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; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:50:58 -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 15TMdKpt007718; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:40:30 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-5.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.59]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 15TMdJm2007715 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:39:19 -0400 Received: from oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (OC11EXEDGE1.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.9.3.17]) by outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 15TMd3Re001907 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:39:19 -0400 Received: from oc11expo31.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.104) by oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.3.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:39:24 -0400 Received: from w92exhyb8.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.71.113) by oc11expo31.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:39:14 -0400 Received: from NAM02-BN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.51.40) by w92exhyb8.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.71.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:39:14 -0400 Received: from MWHPR2201CA0054.namprd22.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:16::28) by DM6PR01MB3963.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:5:91::32) 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 22:39:13 +0000 Received: from CO1NAM11FT053.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:16:cafe::c0) by MWHPR2201CA0054.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:301:16::28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4264.19 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:39:13 +0000 Received: from mail-yb1-f175.google.com (209.85.219.175) by CO1NAM11FT053.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.13.175.63) 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 22:39:13 +0000 Received: by mail-yb1-f175.google.com with SMTP id b13so1588211ybk.4 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:39:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Howles To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:39:00 -0700 Subject: Re: [EE] HVAC filter efficiency and energy consumption Thread-Topic: [EE] HVAC filter efficiency and energy consumption Thread-Index: AddtOTpjamoF3qdkRZevbUq4xZPcCw== Message-ID: References: <60DA6883.23190.2A016236@brent.eds.co.nz> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: <60DA6883.23190.2A016236@brent.eds.co.nz> 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: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.175 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.219.175; helo=mail-yb1-f175.google.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=j7pjaWifHwvY3/Ll5FgJojHEjQeSt5ZNo8qtUuDUjjA=; b=kvxTkjKSdXh8uAtC2GK6eO/nt8cNIlnD+mjk09pZSxegAXEBA4f6FhY34LnbPnCN2n F0ydHBnWakl6VIYoADEMY4wMLQfLftbD5xcdvJ5y92luH4KON4uxbSKRNUyW3odMsQQG gTV6x66G4Go1XUV40l//r6T/zzU2Y/FIsdAEz9BdwWFJICyOyZNqU2M4BhWyzNJFM0Kk dxnkOWniQUyS3tVuRHVcJ0auTn8p59LovVizhgoYH8RU7crPJY2v+3cW8DbSPkkipJa4 lQMZ0Dds9EIeIJ6Mnxb2l3wAkIUrLAnfUV/lz22bYLIIrlwzRGMbzYM3YULrm/t1KOS0 Zc9g== authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.219.175) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com; mit.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=gmail.com; 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:a5b:182:: with SMTP id r2mr41655219ybl.232.1625006352683; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT) x-topics: [EE] x-content-filtered-by: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Thank you all for your responses. Sorry I should've mentioned that this is my first post, but I've been a long time lurker. So it does appear that you mostly agree with the paper that the effects should not be significant. I have just installed new Merv 12 filters and will be checking if there is any significant changes in energy consumption. As a future fun project I might do some more sophisticated air speed or pressure drop measurements. On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 5:27 PM Brent Brown wrote: > Hello Mark, > > Once upon a time I worked on a ventilation system for houses that pulls > down > warm/dry air from the roof space and pushes out cold/damp air from inside > the > house. The idea somewhat works some of the time, but that's another > discussion. > > But the part that relates to your filter/energy consumption question... > the ventilation > system had a fine grade air filter and we sought to see if we could > measure its > condition (new/clean/free-flowing vs old/dirty/blocked). One would assume > there > would be a detectable difference in fan speed or power, and we sought to > detect & > indicate when the filter needed to be changed. > > Fan RPM was the easiest data to obtain, but that alone showed no > definitive > difference between clean and dirty filters. Likewise fan current offered > no clear > correlation. Fan power we did also try... but from memory that also did > not offer the > clear picture we desired. Adding air pressure sensors before and after th= e > filter > might allow a reasonable correlation to be made, but that adds some > cost/complexity. > > On 28 Jun 2021 at 7:51, Mark Howles wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I was contemplating changing my Air filters to MERV11 and was told by > some > > 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= .. > > > > Does anyone have experience with this, or have monitored this before on > > their own? > > > > I thought of just correlating energy consumption increase/decrease arou= nd > > 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. > > > > Here is a link to the Study: > > > https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/novoselac/Publications/Novoselac_ASHRAE_= Transactions_2010.pdf > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > > View/change your membership options at > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > -- > 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 .