Talk:Seasonal energy efficiency ratio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first responder to someone's new comment should enter the response just beneath the new comment (instead of using the above + tab) and indent the response by starting with a colon like this :. Any second responder, indent further by starting with two colons like this :: and any third responder, start with three colons like this ::: and so forth. If we don't follow these practices, the result is jumbled mess.
Contents |
[edit] This cannot be right
For example, if an air conditioner provides 5000 BTU of cooling, and has an SEER rating of 10, then on average over the cooling season it will consume 500 watts watt-hour of electric power (5000 divided by 10).
This cannot be right. A 5000 BTU AC uses about 600 watts, and thus will consume 500 watt-hours in *less than an hour*, not *over the whole cooling season*! -MichaelBluejay 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, according to the Department of Energy website, the correct formula is the BTU's OVER THE WHOLE SEASON, not the BTU's per hour. I'll edit the article accordingly. -MichaelBluejay 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the SEER is defined 'over the whole season', or saying it another way, simply 'THE AVERAGE'!!
- Why are people making this more complicated then it has to be? You see, I can walk into a store, and find an air conditioners with two numbers on the front of the box: the BTU/hr number, and the SEER number. I can quickly compare them by simply dividing the BTU/hr by the SEER, which gives the AVERAGE power consumption. This is a nice thing to know, and the formula is simple enough to memorize. I had put the simple formula it in the article, but it's been deleted twice now, apparently in favor of the calculation that is 4 times as long and yields the same result. In the future I hope people will keep it simple so that readers will have a better chance of getting the fundamentals right. Save the long winded explanations for wikibooks, this is wikipedia. Also, the '500 watt-hours' above was wrong, I added the strike-through, it should be 'watts'. Watts are units of power, and watt-hours are units of energy. Mikiemike 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Mikiemike, you were correct to strike through the the watt-hours above and that correction is now reflected in the article. However, your simpler formula only works if the annual hours of usage is a power of ten (i.e., 10, 100, 1000, etc.). Otherwise, it does not yield the correct average amount of power. Try using your simple method for 900 hours and using the method in the article for 900 hours ... and you'll see the difference. I hope this clarifies it for you. Regards, mbeychok 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- mbeychok, I disagree. I think you should try the calculation you suggested. You see, even when you change the operating time to, let's say 900 hours, you still get an average power of 500 Watts. The reason for this is that the formulas in the article first multiply by the time, then divide by the time, so time actually has no net effect. That is precicely the point I wanted to make. Strictly speaking, the efficiency will vary depending on the operating conditions, but these are all approximations anyway. I still maintain that the operating time does not effect the efficieny or power usage; energy usage yes, power usage no. Mikiemike 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Mikiemike, I stand corrected and I apologise. I must have suffered a brain fart. I have added your simpler equation back into the article's lead-in section ... using the same styles as the other equations. Thanks for correcting me, mbeychok 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Electric cost, climates, and performance
The article currently uses rather high electricity rates -- typical only of the U.S. West Coast and Northeast (in the US). For much of the country, where coal is used widely for generation, the rate is often only 7 to 8 cents per kWh.
The Chicago example was odd -- it is hot and humid in the suburbs (not lakeside, of course). I've adjusted the example to 'near Chicago' because houses aren't downtown. I also reduced the electric rate from 11 to 10 cents.
Isn't the official SEER evaluated using standard test conditions? If so, what are they, and what's the standard? For years Toa=85F, only, was used, but the standard was improved.
The distinction between a piece of equipment's 'official' SEER value and the actual site/climate performance still needs to be made clearer in the article. 129.237.114.171 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The section on heat pumps should be merged into the Heat pump article.
The section on heat pumps more appropriately belongs in the existing Heat pump article. Would someone please remove it from this article and merge it into the Heat pump article? If no one does so within the next 7-10 days, I will probably just delete it from this article. - mbeychok 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It has now been 14 days since I posted the above comment and no one has responded ... so I am going to delete the heat pump material from this article. - mbeychok 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the SEER formula of California and Georgia
From the Formula: (1) SEER = EER / 0.9 For California and also From the Formula : 1) SEER = EER / 0.8 For Georgia. Where did 0.9 and 0.8 come from? Please specify the raw data and procedures that give the 0.9 (for California) and and 0.8 (for Georgia) from the above formulas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.44.210.31 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fixed link on contract sizing reference
The old link was broken. I replaced it with a new link to the article: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-289-95/index.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.202.70.123 (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
