4 ms·

I recommend dehumidification over chemicals. It's much simpler and way more thorough. It also suppresses pests like silverfish. Allergies probably much better t

by bob1029 4mo ago

I recommend dehumidification over chemicals. It's much simpler and way more thorough. It also suppresses pests like silverfish. Allergies probably much better too. If you can keep your home under 45% RH, mold simply cannot grow. You'll never have to think about it. The longer and more persistent the dehumidification, the better the outcome. It can take weeks for the moisture to get pulled completely out of your drywall, interior framing, insulation, etc. I recommend getting one of those units that has the integral pump. Run it 24/7. But don't use the pump for the first day. Dump that water out manually so you get a visceral understanding of how bad it was. That water was in all your stuff. In your walls, in your sheets, furniture and clean clothes.

gib444 4mo ago
I don't understand how they don't end up just drying the fresh air? The average home has a certain amount of fresh air coming in. Outside is often 50-80% here in the UK. Am I just spending 150 watts to constantly dehumidify fresh air? Is it really dehumidifying the walls, furniture etc or just the new fresh air?
- malfist 4mo ago
  In the US a lot of new buildings are build with ERVs or HRVs that allow deliberate outside air exchange through the central ducting without losing heat/cooling or without gaining/losing humidity
- bob1029 4mo ago
  > Am I just spending 150 watts to constantly dehumidify fresh air? Yes. And it's probably closer to 800-1000 watts if you have a reasonably large living space. Someone living in the UK is likely to find this extremely offensive, but it's quite common in Texas and Florida.
  - gib444 4mo ago
    I had a feeling. The dehumidifier manufacturers (and their paid partner bloggers etc) insisting it takes weeks and weeks to start taking effect always struck me as odd - probably because even at full whack you're probably drying out the furniture etc at a very very very slow rate, because you're mostly in a losing battle drying out the fresh air. I wouldn't be surprised if energy companies were behind their popularity.
    - bob1029 4mo ago
      If it didn't work I wouldn't be paying to run it.

by bob1029 4mo ago

gib444 4mo ago

I don't understand how they don't end up just drying the fresh air? The average home has a certain amount of fresh air coming in. Outside is often 50-80% here in the UK. Am I just spending 150 watts to constantly dehumidify fresh air? Is it really dehumidifying the walls, furniture etc or just the new fresh air?

malfist 4mo ago
In the US a lot of new buildings are build with ERVs or HRVs that allow deliberate outside air exchange through the central ducting without losing heat/cooling or without gaining/losing humidity
bob1029 4mo ago
> Am I just spending 150 watts to constantly dehumidify fresh air? Yes. And it's probably closer to 800-1000 watts if you have a reasonably large living space. Someone living in the UK is likely to find this extremely offensive, but it's quite common in Texas and Florida.
- gib444 4mo ago
  I had a feeling. The dehumidifier manufacturers (and their paid partner bloggers etc) insisting it takes weeks and weeks to start taking effect always struck me as odd - probably because even at full whack you're probably drying out the furniture etc at a very very very slow rate, because you're mostly in a losing battle drying out the fresh air. I wouldn't be surprised if energy companies were behind their popularity.
  - bob1029 4mo ago
    If it didn't work I wouldn't be paying to run it.