Talk:Ventilation (architecture)

‹See TfM›

Requests

Rewriting the article

1- the beginning part is excellent, but the rest of the article is long and useless 2- the article doesn't even have a strong structure 3- hardly understandable writing style. --Saeed.Veradi (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

rotary ventilator

This really needs work. A start, let me mention I've seen the rotary ventilator, which uses wind to create an updraft, credited to James T. Lipsett of St John, NB, in 1889. Confirm? Trekphiler 05:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification & Example

the below quote needs clarification:

ASHRAE now recommends ventilation rates dependent upon floor area, as a revision to the 62-2001 standard whereas the minimum ACH was 0.35, but no less than 15 CFM/person (7.1 L/s/person). As of 2003, the standards have changed to an addition of 3 CFM/100 sq. ft. (15 l/s/100 sq. m.) to the 7.5 CFM/person (3.5 L/s/person) standard. [4]

Is the following correct?

The 2003 ASHRAE ventilation standard for homes requires 7.5 CFM/person plus 1 CFM/100 sq ft of floor space, but not less than 0.35 whole house air exchanges per hour. The number of people are typically calculated as equal the number of bedrooms plus one.

Therefore the ventilation requirement for a 1200 square foot, 3 bedroom home would be:

(3+1)people * 7.5 CFM/person + 12 (100 sq ft)* 1 CFM/100 sq ft = 42 CFM

If the home has 8 foot ceailings this would mean volume of the home is:

1200 sq ft * 8 ft = 9600 cu ft.

The air exchange rate per hour is then:

(42 cu ft/min * 60 min/hr)/9600 cu ft = 0.26 exchanges per hour required

Since the whole house exchange rate is less than 0.35 the required minimum rate is:

0.35 exchanges/hr *9600 cu ft * hr/60 min = 56 CFM

Please consider adding both the clarification and the example to the article. I am not sure that I have the standard correct. RStillwater (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Solved issues

splitting

I'd like to propose splitting out this article into three (or more) articles. Something like ventilation (architecture) (which is what the current article should be moved to), ventilation (firefighting) and ventilation (physiology). The intro para of this article can then be refactored as the start of a disambig page. dewet|™ 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this. --David Iberri (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, done. The ventilation (physiology) one might be too small to have an article for, but we'll see. dewet|™ 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The scope of this article seems a bit narrow. Ants and Prairie Dogs and other subterranean organisms also create intentional ventilation and air transfer. And if 'ventilation' doesn't also cover 'air transfer,' then why isn't there an article for 'air transfer?' --66.188.85.98 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

because ventilating is an industry; not a natural phenomenon. you can create air transfer if you have enough info--Saeed.Veradi (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

summary: Flame image isn't helpful, and shows dangerous behavior

The image at the top of the page doesn't really add to the article. All it shows is that ventilation occurs. If you go to the image page, you'll find that it's supposed to show "good" ventilation (left) and "bad" ventilation (right), where "bad" seems to mean "from a hole knocked in the wall". Finally, it shows a very dangerous method of demonstrating air flow; letting a flame be pulled into an active and probably dust-laden vent is a great way to start an enthusiastic and hard-to-extinguish fire. I suggest that the image be removed. Dan Griscom (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it.--Patrick (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In October 2014, the 'Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene' published an article titled 'Vortex Ventilation in the Laboratory Environment'. This is a new design technology that will significantly improve the safety and reduce the operating cost of laboratory facilities. Investigation reveals a direct causal relationship between volumetric air flow and fume hood containment. In order to realize the benefits of the vortex effect in hood performance, it is necessary that air changes-per-minute supersede face velocity as a performance standard. Effort must engage industry at the academic and professional level in order to advance the art of ventilation. Please consider my participation in any discussion, presentation or seminar regarding laboratory design or improvement. Further information may be found at: www.vtxvt.com 173.49.208.102 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Lawrence Meisenzahl, 7/27/2015