Re: Winter humidification wastes energy
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
sending the president and legal department a detailed email with calculations.
He said "You are correct. Winter humidification wastes energy. We will
modify the energy savings claim on our Aprilaire humidifier web site." :-)
Nick
http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Lennox%20WB2-WP2%20Humidifiers.pdf
bfr...@hotmail.com
As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small amount of
electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is cheaper than
the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature to be
comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing? Are you
assuming that the thermostat is at the same setting weather or not the
humidifier is on?
Rod Speed
<bfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108072643....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?
> As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
> more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
> amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
> cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
> to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?
That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than just
'the small amount of > electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve'
The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.
> Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
> same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?
Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
There are obviously some approaches to increasing the humidity
by say not deliberately venting showers to the outside and
with dryers etc that dont involve any extra cost for the higher
humidity, but that wasnt what was being discussed.
Duane Bozarth
>
> <bfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108072643....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?
>
> > As I understand it, extra humidification can allow a person to feel
> > more comfortable at a lower temperature. Water and the small
> > amount of electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve is
> > cheaper than the extra fuel one would need to raise the temperature
> > to be comfortable at a lower humidity level. What am I missing?
>
> That there is more energy required to raise the humidity level than just
> 'the small amount of > electricity needed to open up a water solenoid valve'
>
> The water aint just sprayed into the room, and even if it
> was, you need to supply the latent heat involved anyway.
>
> > Are you assuming that the thermostat is at the
> > same setting weather or not the humidifier is on?
>
> Nope. Basically looking at the lower temp that can be set
> and the energy cost of producing that higher humidity.
There's undoubtedly a crossover point somewhere but in general
excessively low humidity is uncomfortable enough that most would
consider the small cost well worth it.
Gymmie Bob
and her maple table split from end to end as well as her buffet cracked
right down one side. Ohhhh, the 3/8 inch cracks all close up each summer but
open again each winter. Then we won't mention the nasal irritation and
infections and the kleenex to wipe up the bloody noses. Want to talk about
zapped computer equipment for the static hitting the keyboard?
Fuck your economy.
"Duane Bozarth" <dpbo...@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
news:420BE6F0...@swko.dot.net...
Rod Speed
Separate issue entirely.
Gymmie Bob
humidifier, no sex?....No way!
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:372d2dF...@individual.net...
Rod Speed
Gymmie Bob <not...@bite.moi> wrote in message
news:0JydnbuLE5i...@golden.net...
> We could all live outside without a house. It would be
> cheaper. No heat, No humidifier, no sex?....No way!
Irrelevant to his point that those claiming to save money
by increasing the humidity can be fooling themselves.
Gymmie Bob
dollars. Maybe they don't mention the dollars used to humidify in their
formulae?...LOL
Anyway the point is moot. People will humidify whether it costs more or
not. (see my outside sarcasm)
Interesting discussion though.
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:372gs5F...@individual.net...
Luiza
wonders for the air, our skin and our noses.
:-)
Luiza
Rod Speed
Gymmie Bob <not...@bite.moi> wrote in message
> Most heating people have always claimed humidification
> saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
> dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL
> Anyway the point is moot.
Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.
> People will humidify whether it costs
> more or not. (see my outside sarcasm)
Irrelevant to that claim.
> Interesting discussion though.
Yeah, its one of those more subtle complexitys.
Their claim appears to be correct until you analyse it properly.
bic...@charter.net
Gymmie Bob wrote:
> Most heating people have always claimed humidification saves heating
> dollars. Maybe they don't mention the dollars used to humidify in
their
> formulae?...LOL
>
> Anyway the point is moot. People will humidify whether it costs more
or
> not. (see my outside sarcasm)
>
> Interesting discussion though.
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:372gs5F...@individual.net...
> >
> > Gymmie Bob <not...@bite.moi> wrote in message
> > news:0JydnbuLE5i...@golden.net...
2 trolls walk into a bar...
...and wind up replying to each other on Usenet.
Get a room.
Edwin Pawlowski
>
> Gymmie Bob <not...@bite.moi> wrote in message
> news:XPednWSS_bx...@golden.net...
>
>> Most heating people have always claimed humidification
>> saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
>> dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL
>
>> Anyway the point is moot.
>
> Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.
The header here says "wasted" energy. If there is a benefit that I'm
willing to pay for, the energy is not wasted, but used to achieve a goal.
Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for personal
comfort. Any energy used to achieve that I don't consider wasted, but well
spent. .
Robert Barr
> The header here says "wasted" energy. If there is a benefit that I'm
> willing to pay for, the energy is not wasted, but used to achieve a goal.
> Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for personal
> comfort.
... and I'm guessing the OP doesn't own a Golden Retriever (or any other
long-haired dog). Try brushing out a Golden without using a humidifier
in cold climates. Ever had an electric dog?
Rod Speed
Edwin Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:nJVOd.29294$by5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Gymmie Bob <not...@bite.moi> wrote
>>> Most heating people have always claimed humidification
>>> saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
>>> dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL
>>> Anyway the point is moot.
>> Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.
> The header here says "wasted" energy.
Irrelevant when usenet threads often diverse past the original
subject header and no one bothers to change it for various reasons.
> If there is a benefit that I'm willing to pay for, the energy is not wasted,
> but used to achieve a goal.
Duh.
> Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for personal
> comfort. Any energy used to achieve that I don't consider wasted, but well
> spent. .
Irrelevant to what was being discussed in this particular subthread.
Tony Hwang
I care about my well being as well as my old grand piano and furnitures
in my house more than little bit of eergy use.
What kind of car do you drive? A V8 monster?, LOL!
Tony
Don Ocean
> It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in this case) started the thread
> and header. It is his claim that humidification wastes energy. If
> you had followed the sci.engr.heat-vent-ac ng for any length of time
> you'd know that.
Just more proof that Nick is an Idiot! Give him a bunch of numbers and
he will bend them to anything he wants... But in a real life situation
he sucks.. Go to one of his Seminars sometime. A real waste! I presented
some of his posts to a forum of my fellow Engineers at USC a while back
just for laughs... I got them! ;-p
Humidity in the proper proportions is beneficial for people, furniture
and electronic equipment. It doesn't cost...It pays! The Humidifier
industry is humongous. Even the medical profession agrees with this!
Rod Speed
Steve Scott <ssc...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:opfo01p6oj0kv8ku5...@4ax.com...
> It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in
> this case) started the thread and header.
Completely irrelevant to this subthread.
> It is his claim that humidification wastes energy.
Separate issue entirely to the specific claim being discussed
in this particular subthread, whether the claim that humidification
can save energy because the thermostat can be set lower is a lie.
> If you had followed the sci.engr.heat-vent-ac
> ng for any length of time you'd know that.
Completely irrelevant that specific claim being discussed.
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:01:20 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Edwin Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
>>news:nJVOd.29294$by5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Gymmie Bob <not...@bite.moi> wrote
>>
>>>>> Most heating people have always claimed humidification
>>>>> saves heating dollars. Maybe they don't mention the
>>>>> dollars used to humidify in their formulae?...LOL
>>
>>>>> Anyway the point is moot.
>>
>>>> Nope, not when discussing that claim it aint.
>>
>>> The header here says "wasted" energy.
>>
>>Irrelevant when usenet threads often diverse past the original
>>subject header and no one bothers to change it for various reasons.
>
>
> --
> 'If I could reach you, I would hurt
> you, Pinky' -- The Brain
>
>
>
>
Steve Spence
breathing a lot.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust
http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor
http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Tony Wesley
Steve Scott wrote:
> It's not irrelevant when the OP (Nick in this case) started the
thread
I think Nick is correct. It's also true that winter heating
wastes energy. Just turn the furnace off and save lots of
energy.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
Sure. Here's the email I sent to Lennox...
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:58 AM
Subject: Attn: president/legal--Winter humidification wastes energy
Gentlemen,
I suspect that winter humidification wastes vs saves heating energy, and
the savings claim is an energy myth. People tend to forget that evaporating
water takes heat energy, and that heat energy has to come from somewhere,
even if something like a humidifier belt motor uses little energy by itself.
The heat saved by turning a thermostat down appears to be far less than
the extra heat used to evaporate water, in all but extremely tight houses
with little insulation, eg submarines.
http://lennox.com/pdfs/brochures/Lennox%20WB2-WP2%20Humidifiers.pdf claims
that 69 F at 35% RH and 72 F at 19% RH are equally comfortable, but the BASIC
program in the new ASHRAE 55-2004 comfort standard predicts that 69 F and 35%
RH and 69.7 at 19% RH are equally comfortable (PMV = -0.537, see below.)
If a 2400 ft^2 tight house has 0.5 ACH and say, 400 Btu/h-F of conductance,
turning the thermostat down from 69.7 to 69 saves (69.7-69)400 = 280 Btu/h.
Air at 69 F and 100% RH has humidity ratio w = 0.015832 pounds of water per
pound of dry air, so 19% air has wl = 0.00301, and 39% air has wh = 0.00617.
Raising 69 F air from 19 to 39% requires evaporating wh-wl = 0.00316 pounds
of water per pound of dry air. Dry air weighs about 0.075 lb per cubic foot.
With 0.5x2400x8/60 = 160 cfm or 9600 ft^3/h or 720 pounds per hour of
air leakage, raising the indoor RH from 19 to 39% requires evaporating
720x0.00316 = 2.275 pounds of water per hour, which requires about 2275
Btu/h of heat energy, so it looks like humidifying this fairly airtight
house wastes 2275/280 = 8 times more energy than it "saves." And many
S houses are less airtight, so humidification would waste more energy.
Please modify your energy-savings claim.
Thank you.
Nick Pine
10 SCREEN 9:KEY OFF
20 CLO=1'clothing insulation (clo)
30 MET=1.1'metabolic rate (met)
40 WME=0'external work (met)
50 DATA 69,35,69.74,19
60 FOR CASE=1 TO 2
70 READ TC,RC
80 TA=(TC-32)/1.8'air temp (C)
90 TR=TA'mean radiant temp (C)
100 VEL=.1'air velocity
110 RH=RC'relative humidity (%)
120 PA=0'water vapor pressure
130 DEF FNPS(T)=EXP(16.6536-4030.183/(TA+235))'sat vapor pressure, kPa
140 IF PA=0 THEN PA=RH*10*FNPS(TA)'water vapor pressure, Pa
150 ICL=.155*CLO'clothing resistance (m^2K/W)
160 M=MET*58.15'metabolic rate (W/m^2)
170 W=WME*58.15'external work in (W/m^2)
180 MW=M-W'internal heat production
190 IF ICL<.078 THEN FCL=1+1.29*ICL ELSE FCL=1.05+.645*ICL'clothing factor
200 HCF=12.1*SQR(VEL)'forced convection conductance
210 TAA=TA+273'air temp (K)
220 TRA=TR+273'mean radiant temp (K)
230 TCLA=TAA+(35.5-TA)/(3.5*(6.45*ICL+.1))'est clothing temp
240 P1=ICL*FCL:P2=P1*3.96:P3=P1*100:P4=P1*TAA'intermediate values
250 P5=308.7-.028*MW+P2*(TRA/100)^4
260 XN=TCLA/100
270 XF=XN
280 EPS=.00015'stop iteration when met
290 XF=(XF+XN)/2'natural convection conductance
300 HCN=2.38*ABS(100*XF-TAA)^.25
310 IF HCF>HCN THEN HC=HCF ELSE HC=HCN
320 XN=(P5+P4*HC-P2*XF^4)/(100+P3*HC)
330 IF ABS(XN-XF)>EPS GOTO 290
340 TCL=100*XN-273'clothing surface temp (C)
350 HL1=.00305*(5733-6.99*MW-PA)'heat loss diff through skin
360 IF MW>58.15 THEN HL2=.42*(MW-58.15) ELSE HL2=0'heat loss by sweating
370 HL3=.000017*M*(5867-PA)'latent respiration heat loss
380 HL4=.0014*M*(34-TA)'dry respiration heat loss
390 HL5=3.96*FCL*(XN^4-(TRA/100)^4)'heat loss by radiation
400 HL6=FCL*HC*(TCL-TA)'heat loss by convection
410 TS=.303*EXP(-.036*M)+.028'thermal sensation transfer coefficient
420 PMV=TS*(MW-HL1-HL2-HL3-HL4-HL5-HL6)'predicted mean vote
430 PPD=100-95*EXP(-.03353*PMV^4-.2179*PMV^2)'predicted % dissatisfied
440 PRINT TC,RC,PMV
450 NEXT CASE
69 35 -.5376486
69.74 19 -.5372599
Engineering VP Mark Hogan said Lennox was embarrassed by all this and
he didn't know where their numbers had come from, and he thanked me
for bringing this to their attention and said they are changing their
printed brochures and Aprilaire web site energy-savings claim.
This reminds me of David and Goliath :-)
Nick
Serendipity
I posted in mcfl about adding a furnace humidifier for comfort. We went
through a winter without and I had daily nose bleeds. We have plaster
walls and noticed more cracks after that winter. No way will we go
without the humidification. I don't feel it is a waste of energy. In
fact, I posted a link where it explains that extra humidifacation
actually saves you energy. Oh, and I do drive a V8 luxury car simply
because of the comfort level. You only go through this world once so
you might as well do it in style :) I know that doesn't mesh with
Nick's point of view but hey, I'm frugal in other ways.
p j _my _sig _for_address.com
>>OK Nick, care to elaborate on what your theory is?
>
>Sure. Here's the email I sent to Lennox...
>
>Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:58 AM
>
>Subject: Attn: president/legal--Winter humidification wastes energy
Bullshit.
**REQUIRES** energy, yes. but *WASTES** it ??? That value
judgement changes the entire issue.
As always, you ignore reality, and look to some 'extremes of
the envelope' from some ASHRAE chart to define what 'comfortable' is.
The simple fact is that 20 % is uncomfortably dry to most
people. 'Comfort' is a VERY subjective thing.
I have my thermostat set at 74 right now. Does that COST more
energy than if I set it at 70 ? Of course. Is that energy WASTED ?
Not in my opinion, which is the only opinion that matters in this
house.
Could you whip out some chart to prove I would prefer it to be
set at 70 ? Knowing you, you probably could. But in the meantime,
keep your grubby little paws of my thermostat.
>I suspect that winter humidification wastes vs saves heating energy, and
>the savings claim is an energy myth. People tend to forget that evaporating
>water takes heat energy, and that heat energy has to come from somewhere,
>even if something like a humidifier belt motor uses little energy by itself.
And you forget that people CHOOSE to SPEND ( not 'WASTE' )
energy to achieve comfort.
>Engineering VP Mark Hogan said Lennox was embarrassed by all this and
>he didn't know where their numbers had come from, and he thanked me
>for bringing this to their attention and said they are changing their
>printed brochures and Aprilaire web site energy-savings claim.
He'll say ANYTHING to get rid of your ass ;-)
>This reminds me of David and Goliath :-)
Reminds me of Harvey the 6 foot ASHRAE bunny.
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>...I posted a link where it explains that extra humidifacation
>actually saves you energy.
Post it again. So many myths. So little time...
Nick
Abby Normal
and look at keeping a home at 69 instead of 72.
Compare 72 @ 29% to 69 @ 36%, similar enthalpy. Almost think Lennox had
a typo. Look forward to seeing their new brochure, to see if in fact
you have basically pointed out a typo. 72 @ 29% vs 69 @ 35%, or 72 @
19% vs 69 @ 25%
2400 sq ft with a conductance of 400 btu/(hr F), again this is heat
conducting out of the house.
Air infiltration equivalent to 160 CFM.
So setting thermostat down from 72 to 69 saves 3 x (400 +1.08 x 160) =
1718.4 Btu/hr.
As a check, assuming 70F indoor temp, 0F outdoor temp, heatloss of home
in the ball park of 70x (400 + 1.08 x 160)= 40,096 Btu/hr. Wow a 45 MBH
90% eff gas furnace would be right on the money, and this is typically
the smallest size condensing furnace on the market, so this scenario
sounds realistic.
The house volume is about 19,200 cubic feet so the difference in the
amount of water held in the air is a little under one pound and the
heat to evaporate this moisture will be a maybe 900 Btu.
Save 1718 Btu then waste 900 to evaporate some water.
So there is a 'savings' of 818 Btu.
Yes the motors that turn humidifier drums use energy, but energy is
conserved and ultimately this energy creates heat in the home as well,
so it is not wasted.
Gymmie Bob
Be prepared to be called troll and idiot....LOL
"Tony Wesley" <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108126200.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gymmie Bob
If you argue black is black they will disagree with you. Lack of control
phobia.
"Don Ocean" <oc...@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:3731biF...@individual.net...
Gymmie Bob
On your bike bottom feeder.
<bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1108090834.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Matt
Gymmie Bob
"Steve Spence" <spe...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:Z71Pd.31484$8H2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Gymmie Bob
It doesn't cost anymore for me to heat my home to 69 deg or 72 no matter
what the humidity in the summer.
Forgot a big factor boys.
"Abby Normal" <a_bee_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108143166.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Matt
VP's don't get to be VP's be saying things like "Lennox is embarrased"
and "he didn't know where the numbers come from".
Not that I even understand any of it, but -
I don't buy it.
Rod Speed
Steve Spence <spe...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:Z71Pd.31484$8H2....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> A tea kettle on the woodstove doesn't waste much energy,
Irrelevant to the Lennox claim about their humidifiers.
> and helps our breathing a lot.
Irrelevant to the Lennox claim about their humidifiers.
Matt
Kirk: I AM the Kirk unit.
Spock: Illogical.
Bones: I'm just a simple country doctor.
Scotty: She'll not take much more.
Sulu: Aye, Captain.
Uhura: Star fleet on ch 9, captain.
Chekov: Aye, Captain.
.........TIMPANI PLEASE......
ROD SPEED: Irrelevant.
Serendipity
That precisely is what google is for. I don't need to waste energy
posting the same thing twice ;)
Edwin Pawlowski
>> personal comfort. Any energy used to achieve that I don't consider
>> wasted, but well spent. .
>
> Irrelevant to what was being discussed in this particular subthread.
>
But this is a sub-sub thread making it relevant again.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>Even 'if' humidifying wastes energy by using water, etc.... it gives you
>health benefits, prevents your carpet fibers from drying out , wood
>from cracking , and static shocks .
Maybe, but Lennox claimed winter humidification saved energy.
Nick
p j _my _sig _for_address.com
wrote:
nazi ! nazi ! nazi !
Now the thread will die .....
Matt
water freezes at. That will perk things up.
bic...@charter.net
Gymmie Bob Luvs Rod Speed wrote:
> I didn't post the garbage you attributed to me.
Yes you did, it's a direct quote but your top posting leaves folks
scratching their head. Even YOU cannot figure it out what's what.
> On your bike bottom feeder.
Yes. I'll ride a bike while you continue to ride Rod.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for personal
>>> comfort. Any energy used to achieve that I don't consider wasted, but well
>>> spent. .
>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed in this particular subthread.
> But this is a sub-sub thread making it relevant again.
Wrong. As always.
Edwin Pawlowski
>
> Wrong. As always.
>
Of course since your post has nothing to do with the thread, original or
sub, yours is irrelevant again too.
Michael Baugh
humid days during the winter, I have to bring UP the temperature for the
same comfort level.
But the humidity is needed. Supplied either by a humidifier, or by my wife,
and she complains when her eyes are dry because I failed to run the
humidifier.
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:374m6rF...@individual.net...
Rod Speed
"Michael Baugh" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mYaPd.696$u16...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> More humidity serves as a better heat transfer. I have found that on more
> humid days during the winter, I have to bring UP the temperature for the
> same comfort level.
> But the humidity is needed. Supplied either by a humidifier, or by my wife,
> and she complains when her eyes are dry because I failed to run the
> humidifier.
Separate issue entirely to what was being discussed.
Rod Speed
Wrong. As always.
Gymmie Bob
LOL
"Matt" <mattmo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108146723.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Gymmie Bob
"Matt" <mattmo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108154960....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Gymmie Bob
"Michael Baugh" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mYaPd.696$u16...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Gymmie Bob
<bic...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1108155173.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
m II
> You can ride my rod.
Weren't you the pervert condoning anal sex in a stiching group? Give it up,
weirdo..
mike
Gymmie Bob
Grow up.
"m II" <C...@In.The.Hat> wrote in message news:DlePd.44843$gA4.4133@edtnps89...
Michael Baugh
I comment about humidity and personal comfort, after some bottom posters had
said "Most winters it is dry enough here that I want to add humidity for
personal comfort.", and you interject that "Separate issue entirely to what
was being discussed."
Wanted to mention that before another middle-poster mungs up the sequence. I
suggest you have a better breakfast tomorrow, it's better if your brain
isn't deprived.
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:374u77F...@individual.net...
Gymmie Bob
anybody.
Get more sun on your retinas. The depression will lift some too.
"Michael Baugh" <baug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FHePd.5380$a06...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Rod Speed
> Hey, Rod. Are you reading the same thread as me?
Treads often diverge into subthreads.
This particular subthread was nick bragging about having got
Lennox to retract their claim that their humidifiers save total energy.
> I comment about humidity and personal comfort, after some
> bottom posters had said "Most winters it is dry enough here
> that I want to add humidity for personal comfort.", and you
> interject that "Separate issue entirely to what was being discussed."
It was a separate issue entirely to what nick was bragging about.
> Wanted to mention that before another
> middle-poster mungs up the sequence.
A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.
> I suggest you have a better breakfast tomorrow,
I order you to shove your suggestion where the sun dont shine, sideways.
Michael Baugh
sound from Nick's acoustic orifice.
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:375el1F...@individual.net...
Rod Speed
> Sorry, Rod.
Liar.
> Go back to hanging onto every
> sound from Nick's acoustic orifice.
So stupid that it hasnt even noticed that I have
put the boot into some of the sillier stuff of nick's.
In fact I have put the boot in much more
often than I have agreed with him, stupid.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>>>...I posted a link where it explains that extra humidifacation
>>>actually saves you energy.
>>
>> Post it again. So many myths. So little time...
>posting the same thing twice ;)
We might explore a different myth. Does anyone have any real non-anecdotal
evidence that low humidity actually causes health problems? Do people who
live in Arizona have more or fewer respiratory problems than the rest of us?
Swiss people open windows and crawl under thick quilts in unheated bedrooms
in wintertime because they believe that cold dry winter air is healthier...
Nick
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>>Homes built to current Canadian codes, and not as stringent as the R2000
>>requirements concerning air tightness, would still be perhaps 0.3 ACH
>>per hour and will still require mechanical ventilation to reduce RH
>>in the winter.
>Andersen says an average family evaporates 2 gal/day of water. At that rate,
>how large could a 0.3 ACH house be, with indoor air at 70 F and 50% RH?
Give up?
If an A ft^2 x 8' tall house leaks 0.3x8A0.075 = 0.18A pounds of air per hour
and a pound of 70F air at 50% RH contains 0.00787 pounds of water and a pound
of outdoor air contains 0.0025 pounds of water and we supply 2x8.33/24 = 0.694
lb/h of water indoors, 0.18A(0.00787-0.0025) = .694, so A = 718 ft^2.
Are you talking about igloos? :-)
Nick
Edwin Pawlowski
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
> We might explore a different myth. Does anyone have any real non-anecdotal
> evidence that low humidity actually causes health problems? Do people who
> live in Arizona have more or fewer respiratory problems than the rest of
> us?
My son is a respitory therapist and has his own home care business. I've
worked for him on weekends. He has many incidences of problems from too dry
air in the winter, mostly from older people. They have trouble with mucous
linings of nasal pssages dryness that can cause nazal bleeding. None are
life threatening, but many create a lot of discomfort. Some of these people
also keep their house a few degrees warmer than the rest of us for other
reasons and this exaberates the problem. Humidifiers give a lot of relief or
eliminate t he problem.
I don't know the relative humidity of Arizona compared with a heated house
with a 70 degree temperature differential from outside. Probably Arizona is
higher. I'ms ure you can research this.
.
>
> Swiss people open windows and crawl under thick quilts in unheated
> bedrooms
> in wintertime because they believe that cold dry winter air is
> healthier...
The cold dry is not as dry as taking that same air and heating it 60 or 70
degrees.
I like a cool bedroom, but I don't open the windows.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> We might explore a different myth. Does anyone have any real non-anecdotal
>> evidence that low humidity actually causes health problems? Do people who
>> live in Arizona have more or fewer respiratory problems than the rest of us?
Doctors used to advise TB patients to go live in Arizona...
>My son is a respitory therapist and has his own home care business. I've
>worked for him on weekends. He has many incidences of problems from too dry
>air in the winter, mostly from older people.
That's more than "anecdotal..."
>...trouble with mucous linings of nasal pssages dryness that can cause nazal
>bleeding. None are life threatening, but many create a lot of discomfort.
http://www.who.int/ith/chapter02_01.html
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_ce01.cfm
The sites above mention "discomfort" with low health risks. Then again,
there are other remedies, eg skin ointments, mufflers and saline sprays.
Many sites mention mold problems from higher humidity, and this one
http://www.webcom.com/~bi/formaldehyde.html
says raising the RH in a house from from 30 to 70%
can increase the formaldehyde level by 40%.
As to static, I found this
ANTI-STATIC SPRAY RECIPE
1/4 cup commercial liquid fabric softener
1/4 cup ammonia
2 cups water
Mix ingredients and store in a spray bottle. Spray liberally on the rug,
your shoes, chair, desktop, or file cabinet, but do not spray directly onto
your computer system.
Salt water might work as well.
As to furniture cracking, my cabinetmaker friend Bob goes to
great lengths to avoid cracks from humidity changes, by design.
I've seen local RH controls for pianos, guitars and violins.
>> Swiss people open windows and crawl under thick quilts in unheated
>> bedrooms in wintertime because they believe that cold dry winter air is
>> healthier...
>
>The cold dry is not as dry as taking that same air and heating it 60 or 70
>degrees.
That doesn't change its moisture content.
Nick
bl
> We might explore a different myth. Does anyone have any real non-anecdotal
> evidence that low humidity actually causes health problems? Do people who
> live in Arizona have more or fewer respiratory problems than the rest of us?
Interesting that you request evidence but choose to label this a myth...
You're supposed to gather evidence first before you come to a conclusion.
I live in New Mexico, not Arizona. Still the desert southwest. I live
up high where it gets cold, so not only is it dry, we get a significant
temperature differential between inside and outside. 10-15%RH is common
inside in the winter, without humidification.
Our noses bleed. Our skin is dry and scratchy. We have a high
incidence of sinus infections. The symptoms go away when we travel to
humid regions for even short periods.
Low humidity isn't life-threatening, but it can be uncomfortable.
Then again, in the summer sweating here actually works the way it's
supposed to.
wmbjk
wrote:
>Don't you have anything better than to troll the newsgroups?
Definitions of the word "troll" may vary. Would you say that 43 posts
per day might be a strong indicator of trollishness?
http://tinyurl.com/5u7le
Wayne
Edwin Pawlowski
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
>
>>...trouble with mucous linings of nasal pssages dryness that can cause
>>nazal
>>bleeding. None are life threatening, but many create a lot of discomfort.
>
> http://www.who.int/ith/chapter02_01.html
> http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_ce01.cfm
>
> The sites above mention "discomfort" with low health risks. Then again,
> there are other remedies, eg skin ointments, mufflers and saline sprays.
Works for some people, but for a 75 year old person with other problems,
they don't want to play wiht sprays and oitments,
>
> Many sites mention mold problems from higher humidity, and this one
>
> http://www.webcom.com/~bi/formaldehyde.html
>
> says raising the RH in a house from from 30 to 70%
> can increase the formaldehyde level by 40%.
Why would anyonw want 70% RH? Most people are very happy wiht 30% to 50%.
Rather than live in a dry uncormfortable environment, other measures should
be taken to eliminagte the causal relationships noted.
>
> As to furniture cracking, my cabinetmaker friend Bob goes to
> great lengths to avoid cracks from humidity changes, by design.
Step one is to dry the wood beforehand. Wood moves with climate changes and
has to be considered in design. Extreme fluctuations still happen Museums
presverve furniture by keeping the environment stable year round. Most
homeowners don't have the resurces to do that fine of control. Adding
humidity is one though.
Your friend Bob is making his work in a small region. Furniture build in a
drasticly idfferent climate will have movement when shipped 2000 miles to
another extreme. His perfectly fit chair rung will hold up better over time
than a pefectly fit chair rung in a tropical region and then shipped to a
very dry region.
>>The cold dry is not as dry as taking that same air and heating it 60 or 70
>>degrees.
>
> That doesn't change its moisture content.
>
True. but when you heat the air in a hot air furnace and then vent some of
the air up the flue, you are left with a very dry air and low relative
humidity.
Gymmie Bob
concepts,ideas and posters as possible it makes you a better person?
One quirk! Who is keeping score? Most of them can even count.
Sounds like Weiner, Mark and Stove must the be the best of all of us and the
ones to try to keep up with..Tha Gods are here....The Gods are here!
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:375jr3F...@individual.net...
Gymmie Bob
elsewhere (almost desert), not because the humidity is lower.
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:cul46d$l...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
suzn
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:cukom1$l...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
>
> We might explore a different myth. Does anyone have any real non-anecdotal
> evidence that low humidity actually causes health problems? Do people who
> live in Arizona have more or fewer respiratory problems than the rest of
> us?
I dont have any extreme proof that lower humidity in the home effects ones
health
but since I started using a DEhumidifier I have no traces of mold anywhere
in my home
and no condensation on any window glass. I also noticed I stopped sneezing
100 times a day
and a cough that dragged on for weeks mysteriously disapearred practically
over night.
The house actually feels warmer (dryer air?) and my gas billed dropped
$12.00 from last month.
So I dunno......
suzn
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:cul46d$l...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
>
> As to static, I found this
The only place I have any static is in my car. When I get out of the car
and I touch the door frame to close the door I get a heck of a shock.
What causes this and is there any way to prevent it?
Edwin Pawlowski
"suzn" <dontbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> The only place I have any static is in my car. When I get out of the car
> and I touch the door frame to close the door I get a heck of a shock.
> What causes this and is there any way to prevent it?
The static is cause by your clothing rubbing against the seat upholstery
when you get out. Easy to prevent, just drive naked.
If you choose to continue wearing clothing, hold the keys in your hand as
you get out. Now, touch the key to the door frame and see the spark jump.
Once grounded, you can close the door wit no shock.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
suzn
> The static is cause by your clothing rubbing against the seat upholstery
> when you get out. Easy to prevent, just drive naked.
Hmmm....
No more shock for me but might shock everyone else.....
> If you choose to continue wearing clothing, hold the keys in your hand as
> you get out. Now, touch the key to the door frame and see the spark
> jump. Once grounded, you can close the door wit no shock.
I'll try that next time!
Thanks.
Raven Shadowwinds
that sort of thing) and started drinking more water and it stopped. static
seems to prefer dryness.
Raven
"suzn" <dontbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UqWdncT9Drq...@comcast.com...
Anthony Matonak
...
> The static is cause by your clothing rubbing against the seat upholstery
> when you get out. Easy to prevent, just drive naked.
>
> If you choose to continue wearing clothing, hold the keys in your hand as
> you get out. Now, touch the key to the door frame and see the spark jump.
> Once grounded, you can close the door wit no shock.
You could also just hold on to the frame of the car as you slide out.
This will ground out the charge as soon as it builds, no sparks.
It seems to me that it happens more with nylon and synthetic fibers
than with cotton. Changing what you wear and using anti-static
sprays on the seats might help.
Anthony
Anthony Matonak
...
> As to static, I found this
>
> ANTI-STATIC SPRAY RECIPE
>
> 1/4 cup commercial liquid fabric softener
> 1/4 cup ammonia
> 2 cups water
>
> Mix ingredients and store in a spray bottle. Spray liberally on the rug,
> your shoes, chair, desktop, or file cabinet, but do not spray directly onto
> your computer system.
I've found that petting cats will generate quite a lot of static
electricity in dry air (a not-uncommon observation). I doubt many
cats would like getting sprayed with that recipe.
Anthony
Rod Speed
Gymmie Bob <not...@bite.moi> wrote in message
news:K4ydneupa6p...@golden.net...
> Ohhhh. that's how it works here. If you put the boost to as many
> concepts,ideas and posters as possible it makes you a better person?
Nope, just shows that Mikey's silly claim is a silly claim, stupid.
> One quirk! Who is keeping score? Most of them can even count.
> Sounds like Weiner, Mark and Stove must the be the best of all of us and
> the ones to try to keep up with..Tha Gods are here....The Gods are here!
Down, boy.
Robert Morien
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> As to static, I found this
>
> ANTI-STATIC SPRAY RECIPE
>
> 1/4 cup commercial liquid fabric softener
> 1/4 cup ammonia
> 2 cups water
Just what people want...more chemical pollution
wmbjk
wrote:
It happens to me *every* time I get out of the car (AZ). I sort of
smack the window frame as I get out, which lessens the effect, and
eliminates the surprise. Strangely enough, it *never* happens to my
wife, who wears very similar clothing.
Wayne
Gymmie Bob
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37779hF...@individual.net...
Gymmie Bob
though with the oiliness of it. There may be better sprays out on the market
now though.
"suzn" <dontbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UqWdncT9Drq...@comcast.com...
Don Ocean
Install a ground strap to drag from the car frame.. They were quite
common in the late 1950's to early 1960's.
Gymmie Bob
of tires This doesn't happen with radials, so I''m told. It happenned a lot
with bias ply tires.
"Don Ocean" <oc...@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:3792lpF...@individual.net...
Gymmie Bob
out. The problem is gone with the clothing...LOL
"Robert Morien" <PhD_f...@nousefulinfo.com> wrote in message
news:PhD_failure-DF73...@news.isp.giganews.com...
Gymmie Bob
the FR they use may do something also but the static generator kits sold
years back had synthetics frictioning against cotton to generate the static
electricity.
"Anthony Matonak" <res0...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:jqtPd.16318$uc.6843@trnddc05...
daestrom
"wmbjk" <wmbjk@remove_this citlink.net> wrote in message
news:n0ts01phurhmrpeh8...@4ax.com...
Perhaps it's her shoes. Similar clothing would *generate* similar charge,
but a different kind of shoe could dissipate the charge faster. Or maybe
she holds onto the door when getting out?
daestrom
ledbalon
causing several car fires.. Mostly happening to women.. They get out of
the car.. start the pump. get back into the car to get cc etc.. or to
stay warm.. get out of the car.. touch the fuel filler nozzel and Zap SE
discharge and vaporizing fuel pouring out of the fill nozzle..
Just another reason to ground oneself getting in and out of the car.
Steve
wmbjk
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"wmbjk" <wmbjk@remove_this citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:n0ts01phurhmrpeh8...@4ax.com...
>> It happens to me *every* time I get out of the car (AZ). I sort of
>> smack the window frame as I get out, which lessens the effect, and
>> eliminates the surprise. Strangely enough, it *never* happens to my
>> wife, who wears very similar clothing.
>>
>> Wayne
>Perhaps it's her shoes. Similar clothing would *generate* similar charge,
>but a different kind of shoe could dissipate the charge faster.
Similar shoes most times as well.
> Or maybe she holds onto the door when getting out?
We both get out while opening the door by its plastic handle. She's
usually on the passenger side, so I just asked her if she gets a shock
when getting out after driving. She says she might have. So maybe the
charge builds through the steering wheel? Still, it seems like there
must be some other difference. One more thing... I can't remember ever
getting zapped when driving the truck. So, same guy, same clothes,
same (or similar) cloth upholstery, same route, yet a major difference
in the shock frequency. Is it possible that the vehicles could be
getting charged up from driving on dusty roads, and that the lower
ground clearance of the car makes for more charge?
Wayne
Gymmie Bob
block the pump on with any mechanical means.
We just saw a little clip from the security camera tape at a gas pump where
this happenned. It wasn't funny for the woman in the film.
Jerry cans are to be grounded with a ground strap here before filling or
emptying. (I assume just the metal ones). To many nice vehicles have been
damaged by this. Plastic pickup bed liners have made this worse.
"ledbalon" <ledb...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:z3MPd.58916$jn.26045@lakeread06...
daestrom
"Gymmie Bob" <not...@bite.moi> wrote in message
> This is why self fueling gas pumps have signs that tell you it is illegal
> to
> block the pump on with any mechanical means.
>
> We just saw a little clip from the security camera tape at a gas pump
> where
> this happenned. It wasn't funny for the woman in the film.
>
> Jerry cans are to be grounded with a ground strap here before filling or
> emptying. (I assume just the metal ones). To many nice vehicles have been
> damaged by this. Plastic pickup bed liners have made this worse.
>
In NY its posted that cans must be removed from the vehicle and placed on
the ground next to the pump prior to filling (metal or plastic). This is to
help eliminate this hazard. The signs also warn of keeping the nozzle in
contact with the can while filling.
Of course, hoisting a five gal can in and out of a truck can be a pain, but
better safe than sorry.
daestrom
daestrom
IIRC, most modern tires have enough carbon in the rubber that they can
dissipate static charge through them. I do remember old gas tankers that
would drag a short length of chain under them to keep them 'grounded', but
haven't seen that in years.
Maybe the upholstery or foam cushions underneath?
daestrom
Gymmie Bob
occur. Before the investigators could get my vehicle back to the spot on a
nice sunny dry day the tires got changes and they could not duplicate the
potential hazard. I registered 760Vac to puddle and they could only get 150
or so.
Another utility bloke told me radial tires have less problem with it. It may
have something to do with the bands of steel going full to the rim in
radials.
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GNPPd.11701$vK5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
suzn
> Perhaps it's her shoes. Similar clothing would *generate* similar charge,
> but a different kind of shoe could dissipate the charge faster. Or maybe
> she holds onto the door when getting out?
It happens regardless of my shoes. Different shoes same shock. As long as
I
am sitting there is no shock. I am sitting as I open the door and when I get
out of the car
both feet on the ground and I turn to close the door I get zapped. It
happens every time
so I know to expect it. You can actually hear it.
suzn
>
> We both get out while opening the door by its plastic handle. She's
> usually on the passenger side, so I just asked her if she gets a shock
> when getting out after driving. She says she might have. So maybe the
> charge builds through the steering wheel? Still, it seems like there
> must be some other difference. One more thing... I can't remember ever
> getting zapped when driving the truck. So, same guy, same clothes,
> same (or similar) cloth upholstery, same route, yet a major difference
> in the shock frequency. Is it possible that the vehicles could be
> getting charged up from driving on dusty roads, and that the lower
> ground clearance of the car makes for more charge?
I get the same shock when I get out of my husbands truck, passenger side.
He never gets shocked. So it must be me......
Edwin Pawlowski
> He never gets shocked. So it must be me......
He may be holding the door frame or a body part when he gets out.
TURTLE
<p j m@see _my _sig _for_address.com> wrote in message
news:it5q01lu03gvg4mdv...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:29:21 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> personal comfort. Any energy used to achieve that I don't consider
>>>> wasted, but well spent. .
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed in this particular subthread.
>>>
>>
>>But this is a sub-sub thread making it relevant again.
>>
>
>
> Now the thread will die .....
>
>
>
> Paul
This is Turtle.
Well Hell-o Paul and it is funny to see you over here at <frugal-living >
newsgroup ! I did not know you was into that kind of thing.
TURTLE
Don Ocean
> It's usually the clothes, seat material combination, no the static buildup
> of tires This doesn't happen with radials, so I''m told. It happenned a lot
> with bias ply tires.
Nope... It had to do with the seat covers and fabric.. Nylon was
quite popular. Your car chasis is isolated from ground-Ground. In other
words your frame floats to any electrical level the environment allows
it to. So grounding it to the road alleviates the problem.. Give it
a try.. Tires really don't have any function in this other then
insulating you from the ground. Have you ever heard of a vehicle being
struck by lightning?
Don Ocean
Actually the hose and nozzle are grounded by fire code!
>>
>>
Don Ocean
Not quite true. All states have farm pickups, construction pickups and
governmental service pickups that have on board tanks installed just for
servicing other equipment. Everything from AvGas to Grade 4 fuels. And
of course this falls under federal jurisdiction as it is interstate
transports as soon as any vehicle touchs a highway or road. A point
in case is that most pickups don't have a hose system to unload from
Auxillary in bed tanks..thus the cans have to be fill at the pickup bed
level. I am sure that you remember the tanker trucks going down the
road with a piece of chain dragging from the frame and sparking
everytime it bounced on the road.
>
>
Don Ocean
Not so
Don Ocean
He doesn't wear pantyhose.. Its the fabric and female hair is drier
then male generally. I guess that makes you a hot Mamma.. ;-p
>
>
Peter Bruells
> Nope... It had to do with the seat covers and fabric.. Nylon was
> quite popular. Your car chasis is isolated from ground-Ground. In
> other words your frame floats to any electrical level the
> environment allows it to. So grounding it to the road alleviates the
> problem.. Give it a try.. Tires really don't have any function in
> this other then insulating you from the ground. Have you ever heard
> of a vehicle being struck by lightning?
Absoultey. Vehicles, inluding ships and planes, get regulary hit by
lighting. However, as long as they have a metal frame, they work like
a Faraday cage and thus protect the passengers inside.
Besides, with lighning, a little bit of rubber doesn't help that
much. Lighting are powerful and will glady travel through feeble
insoluation of even yards through air.