Whole room humidity control better than Dampp Chaser. ( Right?)

[Mark Purney]

I agree with you in theory. But the whole room system is only superior 
if it can maintain a constant humidity within a few percent, all year 
round, or as you say, a "proper" system. The cost and difficulty of 
establishing such a proper system is not practical or realistic for most 
to consider, especially if they live in harsher climates. Even in homes 
that have some form of humidity control, the humidity swings are still 
enough to justify installing a DC, if the piano really is top priority.

In Florida, you basically only need to worry about drying out the air to 
bring the humidity down. In a place with cold, dry winters and humid 
summers, you must be able to both add and remove moisture. Raising the 
humidity up enough during cold weather could cause condensation damage. 
Here in Arizona, I'd hate to think what it would cost for a system that 
could pump enough moisture into the air to maintain a reasonable RH, and 
how much energy and water would be consumed in the process. Just the 
water filtration system required to feed such a humidifier would cost an 
arm and a leg. With the water we have, filtration would not be optional.

Perhaps DC systems haven't worked as well for some other people, but 
I've seen some amazing results in my limited experience with them, and 
that's without even using a string or under cover. I'm talking about 
radical, "Is this really the same piano?" results. I just don't 
understand why so many people are so quick to dismiss Dampp Chasers and 
get so excited about whole room systems. I say try the DC first, and 
then if you really aren't pleased with the results (for reasons other 
than being too lazy to refill the tank), then try the more expensive and 
difficult route.



Farrell wrote:
> I have a very firm opinion that whole room/house/institution humidity 
> control is superior to a standard DC installation, or even a DC 
> installation with bottom and string covers.
>  
> Now hold the phone before you clobber me - let me explain! I am also 
> of the opinion that a good DC installation can be very effective for 
> tuning stability and instrument longevity. I have a good DC 
> dehumidifier installation on my personal grand piano at home and the 
> piano pitch and tunigns are rock solid. The better the instrument is 
> isolated from the room, the better the DC can perform (undercover, 
> string cover, and better yet, a nice quilted cover with long sides for 
> the entire piano - that is used whenever the piano is not being played).
>  
> That being said, let's address whole room/house/institution humidity 
> control (let me use an acronym - my typing fingers are getting tired - 
> WRHC). IMHO, the key word in this title is "CONTROL". Mist being 
> sprayed onto a piano is humidity OUT OF CONTROL. A humidity source 
> with no regulation is humidity OUT OF CONTROL. A room with a humidity 
> source that is open to other rooms, even if the humidity source is 
> regulated, likely is humidity OUT OF CONTROL.
>  
> A room with a Sears dehumidifier with a tank that is not emptied or 
> does not have a functioning drain for water discharge or a room with 
> some crude humidity source and likely an even more crude regulatory 
> device (if any such device at all) is humidity OUT OF CONTROL.
>  
> From a practical standpoint, I agree that in many, if not most, 
> situations, a good DC installation will offer superior performance to 
> "whole room humidity control", but again that is because most WRHC 
> installations are poor at best - and not because HVAC is inherently 
> inferior.
>  
> Now consider a "proper" WRHC - and really, I think in most cases, this 
> would be the entire facility - be it an institution or a home. Most 
> proper systems would be automatic. I'm no HVAC expert, but I know it 
> requires proper sealing of the building, proper insulation, proper air 
> movement, proper regulation, etc., etc.
>  
> Or, if one is able and willing to manually control humidity levels, it 
> can be done. I keep my shop between about 48% and 58% relative 
> humidity 365 days per year. I use a small basement-type dehumidifier, 
> my wall AC unit, and an accurate relative humidity gauge to manually 
> regulate humidity. If find that here in Florida I don't need to ever 
> add water to my shop environment. If I were located elsewhere, 
> obviously things would become more complicated and perhaps impractical 
> to do manually.
>  
> Several examples of proper WRHC would be a good museum (perhaps like 
> the one that houses one of Christifori's pianos), a modern home with a 
> central HVAC system that also has a good regulated dehumidifier and 
> humidifier integral to the system, or something simple like my shop. 
> IMHO, all three of these examples would offer superior environmental 
> control compared to a good DC installation. Now again, I realize that 
> most WRHC installations are crude and ineffective (or even 
> destructive), but to categorically reject WRHC as inferior to a DC 
> installation is, IMHO, incorrect (exercising restraint here).
>  
> It's like morphine. Used in a controlled, intelligent (properly 
> regulated) manner, it can be extremely beneficial. Used in an 
> uncontrolled manner, it can be deadly. But to categorically reject its 
> use would be, IMHO, well, you get the idea......
>  
> Nuff said.
>  
> Terry Farrell


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.