From the desk of George Kopf, Training & Employment Manager at Rising Sun Energy Center, Berkeley CA:
If you were relieved when BPI announced the delay of the implementation of ASHRAE 62.2.2010, you're not alone. I am right there with you. I don't know about you, but I struggled with 62.2.2010. I like to think of myself as fairly intelligent and resourceful but, after hours of study and research, I am still unable to fully understand how 62.2.2010 works. 62.89 makes sense to me and I have used it accurately for years. 62.2.2010 is, IMHO, unnecessarily complex, confusing and difficult to use.
Well, imagine my joy when I discovered ResVent's 62.2 app for my iPod! For only $19.99, this handy little app will perform all the 62.2.2010 calculations for me. All I have to do is input the data into the right boxes and off it goes to perform its magic. Overall, I found the app user friendly but, sadly, I still have no better understanding of how 62.2.2010 works. Call me old fashioned, but I like to understand what I am doing and why I am doing it. You know, just in case the battery in my iPod fails.
When I remarked to a colleague about my joy of having resolved my 62.2.2010 woes, she was kind enough to point out to me that, lo and behold, one of the committee members responsible for crafting 62.2.2010 is also one of the folks who developed, and is now selling, the ResVent 62.2 app.
The fact that someone on the committee responsible for crafting an overly complex standard is now directly profiting from helping me out of the jam they created seems a little odd to me.
I respect ASHRAE and all the hard work they do. I recognize that I didn't have to spend $20 on the ResVent app. I also believe in free enterprise. But, to be perfectly honest, when I discovered someone on the 62.2.2010 committee got at least a portion of my $20, I felt a little disappointed.
But then again, I am a little old fashioned.
Is this just a case of buyer's remorse? Regardless, I felt a compulsion to share this information.
Excellent comments here, and liberatng rants as well. Indoor air quality is not just for homes; IAQ is a requiremnt for satisfied minds also.
Unless and until we actually move towards the protocol and considerations which Dale herman here identifies - indoor air quality evaluation by CO2, VOC, Delta-T, humidity - well, friends and neighbors, what. we are missing is stuff we know is critical.
Imagine for a second your house has one of those ventless fireplaces. It's dumping acre-feet of the oxides of nitrogen and a few gallons of water vapor into your home very day. Are you going to base your indoor ir quality on .35 and pretend all is well while the nox eats your sheet rock?
When we tighten the place up, then the RH is going up, the ACHn is dropping and the nastiness is given some pretty ideal conditions to multiply. Any sensible person would choose to eliminate these health-invaders first, provide all the energy-savings measures available second and anticipate a healthy life-style. In the HP business, merely he perception of concern for the health and welfare of the homeowner is viewed as the right path. Let us perform as we know best - even when things gets complicated.
Thanks George. Do you know where I get Paul Raymer's spreadsheet from?
Hope you enjoy it.
Good piece of writing, George. If we could somehow add up the man-hours and then magically multiply that number times the stress factor, we could have a more realistic value than the $19.95 times X chunk for R.J., RACKET-designer extraordinaire.
Nope, not buyer's remorse. More like waking up from being tortured and left to die ...for $8.19 or $2.89 or??!!
Old fashioned like family, friends or colleagues!
Yeah, that part is right, but bending us all over for some side action wind-falling directly into his wallet seems a bit stinky to my nose too - from writing the rules goofy enough for gobs of us to tear our hair out, hang out at conferences, waste our precious time...don't get me started! It seems an obsequiously skulduggerous shenanigan.
Maybe it's worth it for folks to sell out this way and crash their credibility for some cash cow, create a need for it and then KAJIIING! I too would prefer the KachingKK of the jail house door, but hey I'll probably plunk down my $19.99 too! Here ya go R.J. Thanks for the new rule and the black box around it!
Please accept my apology for such inane and unfounded accusations based on nothing. I hope nobody ever treats ME this way!
Based on what little I know, I actually know even less than I thought I knew! Dang !.. this life lesson can be downright humiliating.
Thanks for your really good work making this air thing something we performance contractors can breathe in, something we can make our own in order to educate our quizzical clients. They will be asking the hard questions, scrutinizing all our answers, and holding the big money. We need them to know we are on their side, and we are, thanks to you guys laying it down as right as we can lay it.
I just joined, and thought I would throw in 2 sense of my own. For anyone wishing to "view" the standard, there is a free reader available through ASHRAE at http://openpub.realread.com/rrserver/browser?title=/ASHRAE_1/ashrae... or, if that doesn't work, from ASHRAE (https://www.ashrae.org/standards-research--technology/standards--gu...) scroll down column 2 to
I understand the feeling of relief from BPI not adopting but, with the 2013 version, you can have a different weather site for every job, too. They tell me, once you get used to it, the infiltration credit routine in 2013 for existing buildings (or was that previously occupied?) will be easier to manage.
I just wish they (the committee) would define "kitchen" better, and explain why, when an intermittent non-range hood fan pulling 5 ACH can adequately ventilate a kitchen, a continuous fan would need to be (huh?) 5 ACH. (see tables 5.1, 5.2)
Great discussion here.
We have also put together an online training on ASHRAE 62.2-2010. It covers the standards, design considerations, calculation examples, fan control options, etc. Also comes with a simple excel calculation tool.
Here's the link for more info: http://homeenergypartners.com/ashrae-62-2/
Currently only $195!
Somebody informed me of this very interesting 62.2 forum at the ACI conference in Denver. Thank you to those who have supported me -- like Ethan. Joseph Larry, I accept your apology.
I think I am the third ASHRAE 62.2 committee member to take part in this forum, Iain Walker and Paul Raymer are the other two. I want to explain a few things that might bring greater understanding to the 62.2-2010 discussion. But first, the personal side. I did not make the standard difficult so that I could sell more apps. I am only one of approximately 20 voting members of the 62.2 committee. I think it characterizes those on the committee correctly to say that all are trying to their best. Indeed there are vested interests, but this happens on code/standard committees. Some self-employed members, like Paul Raymer, Terry Brennan, and me, pay our their own expenses to the two 2-day meetings each year that are always in different locations in North America.
My $20 ResVent 62.2 app is not the first piece of software I have sold as part of my consulting business. In 1996 I started marketing ZipTest Pro, a collection of calculation procedures for building diagnostics (this continues today in its third version). The idea for this came from Neil Moyer who helped me selected the first included procedures. So ResVent 62.2 is a continuation of what I have been doing for almost 20 years. As Ethan McCormick mentions in his posting on this forum, I have another product out now that is free (supported by advertising) called RED Calc Free. This includes ASHRAE 62.2-2010 and 62.2-2013, among other tools. You can try it out at http://www.residentialenergydynamics.com/
The ASHRAE 62.2 Standard is one of the ASHRAE standards that is under "continuous maintenance". This means that anyone can submit proposed changes (including committee members) and the committee must consider these proposals. As a result, the 62.2 standard continues to change (improve, I think). If someone proposes a reasonable change, the committee discusses it and votes on it. If it is accepted, it then must go out for public review. Anyone taking part in this forum, even those who are upset with 62.2-2010, may participate in this process of submitting proposals and public review. I would prefer to see people jump in a join the process rather than sit back and complain.
There are many comments pro and con about the 62.2-2010 Standard in this forum. It is my opinion that it is an improvement over what is usually referred to as 62-1989. I think the 62.2-2013 version is even better. As has been mentioned by others here, it is existing dwellings that are more complex than new dwellings because existing buildings are allowed the infiltration credit and may use the alternative compliance path. In the 2010 version, new buildings may not use either. The difficult calculation is the infiltration credit.
In 2007 I was asked to join the 62.2 committee because if my knowledge of existing homes. The original editions of the Standard (2003, 2004, and 2007) were clearly biased toward new dwellings. The committee members recognized that existing homes needed greater representation. The 2010 version of the 62.2 Standard significantly recognized existing homes by introducing the Alternative Compliance Path. This allows local ventilation deficits, but only if the whole-building ventilation rate is increased to compensate for these local deficits. The use of this feature has become commonplace in low-income weatherization.
For those of you looking for a good document that explains the 62.2-2010 Standard, take a look at the 62.2 Users Manual available from ASHRAE. It is full of good examples and explanations. You can find it at https://www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/62-2-users...
The 62.2 Standard is a work in progress that has been developed by many people over the last ten years. If it is not what you want it to be, join in the process of making it better. It is not likely that you will get your own way totally (nobody does), but you can have influence.
"It takes a whole village to raise a child"