Well, I'd disagree with the first part of your point since a refrigerant cycle is really what's at the heart of most residential & commercial systems.

The second part is valid though.

Most of us live in Nevada don't we? I guess I shouldn't have assumed we were talking about the conditions we live in and that actually apply to us.:rolleyes:

Who has the temp in their house set at 22F? I guess when I saw the title of the tread I thought it was about which works better here in hot dry Nevada. Not which is scientifically proven to be the better in extreme examples across the board.

But that still doesn't address the difference between home swampers and A/C's. You make an "80% efficiency" claim of evaporative coolers vs. heat pumps, but fail to acknowledge the far greater usefulness of A/C.

My reference to computer labs was to illustrate the limited usefulness of the type of cooler in your house. You can't use a pure swamp cooler in a lab environment because a lab requires greater operational range than they provide. Similarly, for most people, their home cooling desires also require a greater operational range, like being able to operate when there's greater than 30% ambient humidity. Just because industrial grade coolers leverage evaporative cooling as part of the system, doesn't make your swampcooler similar enough to my air conditioner to suddenly justify the invalid comparison from earlier between the two. Now we're talking about apples, oranges, and bowling balls.

Please try to keep up.

This thread started because Dean actually mentioned his swamp cooler wasn't working as well due to the higher humidity than normal. Then we were discussing the validity of the "80% more efficient" claim, which failed to take into account the limitations of a swamp cooler. I will readily admit that under ideal conditions swamp coolers are far more efficient, and that Reno is a terrific place to use them. But that doesn't make them "80% more efficient" than heat pumps in general, because a heat pump will work in a much greater operational range.

With regards to the 22F (and the computer labs, etc), they're just to illustrate the concept that different operation requirements have an effect on the discussion of efficiency. For example, what's the efficiency of an evaporative cooler vs. a heat pump for use in refrigeration? It's a bullshit question, because it's impossible to use an evaporative cooler for refrigeration. Similarly, if we're talking about home cooling in Nevada, comparing the two without explicitly recognizing the limitations of a swamp cooler, and saying a swamper is 80% more efficient, is just as bullshit of a conclusion as the discussion of refrigeration. A swamp cooler cannot do the same thing as an air conditioner, so while it's 80% more efficient under ideal swamp cooler conditions, it's also 99% less efficient when the humidity is at say 50% for example.

For the end goal of cooling a home to a reasonable level in our climate, I still contend they are not apples and oranges. The are Granny Smiths and Pippins. They each have additional pros and cons, but for that basic role, they are both very capable in climates such as ours.

Current humidity according to weather.com is 30% and yet my house with undersized swamp cooler is 72, 8 degrees below exterior, and perceived temp is probably closer to 70 or lower due to air movement, AKA wind chill.

I don't know if you have read the stuff from the CA study of the 2 stage evaporative units, but it is very enlightening.

Swamp coolers are not ideal for all conditions, but neither are compressor based AC units. I never claimed swamp coolers were a one for one replacement for AC in all environments.

I still contend that in this region, you can save in the neighborhood of 80% on your cooling costs by using evaporative cooling and still have a comfortable home.

I'd rather have a thermostat I can set and not think about, than "a comfortable home" by your definition. I don't consider 85F to be comfortable when it's 100F out. I want it to be 76F (though Lisa wouldn't mind the higher temps :lol:, she's always freezing ). And I still contend that claiming overall 80% better efficiency is nonsense if you can't realize the same functionality (76F when ambient is 100F).

Additionally, my water bill for keeping the grass alive is *far* higher than my cooling (electricity) bill. I need a way to get 80% more efficient sprinklers. That would make an actual difference in savings. It's far more expensive to heat the house in the winter (natural gas) than to cool it in the summer... running the A/C all the time doesn't bother me all that much.

I will say this though: when it's 110F out... even the A/C can barely keep up. I think I need both coolers... I'm gonna go rig up a water sprayer on the heat exchanger in the back yard. :P

Those 80% more efficient sprinklers would sure come in handy there. :lol:

Swamp coolers give you cancer and raise gas prices.

On those 105+degree days we had my swamp cooler kept my house below 80F running on the low setting. Normally I have to run it on low or it gets too cold for me. When I get home from work on a hot day I kick it into high for an hour to cool the house down, then on low until bedtime, then I turn it off. I should get a timer or t-stat.

Modern coolers can be/are thermostatically controlled.

They can do 76F@100F and do it more stably than AC over time. GO READ THE DAMN STUDY!!!

And considering the largely region specific nature of this board, the 80% claim is more than reasonable.

Now grass in this climate is just silly, but that is a whole other discussion. Desert/zero-scape and/or put in drip. I know, you are renting/leasing, but you should have thought of that when you selected it. :P right back at you...

Mmmmm, ice cream sammich yard decoration. Not sure how efficient that would be though.

Only on 100 octane. :P

Damn...

Air Conditioners, much like cheese, lead to obesity.

http://www.smm.org/buzz/blog/too_muc...ead_to_obesity

Empirical evidence suggests otherwise... if there's any humidity.

Sure, if you qualify it with "in this region". You made a bold statement to the effect that swamp coolers and air conditioners are interchangeable technologies, and that swamp coolers are 80% more efficient. You didn't qualify it.

I like having a healthy green lawn, zero-scape is god awful looking IMO. If I was watering it as recommended by the landlord, it'd be brown. I'm making a conscious decision to spend the money to keep it green. Since this is America, I'm also complaining about the cost of my conscious decision, you know like bitching about how much Taco Bell sucks while eating a Burrito Supreme.

That's an energy saving strategy. That way you can keep the heat turned down in winter thanks to your shiny new coat of blubber.

Fixed for Scott's unfortunate reality!

:lol: "Fuck this burrito!"

*munch munch munch*

Of course! Blame everything except poor diet and lack of exercise.

Also, I love these headless fat-guy pics:

http://www.smm.org/buzz/media/images...ist_custom.jpg

That's anonymous to everyone that doesn't know the guy, but I'm sure all his friends are like "oh snaps Bob, you're totally the 'fat guy' in that fat guy picture!" They might as well show homey's face... it's not like there are millions of gut hanging little league umpires with their pictures online.

That guy should have gotten a swamp cooler

Hey can't afford one... he spends all his money on Fruit Loops with melted cheese and dipping ranch sauce.

Ah yes, Froot Loops: American Style.

Just needs gravy and mayo to be Canadian style.

I have repeatedly stated mine is undersized for my 3600 ft^2 house...
Hmmm Post #5..Post 11Looks like I mentioned our climate/region to me... :P

:roll:

Punctuation means something Dean.

"Try about 80% lower energy costs to operate. In our climate, that is somewhere north of $500/year..."

does not mean

"Try about 80% lower energy costs to operate, in our climate. That is somewhere north of $500/year..."

The two statements are quite different.