Re: Humidifier to reduce need for Heating

Don Ocean  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I am kinda curious as to why a BTU or Calory factor would be added to
>the disapation(sp) of humidity in the common furnace... 

It's just a matter of physics. I admire your curiosity.

>> >I would guess that you are not aware of the effiency of both old and new
>> >humidifier systems...
>> 
>> You might be surprised to learn that it takes about 1000 Btu to evaporate
>> a pound of water, no matter how you do it.
>
>Even if sucked into a vapor....or injected....Or just splashed around?

Yes. You might say "efficient humidifiers" like green plants or wet clothes
on an indoor clothesline use no energy to get water vapor into house air,
BUT it still takes heat energy to evaporate the water. That energy has to
come from somewhere, in this case the house heating system. 

This wouldn't be a big deal, if we only had to evaporate the water once, but
houses are not airtight. As moist indoor air leaks out and dry outdoor air
leaks in, we have to keep evaporating water in order to humidify house air.

>Some is even ultrasounded. None of the common methods really require a
>lot
>of caloric input to disseminate.. I don't think that a perpetual motion
>machine
>is required to maintain economy of heat and humidity dispersal. A
>teakettle used
>to work quite fine on top of a space heater. I don't think the caloric
>loss was 
>significant.

It is, if you look at the whole house.

>As for tight houses...All codes require 10 percent outside
>makeup air.

You might be hard-pressed to find one.

>And that usually requires and air-exchanger in most American climates.

I think you will find air-air heat exchangers are rarely required.

Nick