4 ms·

Wrong. The best way is the method described in the OP post.

• Dylan16807 3y ago
  Why do you think that? If you ventilate through a heat exchanger when inside and outside are different temperatures, you can have more fresh air more of the time while saving energy.
  • bgnn 3y ago
    energy consumption wise, yes, I guess. though mechanical ventilation requires electricity to be used, so it costs energy too. the heat exchangers are max 90% efficient as far as I know from my own research on what's available on a reasonable budget and size. there are some potential issues if outside temp is higher and it's humid tough. these systems can cause mold.
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      > there are some potential issues if outside temp is higher and it's humid tough. these systems can cause mold. Moreso than the shock ventilation method? If there's worrying amounts of moisture, we could go ahead and say we'll do the same amount of air with the heat exchanger. Is that worse for mold potential than the alternative?
    • konschubert 3y ago
      Have you done the math on how much energy the ventilators use, vs how much energy the heat exchangers recoup? Because without doing the math on that, such a statement is absolute pointless. I wouldn’t be surprised if the heat exchangers save 1000x the energy that they consume.
      • jeffreygoesto 3y ago
        Did you do the math for that number though?
        • konschubert 3y ago
          In my head, roughly, yes. How much money do you spend on powering the vent in your laptop vs how much money do you spend on heating? But the burden of proof is on the one that’s making the extraordinary claim.