Hacker News Reader

Comment by schiffern | Hacker News Reader

Yes, exactly! If you're ventilating the interior then using an ERV makes sense. If you're preventing air from coming in from other places, then the ERV doesn't save anything, because (intentionally) 100% of the incoming airflow is leaking out somewhere, so there's nothing for the ERV to do.

I edited my post above to hopefully make it a bit more clear, but it seems you get it right away! Cheers

View on HN

Right but they didn't want to stop air coming in. They just wanted all incoming air to be filtered.

  >they didn't want to stop air coming in

They did, though! The entire point of positively pressurizing a structure is that any small leaks will instead result in clean air leaking out, which prevents dirty air from leaking in. This is how (most) cleanrooms work.

That's so the one central point of air ingress is the one with the filter. Air still gets in - through the filter.

Bingo.

The neat thing is, if you're already accepting this heat loss penalty anyway (in the service of positive pressure), it greatly reduces or even eliminates the ERV you need to maintain good indoor CO2. So in addition to better indoor AQI, positive pressure can greatly reduce total equipment cost.

Seems like a win/win to me!

Buckminster Fuller proposed a similar scheme in his Dymaxion House (even removing dust via baseboard vents), but it used passive heating and cooling so there was little penalty.

Are you an AI? You just spent several comments arguing against something you now claim to agree with.

Huh? No, my position has always been that an ERV doesn't make sense to combine with this project unless you wanted or have an ERV in your home anyway (and actually this can replace an ERV in some cases). This remains unchanged.

No AI of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com