Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:37:46 -0700 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 15T0PtnU022386; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:27:09 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-3.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.13]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 15T0PrIi022383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:25:53 -0400 Received: from w92exedge4.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE4.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.16]) by outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 15T0PpNZ011833 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:25:52 -0400 Received: from w92expo18.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.72) by w92exedge4.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:25:15 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb2.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.98) by w92expo18.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.72) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:25:51 -0400 Received: from NAM04-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.73.43) by oc11exhyb2.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:25:51 -0400 Received: from BN9PR03CA0302.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:112::7) by BL0PR01MB4979.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:208:62::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4264.23; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:25:44 +0000 Received: from BN8NAM11FT026.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:112:cafe::4c) by BN9PR03CA0302.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:408:112::7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4264.20 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:25:44 +0000 Received: from mail-pf1-f175.google.com (209.85.210.175) by BN8NAM11FT026.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.177.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4264.18 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:25:44 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d12so7985398pfj.2 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.192.1] (118-93-174-135.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz. [118.93.174.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 21sm15009917pfh.103.2021.06.28.17.25.42 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:25:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Brent Brown To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:25:39 -0700 Subject: Re: [EE] HVAC filter efficiency and energy consumption Thread-Topic: [EE] HVAC filter efficiency and energy consumption Thread-Index: Addsfvs4sgQe73ncTm6YRcIW0P9yEQ== Message-ID: <60DA6883.23190.2A016236@brent.eds.co.nz> References: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: eds.co.nz does not designate permitted sender hosts) dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eds-co-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:organization:to:date:mime-version:subject:message-id:priority :in-reply-to:references:content-transfer-encoding :content-description; bh=/pp6m08udwWUaKZkyXgyd5Gg0hO3w7D8rkGrSZRzgk8=; b=Y0e3pOhtaO4F41CZAkV87jhWR1YPUxNID09V9JYh16eAkY2s50CRF8DDqFTRMnOIJ6 VkB714V0u5SqjCV0bK2Us5eD8y7iQ9kbhxIQW8R8JSbKFi1npktnrrGZhiHjnPWxJBtL MnRAqud+j2GdRKJMAY0Dgz499oWoyU3AqYXwlkQbByQ5zytUR0p1tKb1bGOg5QyNOV13 apbqGUsm4+FyzCfCnmeKb4WSkyCkvWGZZ6t7taoqbSvbcKkinaurSDzZaduyE/yOZ9oV IJn4sFUYFSfga3zVHu+TB+QN1xeu1/59yxPXY8pi7QKwC2Gd+ibvIFwmLM5ishWNgU41 9f2Q== authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 209.85.210.175) smtp.mailfrom=eds.co.nz; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=eds-co-nz.20150623.gappssmtp.com; mit.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=eds.co.nz; errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-received: by 2002:a63:445b:: with SMTP id t27mr25612577pgk.413.1624926343577; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:25:43 -0700 (PDT) x-topics: [EE] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Hello Mark, Once upon a time I worked on a ventilation system for houses that pulls dow= n=20 warm/dry air from the roof space and pushes out cold/damp air from inside t= he=20 house. The idea somewhat works some of the time, but that's another discuss= ion. But the part that relates to your filter/energy consumption question... the= ventilation=20 system had a fine grade air filter and we sought to see if we could measure= its=20 condition (new/clean/free-flowing vs old/dirty/blocked). One would assume t= here=20 would be a detectable difference in fan speed or power, and we sought to de= tect &=20 indicate when the filter needed to be changed. Fan RPM was the easiest data to obtain, but that alone showed no definitive= =20 difference between clean and dirty filters. Likewise fan current offered no= clear=20 correlation. Fan power we did also try... but from memory that also did not= offer the=20 clear picture we desired. Adding air pressure sensors before and after the = filter=20 might allow a reasonable correlation to be made, but that adds some=20 cost/complexity. On 28 Jun 2021 at 7:51, Mark Howles wrote: > Hello, >=20 > I was contemplating changing my Air filters to MERV11 and was told by som= e > people that they are bad for energy usage and air flow. I came across a > study that measured and compared the effects of low efficiency and high > efficiency filters and I found the technical details fascinating. Their > conclusion was that effects are not significant in residential settings. >=20 > Does anyone have experience with this, or have monitored this before on > their own? >=20 > I thought of just correlating energy consumption increase/decrease around > the initial few days of installing the filter, at similar temperatures, > though the paper suggests there can be a complex interaction of many > variables before coming to conclusions. >=20 > Here is a link to the Study: > https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/novoselac/Publications/Novoselac_ASHRAE_= Transactions_2010.pdf > --=20 > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .