On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:43 AM, joel a. jones wrote: > Soooo, when HVAC people discovered that the building > was using less heat/energy it was obvious that they were saving > money by > producing a higher , stable humidity level - they became believers. Adding humidity is cheap. Subtracting it costs a lot (generally supercooling the air, which means that the coolant must be colder than otherwise = a lot more money). But injecting moisture is relatively easy and inexpensive. So I think it is advisable to try to be involved in the discussions for any HVAC upgrades, talk to the people designing it and implementing it, and lobby as a fall back position for keeping a minimum level of RH. Even as low as 30% would be an immense improvement for many if not most of us. I don't think that adding a humidifying system is a large expense, relative to the whole cost of an HVAC upgrade, though I don't know from practical experience. Maybe someone else has been through this. (For those struggling with 90% and above, the fall back would be at least knocking off the top to get down to 60-70%. But in that situation, Dammpchaser heating rods and humidistats can help a lot for tuning stability, with next to no maintenance - keep plugging them back in when they get unplugged and repair wires). I am waiting for the HVAC upgrade in our building to make it to the top of the capital improvement list - five years ago I was told it was right up there, but I'm not holding my breath. But as soon as I hear a rumor, I'll be making calls, pounding on doors, writing memos, whatever it takes. I am sure the voice and strings faculties will be avid supporters, with woodwinds and percussion not too far behind. Regards, Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/FredSturm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110108/5e5ee9c6/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC