Gabe. Dr.Gautam Dutt, then of Princeton University, verified my initial estimates.Based on a solid year of 7 days a week,18 hours (from 0500 hours to 2300 hours daily) a day monitoring and recording--an electric temperature and humidity chart recorder kept track of temperatures and humidity-and gas bills he announced that the annual heating bill was $38.50. (Dutts stayed with us for a week or so to get a feeling for the house. We had thermometers in every room of the house as well as in the basement and on the exterior. We also, as previously noted, had a calibrated hygrometer. There were two gas meters that monitored natural gas consumed for heat and hot water. The house was blower door tested by Dutt.It was the first super insulated house in the USA to be blower door tested and one of the very first energy efficient houses to be blower door tested. It was also infrared tested.Note: We had no financial backing for this house. My wife and I paid for everything from our limited funds.We had no funds to instrument the house. The electric chart recorder came from my electronics business. The blower door testing was gratis courtesy of Princeton University. The infrared scanning was courtesy of Money Magazine.We could have faked the data, but were we to falsify the gas company bills? Not one single physist in the building science community suggested that we were fabricating the claims. You may read about the Leger house in our (Dutt/Leger) paper "An Affordable Solar House,"in the 1979 Proceedings of the 4th National Passive Solar Conference.The owners of the Merrimack, New hampshire Haskil house arrived as the house's energy consumption based on a separate watt meter that monitored only electricity used for heating. This house --1800 square feet, performed better than th Leger House: The Leger house consumed 10,900,000 Btus, or 109 therms. the Haskel house 6,800,000 or 68 therms. The Haskel HHI was 0.54. the Leger Housae HHI 0.85. The Burlington, Massachusetts Fredette House had an annual electric bill for heating of $30.00. This number comes from the owner, Mrs. Fredettre, now deceased. I cannot verify it. I have no reason to doubt her claim.I had electric instantaneosu hot water heaters, but opted against them. At this late date I don;t recall how I chanced on the Paloma. I convinced the gas company to donate one and install it. They told me that I wasn't the first one to make wild claims about performance. And they were even more skeptical when I told them it was for both heat and hot water. But they never regretted the donation. I could lie about many things, but the gas bill told them I spoke the truth. I hope this gives you some of what you seek from me.GeneL
*Dear Gene,Not the least bit.Your fairy tale reminds me of the fellow who claimed to heat his entire home for free. After all he had a woodlot in the back.After paying $22,000.00 for a 4 wheel drive pickup, to haul the wood of course, $250.00 for a chainsaw to cut the wood with of course, $500.00 for a hydrolic wood spliter, $1,200.00 for a wood burning furnace, $800.00 for ductwork, $200.00 for miscellaneous axes, stacking racks, $3,000.00 for modifications to his original design to allow for a new chimney, well I think you get the rest of the story.Not knowing this Dutt fellow or his honesty or what he was actually measuring, it is very hard for me to qualify his report.I would want to know the whole story, not just your version of it.If your house is located inside a California cave, your claims would be possible, however, it is not, therefore, your energy requirements would be greater than $38.00 unless you were stealing power or gas from your neighbours.
*GabeYou win the b Bull goose skeptics award My friends and associates think that I'm unreasonably skeptical but I gotta concede, I'm a rank amateur compared to you.Ya sure you're not gettin too much sun down there in the great american wasteland???. . . can do funny things to your head ya know???
*
I have sat on the sidelines and patiently watched.
Something does not add up? are you sure you counted the internal gains correctly? ie: cats, dogs, hamsters, mice, hot rocks smuggled in from the shop, etc....?
*Perhaps you skeptics are overlooking the solar contribution. My reading comprehension is not what it once was, but I think I recall the word "solar" in Gene's post.
*
Hi Gene,
Fascinating. Do us all a favor and run Gabe to ground on this one.
Steve
*Greg. . . good point except Gene is on record here as saying that he isn't into the i mass and glasssystem of solar storage.
*W.W. Grainger, Catalogue 390, page 3560. Residential energy recovery ventilator fan Stock 3TR14 - $1146, Stock 3TR15 - $1388. I am not a professional builder, but once upon a time I did try and figure out a way to build a cost-effective, comfortable energy efficient home. It is tough to beat the power company. All the mechanicals are a nightmare to maintain. These things are going to collect dust, lint, etc. and have to be cleaned. I vote for the bathroom fan. If it is blowing air, the stuff has to come from somewhere and the math is simple. Now, as a society, buy some good fighter planes, some smart bombs and just steal whatever energy you need and spread the cost over 250 million people. Probably the most economical way. Just my Viking heritage talking.Dennis
*Hi Dennis,My sentiments exactly on the issue of maintenance and complexity. Sure you can build a very complicated system that needs constant maintenance that will work well, but for how long, given that fact that the average homeowner, let alone the technically adept homeowner rarely even changes the furnace filter or cleans the gutters. When's the last time you went back to a client's house five years later and found they actually had maintained the caulk joints that you advised them about when you left five years ago?I'll choose passive systems with the fewest moving parts and the least reliance on sealants and maintenance wherever possible.Steve
*Morning Patrick,No the sun is fine, thanks for the offer of an award, I'd like to thank all the little people for having made it possible.I was always curious about the quality of housing in Florida, so I have been checking them out in the high end houses on display. I couldn't believe the comments that some of the guys were making about the poor workmanship out here, but I'm a believer now.This is the worst example of crapmanship that I have seen in years. Off to work I go so I will check in later, again, thanks for the award offer, however I really think there are more deserving than I.
*Hi, Steve,Presumptuous, aren't you?Good luck to Gene.
*Greg B. The word solar you picked up was in the title of my paper, "An Affordable Solar House,"published in the Proceedings of the 4th National Passive Conference. The title was forced on us by the American Section of the International Solar Energy Society(ASISES). They were so embarrassed by the performance of this NON-SOLAR house--we wanted to paraphrase 7 UP's motto and title our paper "The UN-Solar House." But those staid editors have little sense of humor. We had between 80 to 100 square feet of glass in the south wall. A lot of the details of my house are found in William Shurcliff's _Superinsulated Houses- and _Double Envelope_ Houses._ GeneL.
*Gabe.Gas Bills do not lie.GeneL.
*Hi Gabe,No just hopeful. Still looking for something for nothing ;-)Steve
*Dear Gene,Knew a fellow who falsefied records by bringing fuel oil by the gerry can so that it wouldn't show up on his bill. He was selling his house and one of the selling points was the low maintenance cost of his house's heating system.I investigated another that had connected his electrical main service line to his garage's panel, 5 feet short of the meter in his underground service trench.Utility bills don't always tell the whole story. If something smells like a skunk, doesn't mean that it's a skunk, it could mean that it only had a reunion with a skunk.And your story smells a lot.
*Yeah for 20 years Gene's been fooling people with fuel oil in gas cans - Seems reasonable. Sure he would lie about houses 4 owners later.Gabe - The trend continues - Gene offers facts (that you always dispute), date's, names, data, etc. You provided, let's see here, ummmmmmmmm.....nothing! I am not trying to be negative - just factual. You are losing ground and credibility. Now would be a perfect time for you to counter with your data on the houses you build, and other corroborating (probably spelled wrong)evidence. But you won't, you'll just call him a liar, or a skunk, bad mouth me Patrick and Steve and then offer nothing - period. I don't personally know anyone on this site, but the person who has contributed the least is probably you (except for me - but I never claimed to get "big bucks" for any knowledge I possess - I enjoy barter much better). PLEASE - I, WE, ARE BEGGING YOU - PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS.-RobStill ducking the mudslinging
*Morning Rob,Shouldn't use "WE" unless you have parasites.Two comments, Rob, COMMON SENSE and LOGIC.Take a walk down your street, take a survey of the gas bills, or electrical bills, average them out, compare the total to Gene's claims.Listen to this statement, I'll keep it simple.Gene "SELL'S HIS BOOKS TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU". He depends on people who are desperate to lower their utility bills to buy his books. Too bad the Brooklyn Bridge was sold to fifty of your friends already, you would be a perfect patsy.Having to much fun at the Fun & Sun Fly In to care right now.
*Gabe,Gene's book is just a basic construction primer. It's the most recent update of the Audels series. It doesn't contain much about this stuff we discuss here. Mostly it talks about boring old industry standard stuff. He's not a snake-oil salesman. You can be pretty insulting. Read before you speak.One thing I think all of us have in common here is that we're looking to do better than average in the quality and performance of our construction. Some offer helpful suggestions and share their experiences. You should try it sometime.Steve
*When I said "We" I was referrring to others that have E-mailed me. I wouldn't provide enough sustinence for people to want to hang on to my coattails.The book I bought from Gene was about general construction, not energy savings, though he did advocate a book someone else wrote.My gas bill in a poorly insulated and very drafty house is $110 a month with a 93% efficient furnace. Though we do heat more of it to higher temps every year with no change, so I am improving on it. I don't have to ask my neighbors.Suppose I am interested in buying advice on lowering my utility bills - what would you sell me?If you are so intent on disproving Gene (You are probably the only one, so it's up to you) why not call the local utility companies in these areas and find out their utility usage. It is public information and readily available. If what Gene says is true I'll bet the regional planner is fully aware of these houses and their utility usage.The brooklyn Bridge is a much harder sell than the fact that a house can be made adaiabatic and isothermal. In theory the adiabatic house is possible and seems realistic, buying the brooklyn bridge isn't, and doesn't seem realistic either.Once again Gabe - you provided no facts, answers, or data and ducked even my questions. I am afraid I won't be conversing with you anymore. I realize this is of little loss to you. There isn't anything in it for me, I (and others) have aksed you questions and tried to discuss things with you but you apparently never caught on to it.The best way to avoid a plane crash is to never fly, or stay out of the way if one comes down. - Something I heard once, but actually doesn't concern me.Goodbye-RobP.S. - Good Luck Steve, you're the only one left.
*Rob, How do we know that anyone has e-mailed you. A likely story. Even if you could produce this so called e-mail how could we be sure that you didn't just fake it. I have known people who e-mailed stuff to themselves just to make themselves look good. As far as that unlikely gas bill of yours, how much do you spend on sneaking oil, kerosene, and firewood into the house so we won't know what you are up to. By the way the Brooklin Bridge was purchased by someone who didn't know the difference between Abraham Lincoln and P.T. Barnum. Sight unseen. As a matter of fact the Brooklin Bridge does not even exist. I have not seen it in so many years that I can not be sure that when I did it was real. I think it was just a big cardboard thing that someone put there to fool us. Probably Gene.
*Hmmm. . .bafflegab California styleHey MikeFred was creaming about some revolutionary ideas you presented at a conference some months back. . . when are you gonna spill the details. . . the least that could happen is that Gabe will call you a lying snake oil salesman, and the rest of us will quibble over every lil detail. . . join the fun. . . spill the. . . benas as-it-were!!!
*The whole paper is 30 pages. I will e-mail it in .pdf format on request by e-mail. ABSTRACT The end of the era of cheap energy has not brought an end to the costly practice of sealing buildings off from the outdoors, but has instead increased and spread it, from artificially conditioned curtain-walled offices to residential construction. Almost every strategy for improving the thermal performance of buildings begins with energy conservation implemented through increased insulation and weather seals, such that designers must now concern themselves with the removal of toxins from the indoor environment. This is usually accomplished by mechanical ventilation. The building envelope has become a barrier to any human interaction with the outdoors. This paper will examine alternative strategies in the design of the building envelope. These strategies can be grouped as follows: (1) designing the envelope not as a static element, but as a dynamic system that can be used to adjust thermal performance; (2) using the envelope, not as a barrier between indoors and out, but as a buffer between the conditioned space of the interior and unconditioned space outside; (3) using the perimeter of the building as an occupiable but only partially conditioned space. The benefits of these strategies include: (1) improved thermal performance of the building as a whole over the long run, without sacrificing environmental quality to toxins and the means of their removal; (2) the ability to reduce construction costs, by allowing the economy of unconditioned occupied space, not inside the building envelope, but as part of the envelope; (3) improved environmental quality.
*Hey Mike - I have real friends, really I do, you're just trying to be mean. I have three unread messages now - and they're not all from relatives either!The Kerosene heater is for emergency use only!!! The firewood is merely "supplemental" and thus wouldn't factor in to the daily cost - besides, I get it for "free."I've never seen the bridge either - thus negating it's existence.-Rob
*Steve. The true believer is unreachable,unflappable.No amount of evidence or logis can penetrate their emotional block. GeneL.
*Of course you get e-mail from your friends. What does that prove? They will just go along with whatever you want. On the other hand, I get e-mail from perfect strangers. I have hundreds of unread messages. Some of these people even offer me sex. Others will make me rich. Since you are closer to this so called bridge than I am, even in the same state, and you have your doubts, how can anyone claim that it exists?
*MikeInteresting ideas. . . do you intend that they would apply to the northern & eastern 5-6 month heating climate, or only your more temperate part of the country.I don't know how large you consider youri buffer envelopewould be, but it reminds me of a 1.5 storey cabin I built many years ago, that I added to over the years, around it's perimeter, with unheated rooms, mostly 8' deep. . . a screened in/closed in porch, a wood shed, a greenhouse, and an insulated but unheated pantry/cold room. Eventually 3/4 of the original insulated exterior was further enclosed by these 1 storey additions. What had been an easy place to heat became progressivly easier. . . we went from cutting hardwood, to mostly softwood.Are you familiar with Gene L's observations oni Air Lock Entries?regards-Patrick
*If I recall Gene does not believe in the effectiveness of air lock entries. Correct me if I am wrong. As far as my ideas go they apply to any climate. The harsher the climate the greater the detailing that needs to be applied. Cost efficiency is something that needs to be carefully evaluated on a case by case basis. The bottom line may be that if you have a space that costs 1/2 as much as your prime space it is probably a bargan if you use it more than half the time and it adds anything to the thermal effectiveness of the envelope. I'm working on a method of indexing % of use and cost per sq. ft.
*MikeYou're right about Gene and airlocks, I mentioned it because I though you might be considering their i effectivenessas part of your i conditioningdetail knowing that he had contrary opinions.-Patrick
*Oh well.Steve
*Rob susz. Neither Gabe-who will probabl;y argue they are forgeries--nor anyone else need call Lowell Gas company in Lowell, Massachusetts. I doubt they have records going back to 1979. But, BUT:-]I have the gas bills for the year we occupied the Leger House. You may recall that I told Gabe that Dr. Gautam Dutt based his findings on these gas bills and the recording of the dailly reading of the two gas meters that monitored gas heat and hot water usge. Gabe wondered if we had anything made in America in the house. The Boston Heradl published an article on my house on Moday, October 12, 1978. In reply I commented as follows: ""We were not able to buy an American manufactured "Hydronic"system small enough, thus the Japanese hot water Mr. Tom Miller of Lowell Gas,brought this[Japanese]unit to our attention after he made calculations to determine the validity of my claims.Mr. Frank Micket, Vice-President of Commonwealth Gas, set an engineer to evaluate the house. The unit (actually a hot water heater rather than a furnace or boiler)works in conjunction with a hot water tank which contains no heating elements, only a highly efficient heat exchanger down the middle of the tank.The tank merely a storage unit. The 46 feet of Arco baseboard heating elements represents about 1/3 the amount found in the conventional house of this size." It is pointless to name other engineers such as Drew Gill;ett, who evaluated my claims. Gabe would say he never heard of them and doesn't know if they are honest. Anyway, if any of you would like to see copies of the gas bills send me a self stamped self addressed #10 envelope and I'll send them off to you. When I learn how to post them on these pages I'll do so.Should any of you ever stop in Nashua, New Hampshire drop in and examine the extensive documentation we have of the Leger house performance.Mike Mahan, et al.the lack, initially, of an AAHE or HRV in the Leger House led to the discovery that air locks or vestibules do not work in very tight hevily insualated structures. In past posts I went into some detail as to how we discovered this. This was independently discovered by Dave Robinson( of Robinson's Rules fame)in his Ivanhoe house in Minnesota. I'm looking forward to reading your paper in Volume VII proceedings.
*Hi Gene,I'm bbbbbbback!If your house design is so good, why haven't you built a million of them and become richer than Bill Gates?Surely, such a cost saving and healthy lifestyle shoud be the rage of every perspective home owner in the world.P.S. Glad to see that you are mentioning my name more often now than your engineers.
*Aahh. . . you can lead a horse to water but. . . (tell him he can get freee porn if he takes a drink, and he'll empty the pond)
*Gene,Thanks a bunch for sending me the information. Can I ask you what kind of performance limits you have seen on houses that are larger and with more complex massing? I suspect it is much more difficult to get the kinds of numbers you have achieved with the Leger House in something more ambitious in size and appearance. I'm wondering what the practical limits might be on something that's more like 3000 sf over two stories with vaulted ceilings and such.Thanks,Steve
*Steve. The 1800-2000 sq. ft. garrison built for the Haskels in New Hampshire had a heating bill of $200.00 electric. Total electric consumption--monitored with a separate meter that measured only electric used for heating- was 6,800,000 Btus (7200DD) or 68 therms. electricity at the time was $.10 kilowatt hour. the owners wante elecric heat. They did the monitoring. By comparison the Leger house consumed 10,900,000 Btu's or 109 therms.The 2000 sq. ft. Leger New Ipswich House used a cord of wood.I've done even larger houses but have no performance data. The 2400 sq. ft. Bahsler house. in a 7000 DD heats for $300.00. The 2700 ft. sq. Leger New Boston house consumed 250 gallons of propane. The HHI of this house was 1.1 Btus/ square foot/ degree days. DD= 7200.The best one--surpassing the Legert /house is the Burlington, Massachusetts Fredette house. Mr. Fredette, now deceasewd, claims she heat the house electrically for $30.00 annualy. But I csannot confirm this. GeneL.
*Thanks Gene,Were these double-wall projects or your new wall? Were they all your projects? others? a mix?ever curiouser,Steve
*Steve, You don't suppose that You and Gene could simply E-mail your mutual admiration club letters so that I'm not subjected to the BS contained in Guru Gene's claims about the world famous Leger houses. Somehow I get the distinct feeling that this dialogue is all planned to give Gene credibility to stimulate book sales.This forum is not meant to be used for commercial use by a few abusers.
*Gabe's site or public? I know Gene has a book but I don't here much pushing of it...I agree the $30 to heat is rediculous but Gabe Gene seems very harmless and it's nice to have various opinions isn't it? There's so much hype in all of life...human nature.Near the stream, $1000 to heat in a 5500 degree area. Will try to half that number for next year...stay tuned.J
*Morning Jack,Various opinions about what Jack?Don't you agree that Gene's more interested in pushing his book sales than answering any pertinent questions, honestly? Any DIY who reads these threads and sees the $30.00 a year heating bill claims unchallenged, would believe that Gene had credibility, and that, my friend is were the danger lies. We know it to be false, but others may believe it.The original question in this post was about the efficiency of heat exchangers, wasn't it?Why weren't you at the Fun & Sun?
*Gabe,You don't have to read it if you don't want to. Others may find what we talk about here interesting. And I doubt this is the only thread that deviated from the topic that started it. That's the nature of a public discourse.Nobody is planning anything Gabe, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you ;-) Steve
*Good Afternoon Steve,Don't assume that you have anything interesting to say when all you do is ask.
*Steve. I built only two double wall houses after the original Leger House. By the bye. Dr. Gautsam Dutt called the house the Leger House.The 2nd double wall was in Wilmington, Massachusetts. We got the shell up and the owner ran out of money. I don't know if he ever finisehed it.All the houses that followed were constructed with the 2x3 staggered stud wall on 2x6 plates.The last five houses I designed and built were built with the Leger Stud Wall: Bahsler, Shepherd, Kerrigan, Durkee, Leger. The exterior walls in thes houses were insulated with sprayed-in PUR,as were 98% of the houses I built.I consulted on lots of houses in and out of New England, some in Canada.With one exception, I designed and built all of "my" MESH (Micro Energy System Houses)houses. One of my houses, the 1982 McNeil House (the first with 2x3 studs in exterior walls)in Westford, Massachusetts was chosen by the American Consulate in Dusseldorf, Germany, to be visited by 22 German architects and engineers. GeneL.
*Gene I'm not surprised that the one owner ran out of money building your way. Not impressed with your ego house yet but I'm sure you'll put more effort into it.22 Germans visited your house, mmmmmmm, once built a two holer for a tractor pull, and in one weekend, 5,000 people visited it, that must make me the better builder.Like I said Gene, why don't the two of you show a little class and Email your made up question and answer letters.
*Gabe,>>I confined myself to answering questions, making comments to the subject and challenging any idiotic claims.<<These words sound familiar?Steve
*Gabe. Au contraire. It cost less to build my way.You yourself admit this because of your claim tha we remove so much material the house is dangerous. This and the fact that none of them have yet fallen has so disturbed you that you are getting less coherent: "I'm bbbbbbback." I am on record for over twenty years that there is no reason for energy efficient houses to cost more. And if you think it is impossible to get a straight answer from me then try the following: "Mr. builder, how do you justify asking for $3000.00 more for he FHA MPS [I assume you know these acronyms?] house upgraded to 2x6 studs?" How many thousands of dollars more does the R-2000 house cost than its 2x4 11th commandment framed counterpart? And since this thread is supposed to be about AAHE , HRV or ERV's what can you tell us about the latest research into these devices in hot humid climates? GeneL.
*Yes they are Steve, and note that I WAS making comments to your previous tread.Gabe
*Hi Gene,I fail to see the coalation between removing sufficient material to make it dangerous and making a house less expensive, it only cheapens it. Never sayed that they would fall down. This is something I would never wish on anyone.I don't believe that a more energy efficient home SHOULD cost more. Althought the cost of the average high efficiency home cost an average of 5 to 10 percent more, I fail to see the reason for this. Mine don't.With regards to your last paragraph, where I live, the last thing on my mind is hot humid climates. Ask me about cold weather applications and I will gladly discuss it with you.In closing, every technical audit that I have ever conducted required testimony from EXPERTS, if one side has 10 that says one thing, the other side finds 11 that says the opposite. They're all qualified by the courts as experts in order for their testimony to be heard, but no two will say the same.So as you gather, I have little respect for any papers published by EXPERTS. Until some time as these experts are liable and accountable for their comments, I will totally ignore them.It's too easy to publish these days when it carries a liability disclaimer.
*I can't believe my eyes...the last two posts were almost flameless and interesting to read!!!!!Thanks People for not kicking any sand!Near the stream,J
*Gene and Steve - Please E-mail me with your Q&A if you do go that route. I am happy to keep reading here though.-Rob
*Gabe - Please tell us about your energy efficient homes.-Rob
*Rob,I already have, you were too busy to notice. Now, how about telling me, who you are, what you actually do for a living, how many homes etc you have built and how you are qualified to decide that everything Gene or FredL writes is gospel and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong?Gabe
*Hi all,I've started a new topic on superinsulated houses.Now those that are interested can go there. Those that aren't can avoid being offended by not going there. And the defenseless DIY'ers can read if they so choose, with the understanding that we're talking about experimental stuff.Steve
*I'm sorry Gabe, I don't recall anything other than the usual fiberglass, poly and vents. I recall you said cellulose in ceilings. What type of energy performance do you get out of this system when "properly constructed?"In answer to your second question, at the risk of parroting you:"I already have, you were too busy to notice."I wrote a reply that took about six screens to read about 6 months ago. Sadly I don't remember what the topic was, all I remember is that there was a large flame-war in that one too. My reply was to Joe Fusco asking me the same question. He appears to have relented.-Rob
*Hi Rob,I'm a little more "persistent" than most. I still would like to get the condensed version.I get the same performance between FG and cellulose, about 3 to 4 R factor to the inch. The same as everyone else would, if properly done.Gabe
*Gabe. I am delighted to see that we both agree that there is no reason for an energy efficient house to cost more money.GeneL.
*
What's the reason for not using Heat/Energy Recovery Ventilators for
mechanical ventilation and latent heat
recovery in north east ?
Tedd