re: cool tower alternatives
27 nov 2005
abby normal wrote:
>my arguements are
>1) the heat that evaporates the water does not directly come from the
>air, it comes from the slab
true. (btw, argument only has one "e.")
>2) the cool slab, draws in heat from the earth
>3) only a small portion of the air being blown down to the floor makes
>contact with the slab and is cooled by the slab.
>4) you allow the heat of the make up air directly to the room air
and properly account for that.
>5) you plug holes in your scheme with unproven claims like 'stored coolth'
you are surprised that concrete can store coolth? :-)
>or randomly picking fans out of a grainger catalog without
>validating they are even close to being sufficient.
that's low-e case b) again, for which 6k cfm out of 21k cfm sufficed.
but for some reason, you said we had to choose a) or b). we chose a).
>you then suddenly change this to radiant cooling...
nope. that's how the slab cools the room in case a).
>and you claim you have a scheme that provides evaporative
>cooling with minimal air flow.
yup. as proven, with numbers. it's pretty obvious. simple physics.
>the main arguement is evaporative cooling can work but you need a swamp
>cooler to cool the outside air directly.
nope. (btw, argument only has one "e.")
>you are making the house a swamp cooler...
>and ignoring the unhealthy environment...
there is no unhealthy environment.
>... to make the inside of this home as warm and as humid as a natatorium...
>... the ceiling radiates heat to the floor. what does the floor
>do with this heat?
it loses that heat as water evaporates from the slab.
>it evaporates water to humidify the space.
that happens, but that's not the goal.
>the only time i have ever seen a ceiling cooler than the space was a
that's irrelevant in this case, with an 80 f ceiling and 75 f floor.
>... for an e=0.9 ceiling, the air film resistance for heat flow down is
the ceiling's air film resistance to downward heat flow is irrelevant.
>> >> >in fact you are relying heavily on forced convection.
>> >> in case b) with fans and low-e surfaces...
let's keep talking about case a), since you insisted we choose one.
>this is all on sea level, pheonix is about 1100 ft...
where is this town you call pheonix? :-)
>... you keep proposing a revolutionary system that cuts down on
>the air flow,but you have not proven anything yet.
it's just simple physics, abby.