I don't know if it would work structurally, but if it would, how would you feel about zoning the upper and lower off one unit that is smaller than the combined calculated tonnage for both floors. This would allow good cooling and airflow where needed and only be an issue on 100* days if we needed both upper and lower floors cooled to design temp correct?
Originally Posted by beenthere
5 tons to handle a 7 ton load is feasable.
Keep in mind that the first floor calls will effect the second floor long before 100° OD temps.
I know you plan on setting the first floor 10° lower in the evenings, but it will gain in temp and eventually call for cooling.
Plus on some days, when both zones are calling(because the second floor is trying to recover, it will take longer, since the air is split between both zones. Same when the first floor tries to recover from night set back.
A system like that, must have the duct sized properly, not just close.
Have you considered solar screens for the windows?
The payback could be relatively short.
I don't think the downstairs is going to be less than 4 tons. It has more sq ft and more windows. It was just a thought as the lower now has a package unit w/ elec. heat.
I'll run the numbers for both up and down @ 78* and see the total.
Regarding the solar screens: Since the heat gain is so huge from the windows, I will get a window contractor to give ideas/bids as the ROI could be less than expected.
Does the downstars cycle when its 100° outside?
You might be supprised how over sized you are.
yes it cycles @ 100*. More so than the upstairs. Haven't run a load calc on it yet though. It's a package unit with a 18x24 filter straight into a 16" duct. Static is about .76
I'll post a pic so you can see how much glass it has.
Front of house. Glass on right side sunroom goes all the way around. House faces South.
This is the downstair return going into the 4 ton package. As I said the filter is 18x24 so the restriction is a major issue.
You have some old windows.
Any improvement you can do to them will help.
And yes, your return leaves a bit to be desired.
Run the calcs when you get the chance, and I think you might find that you have a 7 ton load.
You are right about the windows. Over 50 yrs old. The vertical side row on each side swing out and there is no gaskets. I've chalked the ones we never open shut along with the ones I could feel cold air in the winter.
I'll run the down calcs this weekend and post back. I'm going to re-run the upstairs with high eff. glass and see how much that would help and then get a monster quote on replacements and see if there is a ROI. The walls are a big load factor with no insulation so I'll get a quote on blowing foam.
Wow, lots of glass, and energy efficiency wasn't exactly a design consideration for those old crank out windows.
Now I see why the load is so high!
Looks like you have a good bit of natural shading for the house though.
I really like the looks of old houses like that, and the style of windows it has. Nice simple lines to the house, no unnecessary weird projections.
I look at large modern homes and often wonder if the architect was actually setting out to crate as many potential water leaks into the house as possible, or if it was just out of ignorance.
One thing you may want to look into is interior storm windows.
They are way less expensive than replacing your windows, preserve the look of the house, give you the advantages of modern low E glass, and are easy to remove if you want to open a few windows during mild weather.
The right awnings would look fantastic on that house, would be completely in character with the style, and would give you good window shading.
If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.
Wow! what a pretty house...
Also consider cellulose for the walls. That old of a house will be slats and plaster for the walls, correct? I wonder if filling a wall like that will be easy or hard.
I've heard that adding storms brings a lot of the benefits of new windows without the
What's the rest of the house/property look like ?
It was done to get the buyer prowling new subdivisions out of his/her car and into a mortgage. Beyond that, nobody gave a flying rat's bum about the long term outcome.
Originally Posted by mark beiser
Somewhat off topic, but did you catch the piece on Channel 8 News last night about CSST being run too close to the roof decking in some newer homes in Mansfield? Apparently there's been more than one instance of roofers poking holes in the lines with their nailers as they reroofed a house. A homeowner kept smelling gas after his roof was replaced but couldn't figure where it was coming from until he went up into his attic and found the culprit. I turned to my wife and said that from the very first time I saw that stuff being used in a house that I just KNEW something like that was bound to happen someday. No way in hell I'd have anything but black pipe up in an attic. Seems to be the general rule of construction: if it's flexible, it's fack-up-able.
For the OP, that's some lake pad you got there. Not my preferred architectural style, but impressive nonetheless.
thats the economizer
Originally Posted by beenthere