Before I even get started, I want to point out that I am no expert on ventilation. I have learned a lot from (and rely on) many experts, including Paul Raymer, Gord Cooke, John Krigger, Joe Lstiburek, Armin Rudd, and Terry Brennan, among others. I depend on them to fuss about the details of how much ventilation a house needs.I do, however, have to deal with ventilation requirements when I work with my clients to certify their buildings. Most residential certification programs require that a home or apartment meet the ASHRAE 62.2-2010 whole house ventilation standard. This can be accomplished through exhaust-only, supply-only, or balanced systems.In the humid Southeast, we tend to discourage exhaust-only systems, but some developers and contractors meet the requirement by using a continuous bath vent fan – not the most efficient method, but it is simple.Supply-only systems normally have an outside air intake into the HVAC return plenum with a controller that turns on the HVAC blower motor and opens a damper when air is needed.Balanced systems in my climate use energy-recovery ventilators (ERV). ERVs: Are they as good as we think they are?In doing some research on ERVs, I learned that if they are connected to whole-house duct systems, the air handler blower must run to move the outside air throughout the house – the ERV motor can’t move enough air through a duct system.After several discussions with ERV manufacturers’ support staff, I have come to the conclusion that they should be installed with dedicated duct systems to avoid the complexity of control systems and the energy use involved with running the blower motor.This leads to the question: where do you put the supply and exhaust ducts in the house? Some people suggest drawing exhaust air from bathrooms and supplying fresh air to bedrooms or living areas. This has some appeal in that you can eliminate bathroom fans. However I have read other opinions that don’t like the idea of exhausting bathrooms into ERVs. What’s a poor, ventilation-ignorant boy to do?Another minor beef I have with ERVs is how they are treated in the RemRate energy modeling program. The new Energy Star target HERS Index, required for some green certifications, can be a challenge to meet. On several recent projects for which I have done energy models, I discovered that upgrading from supply-only ventilation to an ERV lowers the HERS index by 7 or 8 points, allowing a project to meet the required target index and achieve certification.I appreciate the fact that ERVs are more efficient due to the motor size and the fact that they do actually recover some of the energy in the heated or cooled indoor air. But do they really increase the energy efficiency of a house by 10% or 15%? The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that there might be some collusion between the ERV manufacturers and the energy modeling software companies. (Only kidding, guys). RELATED ARTICLES Designing a Good Ventilation System GBA Encyclopedia: Ventilation ChoicesHow Much Fresh Air Does Your Home Need?Are HRVs Cost-Effective?HRV or ERV?A New Way to Duct HRVsVentilation Rates and Human Health Joseph Lstiburek: Just Right and Airtight Supply-only system problemsWhen I test out and inspect a home for certification, checking for an operating ventilation system is a piece of the action. For an Energy Star home, the ventilation system’s flow rate must be tested. Other programs only require that the system be installed and sized properly, without any other field verification. Most supply-only systems I run into include a motorized damper connected to a control with a ventilation cycle function. I have yet to see an HVAC installer who figures out the CFM coming in through the supply duct, calculates the required ventilation rate, and sets the fan control to meet ASHRAE 62.2. They just put in the damper and controller and assume everything will work out fine.In several cases, I have seen the dampers installed so that they default to the open position – sometimes causing duct systems to fail leakage tests, particularly if they don’t have a good outside damper. In these cases, no one has any idea if the ventilation system actually does what it is supposed to do. So how much ventilation do we really need?I’ve heard Terry Brennan suggest that ASHRAE 62.2 is too low a ventilation rate. I’ve heard Armin Rudd say it may be too much. Joe Lstiburek recommends installing systems that provide 1.5 times the required rate, but setting them to run initially at ½ the rate, letting the occupants adjust it themselves.I kind of like this last idea, because the designed rate seems to me to be somewhat arbitrary. It has to be either too high or too low for most people. If you have a bunch of dogs, smoke tobacco, fry turkeys indoors, and don’t vacuum your carpet, then you probably need a high rate of ventilation – maybe even more than the ASHRAE 62.2 rate. If you don’t wear shoes in the house, don’t smoke, don’t have pets, and keep your turkey frying outdoors, then you need less.Then there’s the thought of occasionally opening windows and doors when the weather is nice. I know that we can’t rely on passive ventilation to guarantee a specific number of air changes, but can’t we please just take a little responsibility for our homes?I understand that a lot of very smart people have been working on the ASHRAE ventilation standard for a long time, but I am concerned that we just aren’t getting the anticipated results from all the effort that goes into this issue. Like I said, I’m no expert, but something about this whole thing is starting to bug me.
If you’re looking for the comments section, it has moved to our forum, The Chamber. You can go there to comment and holler about these articles, specifically in these threads. You can register for a free account right here and will need one to comment.If you’re wondering why we decided to do this, we wrote about that here. Thank you and cheers! Arizona State and Oklahoma State have agreed to a home/home series in football, it was announced Tuesday. The first game will take place on September 10, 2022 at Boone Pickens Stadium and in 2023 will be played at Sun Devil Stadium on September 9.The first meeting of the two teams on the gridiron came in 1984, where the Cowboys rolled 45-3 in Tempe. However, ASU controls the all-time series, 2-1. The Sun Devils won the 1991 matchup in Stillwater 30-3, and won again in 1993 in Tempe 12-10 — all during the Pat Jones era.The best part is that by 2022, this intriguing out-of-conference matchup will probably be an in-conference Pac 20 game.The 2023 freshman class will begin the sixth grade this year. https://t.co/QKslrmiya2— Mark Cooper (@mark_cooperjr) June 21, 2016
CALGARY – Suncor Energy has named Mark Little as chief operating officer at the oilsands giant, shifting him from his current role as president of upstream operations.The company says he will be responsible for all operations and many of its corporate services as Suncor looks to push for efficiencies at both its own operations and at its majority-owned Syncrude facilities where he is chair of the board of directors.Suncor (TSX:SU) says Little has been with the company since 2008 in a variety of roles, including leading the integration between Suncor and Petro-Canada and more recently leading upstream operations including oilsands, conventional exploration, and production worldwide.The company says Little will assume the role on Dec. 1 as Suncor looks to achieve first oil at its Fort Hills oilsands mine.
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – At 5:07 am, caught on surveillance camera what appears to be two thieves entering Action Property trying to rob the establishment.Wanda Smook shares with me they had just driven by the business 10 minutes prior to the break-in and there was no one there at that time.“The thieves broke in which immediately triggered our alarm system and Vivint called the RCMP. My maintenance man attended and determined that nothing was missing,” said Smook, “The thieves went straight to the lockbox so they were hoping to find money there I believe. Finding none and with the alarms going off they left.” If you have any information regarding this incident please call the Fort St. John RCMP a 250-787-8100. Should you wish to remain anonymous, please call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477) or submit a tip online.
Tehran: Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has demanded Pakistan act “decisively against anti-Iranian terrorists” in a phone call with the country’s premier, Tehran said, a month after a bloody attack on security forces. Iran says a Pakistani suicide bomber was behind the February 13 attack that killed 27 Revolutionary Guards in its volatile southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan. A Sunni jihadist group, Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice), which Tehran says operates mostly out of bases in neighbouring Pakistan, claimed responsibility for the blast. Iran has accused Pakistan’s army and intelligence agency of sheltering the jihadists and summoned the country’s ambassador in the wake of the attack. Rouhani in the phone conversation Saturday evening with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan called to maintain good ties and pointed the finger of blame at Tehran’s traditional regional and international foes. “We shouldn’t allow decades of friendship and brotherhood between the two countries be affected by terrorist groupuscules that we both know from where they are being armed and financed,” Rouhani said, according to a government statement. The Iranian president was alluding to the United States and Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which it accuses of aiding jihadist groups responsible for attacks from Pakistani soil. February’s bombing was the latest of numerous attacks on Iran’s security forces and officials in Sistan-Baluchistan, where the minority Sunni Baluchis accuse the authorities of discrimination.
Rome: Italy is investigating the mysterious death of a former model and witness at Silvio Berlusconi’s sex trial, with a newspaper suggesting on Saturday she may have been poisoned with a radioactive substance. Milan prosecutor Francesco Greco said an investigation had been opened following the death on March 1 of Moroccan-born Imane Fadil at one of the city’s hospitals. The 33-year-old had been brought to the hospital on January 29 with unexplained stomach pains. Also Read – US blacklists 28 Chinese entities over abuses in XinjiangFadil was one of the witnesses who testified at the trial of the former Italian premier and media mogul on charges of having sex with an underage prostitute at one of his notoriously hedonistic bunga-bunga parties. According to Italy’s Corriere della Sera daily, the hospital had run a battery of tests to determine the cause of her failing health, but finding nothing, had sent off samples to a specialised laboratory in the northern town of Pavia. Also Read – Want to bring back US forces engaged in endless wars: TrumpThe results came back on March 6, five days after her death, suggesting the presence of “a mixture of radioactive substances which are not normally available for purchase”, the paper said, citing unnamed sources. Fadil’s lawyer, Paolo Sevesi, said she had spoken to him about “her fear of having been poisoned,” the AGI news agency reported. The former model first hit the headlines in 2012 when she gave detailed testimony about the goings on at Berlusconi’s orgiastic parties at his villa in Arcore near Milan. She testified that the first time she went to a party, she saw two young women in nun costumes stripping in front of the then prime minister. Later, she said he himself handed her 2,000 euros (USD 2,600) in cash, telling her: “Don’t be offended.” Berlusconi has faced a string of charges over the so-called Rubygate scandal linked to his parties and the underaged prostitute Karima El-Mahroug, also known as “Ruby the heart-stealer”.
Modern life has become the algorithmized life, a data-rich dreamscape in which the solution to nearly every problem lies somewhere inside a spreadsheet. Every problem, that is, except for college football’s.On Tuesday night, the new College Football Playoff (CFP) Committee will release its ranking of the best teams in college football. It’s a list generated by 13 human experts1Minus Archie Manning. — they’ll have the aid of simple statistics, sure, but ultimately the committee and its members’ human biases are the ones accountable. College football has moved the onus from the machines to the men.But only because the machines got them in trouble. In an unlikely marriage,2For a sport that still clings to the distinctly 19th-century notion of amateurism in the face of furious resistance. college football became an early adopter of numerically driven policymaking in 1998, when it ratified the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) to determine its consensus national champion.3To the extent that such a thing exists; Division I-A football is famously the only NCAA sport whose postseason is not governed by college athletics’ chief organizing body. Billed as an enlightened merger between the old-guard media polls — thus preserving the sport’s strong sense of tradition — and the computer rankings that so easily proliferated in the tech-boom ‘90s, the BCS was supposed to use data to help usher in a new era of college football.Instead, all it produced was controversy, revolt and a system so universally loathed that its demise was one of the few initiatives for which President Obama was able to marshall bipartisan support. A great deal of the criticism centered on “the computers,” a faceless army of machines that supposedly wouldn’t know a 3-4 defense from a 4-3. One of the biggest selling points of the College Football Playoff has been that it involves people who do know defensive formations.Yet there’s evidence that the switch from BCS to CFP won’t matter much, at least in terms of actually picking a champion with more efficiency. The big leap forward may simply be a lateral move.College football’s champion has always been more beauty-pageant winner than undisputed warrior. There are far too many teams — playing far too few games — to be able to rely on wins and losses alone as sole arbiters of worth. NFL teams make the playoffs through their records alone,4And, when necessary, an incredibly arcane tie-breaking process. but college football teams, marooned in various conferences, play schedules of vastly differing quality. Any endeavor to pick a truly national champion has to, by necessity, grapple with the balance between performance and strength of opposition.Originally, the media and coaches were the arbiters of who was great and who wasn’t, through the Associated Press Top 25 and the Coaches’ Poll. In theory, those who followed the sport most closely should produce a relatively equitable ranking of the country’s best teams. But the rankings became fraught with controversy and accusations of regional bias. The two major polls couldn’t always agree about which team was No. 1, producing a number of years in which multiple schools “won” the national championship. And college football’s longstanding system of bowl games, which act at once as postseason contests and meaningless exhibitions, occasionally complicated matters even further by contractually preventing the best teams from facing off even when there was clarity atop the polls.The BCS, which mixed polls with the supposed objectivity of computers, was supposed to fix all that. The existence of mathematical ranking systems in college football dated back at least 70 years prior, but since the AP began continuously issuing polls in 1936 these systems had never been the game’s preeminent selectors.It didn’t go smoothly. The computers became an easy punching bag for everything that fans and media hated about the BCS as a whole. “I think over the years, the computers were a scapegoat,” algorithm-maker Richard Billingsley told ESPN’s Mark Schlabach in August. “If there was an issue or if somebody didn’t like the results, it was the computers’ fault, and that wasn’t fair at all.”“Humans had more to do with the BCS than the computers did, but people were just wrong about it,” former BCS director Bill Hancock added. “I think the computers got a bum rap.”Even so, computer ratings played a large role in the BCS, and there were a number of reasons why the foray into data-crunching failed. First, the formula concocted by BCS creator Roy Kramer was inelegant, stirring the polls and computer ratings into an arbitrary statistical mishmash that included team loss totals and an arcane strength of schedule calculation. Also, it was badly overfit. As Stewart Mandel writes in “Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls,” Kramer “had his minions test the formula by applying it to past seasons’ results and making sure it spit out the correct two teams each year.” When future seasons5The ultimate out-of-sample test. failed to play out as tidily as the test sample did, the BCS endlessly tweaked its formula to retroactively “fix” whatever the previous year’s controversy was, rather than anticipating future fusses.And perhaps the BCS’s biggest sin of all was banishing computer rating systems that took into account a team’s margin of victory in its games. It was seeking to reduce the incentive for coaches to run up the score on overmatched opponents, but in doing so it also deprived the computer ratings of key data points. One of the most crucial findings in sabermetrics, across virtually all sports, is that the average margin by which a team wins or loses conveys more information than wins and losses alone. This is especially true in a sport like college football, where the sample of games is so small.Perhaps a computerized system could work if it were deployed with more skill. But college football’s decision-makers have decided instead that using no data — or at least a fuzzy interpretation of what’s available — is better than rigidly adhering to a defective model.And it may not make much of a difference.There will likely be a great deal of crossover between the playoff committee’s selection and the teams the BCS would have listed in its top four slots. In the estimation of SB Nation’s Bill Connelly, no fewer than 75 percent of the top four teams in the BCS rankings each year from 1998 to 2012 — and probably closer to 85 percent to 90 percent — aligned perfectly with the teams a hypothetical playoff committee would have selected had the current system been in place over those years.There also isn’t much distinction between the BCS’s and the CFP’s accuracy in determining the nation’s true best team. The CFP’s four-team bracket would be more likely to feature the deserving champion (a four-team playoff system has about a 45 percent greater chance of including the best team than a two-team setup like the BCS). But the CFP loses that advantage by forcing the top team to play an additional game, opening it up to becoming the victim of bad luck. According to past research of mine, a two-team playoff is won by the best team in the country about 29 percent of the time, while a four-team playoff crowns the best team at a 31 percent clip — hardly any improvement at all.The debut of the College Football Playoff is being celebrated as progress because it returns to the simplicity of human debate. But data and formulae ultimately weren’t to blame for the BCS’s woes, and it’s unlikely that its committee-based successor will reduce the number of college football controversies. Only an emotionless algorithm would have it any other way.
Even after final exams this week, the No. 6 Ohio State women’s basketball team might not take its toughest test until Dec. 19. That’s the day the Buckeyes will get their shot at the No. 1 team in the nation: Connecticut. The Huskies are riding an 86-game winning streak. A win against the Buckeyes could extend the streak to 88, which would tie the 1971-74 UCLA men’s team for the longest winning streak in college basketball history. The game will be played at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan, N.Y. OSU coach Jim Foster said he’s looking forward to the location of the game more than he is the opponent. “A lot of people watch really interesting matchups, regardless of who it is. I think where it is is a little more significant than who. Connecticut is Connecticut, there’s no two ways about it,” Foster said. “But Connecticut at Madison Square Garden? That’s a historic building.” Connecticut will try to match OSU’s star power of center Jantel Lavender and guard Samantha Prahalis with its own duo in forward Maya Moore and guard Tiffany Hayes. All four players are members of the preseason watch list for the John R. Wooden award, which is given to the most outstanding player in college basketball each season. Moore won the award in 2009 and is Connecticut’s career leader in scoring. Prahalis said knocking off Connecticut would be a big moment for the OSU women’s basketball program. “Playing UConn and playing to our potential, and hopefully coming out with a victory, that would make our mark,” Prahalis said. The Buckeyes’ matchup with the Huskies will be the last marquee game of what has been a murderer’s row of a non-conference schedule for OSU. The Buckeyes will have already faced LSU, Virginia, Oklahoma and Syracuse before they take on Connecticut. Prahalis said the Buckeyes are always prepared for each opponent’s best effort. “Anytime we go somewhere to play, or that they come play us, they give us their best shot,” Prahalis said. “We wouldn’t expect anything less. We treat every opponent as they’re going to try their hardest, because they are.” The Buckeyes are 8-0 following an 95-84 win over Oklahoma. Foster said his team this year could perhaps be the best he’s coached in his nine seasons at OSU. “Maybe,” Foster said. “You can’t answer that question today, but I think we’ve got some depth that we haven’t had.”
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Ohio State football freshman quarterback Braxton Miller completed just 1-of-4 passes against then-No. 16 Illinois, but it didn’t matter because the Buckeyes’ defense was up to the task. Defensive coordinate Jim Heacock’s unit limited Illinois to just seven points and 285 total yards of offense at Memorial Stadium Saturday as the Buckeyes (4-3, 1-2) captured a 17-7 upset win against the Fighting Illini (6-1, 2-1.) First-year OSU head coach Luke Fickell said two keys to Saturday’s game were turnovers and field position. In addition to denying the Illinois offense throughout the game, the OSU defense helped satisfy the two needs Fickell identified for the team. OSU held a 3-0 advantage at half time, but an interception by freshman corner back Bradley Roby, which he returned 36 yards, helped the Buckeyes extend their advantage. With the team just 12 yards from the end zone, Daniel “Boom” Herron scored on a touchdown on the next play to put the Buckeyes up, 10-0. “This is a game of momentum,” Fickell said after the game. “That’s probably the biggest thing about it (Roby’s interception). One thing we’ve lacked on defense is making some plays and to have a play start right there and then answer right away with the offense — that’s what this game is all about.” The touchdown came in Herron’s 2011 debut and with his return to the lineup, only senior receiver DeVier Posey remains suspended for the Buckeyes. Posey sold OSU football memorabilia in exchange for improper benefits in the form of tattoos and was also overpaid for work he did not do at a summer job. Sophomore corner back Dominic Clarke, who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for shooting what one witness described as a “compressed-air” gun from the top of Marketplace, a diner on OSU’s campus, did not travel with the team to Champaign. Another turnover that positioned OSU for a score came in the fourth quarter. Junior linebacker Storm Klein recovered a fumble on Illinois’ 37-yard line. Three plays after that, OSU again used the short field to its advantage as Miller completed his only pass of the game to junior tight end Jake Stoneburner for a 17-yard touchdown to put OSU up, 17-0. There was more to OSU’s defense than positioning the offense for scoring opportunities too. The Buckeye defense limited Illinois, which averaged 226 yards per game through six games, to 116 rushing yards on Saturday. “We tackled well,” Fickell said. “We didn’t give up big plays.” Sophomore safety C.J. Barnett agreed. “The coaches gave us a good game plan,” Barnett said. “We were able to execute. Everyone was able to do their job.” Sophomore defensive tackle Johnathan Hankins, junior defensive tackle John Simon and Klein also combined for seven tackles for loss, totalling -23 yards against Illinois. Simon, who claimed four of the seven tackles for loss and added two sacks, and Hankins both tallied career highs in tackles with eight and nine, respectively. Simon and Hankins helped OSU hold Illinois’ offense to 162 yards below its per game average through six games. Thanks to an efficient outing from both OSU’s offensive and defensive units, OSU junior tight end Reid Fragel said the team was ecstatic in the locker room after the game. “It’s a much-needed win,” Fragel said. “We kind of felt like our backs were against the wall. (With) both sides of the ball finally coming together, playing some good football, that’s big for us.” Fickell said more improvement is needed as the Buckeyes enter their bye week. “We’re not going to let this define us,” Fickel said. “This game is a lot more fun when you win. That momentum is so huge… and maybe those guys (the OSU players) haven’t had that in a while.” After the bye week, the Buckeyes continue Big Ten Leaders Division play against No. 4-ranked Wisconsin on Oct. 29 at Ohio Stadium. Kickoff is set for 8 p.m.
The Ohio State men’s soccer team opened Big Ten play on the wrong foot, falling to the No. 15 Indiana Hoosiers, 2-0. Sunday’s loss drops the Buckeyes to 3-5-1 on the season while the visiting Hoosiers improved to 6-1-1. The Buckeyes opened play against the favored Hoosiers with a conservative mindset, hoping to contain the Indiana attack and make the most of their own chances, said OSU coach John Bluem after the game. “Today we chose to play a little bit more defensively,” Bluem said. “(Indiana is) a strong attacking team. We wanted to play safe and keep ourselves in the game.” The defensive-minded strategy worked until a costly mistake in the OSU goal in the 30th minute allowed Indiana to take the lead. Indiana freshman Andrew Oliver’s shot was deflected and rolled past Buckeye sophomore goalkeeper Alex Ivanov, who was not able to recover and make the save. Oliver again helped the Hoosiers find twine, drawing a penalty in the first minute of the second half. Ivanov guessed correctly on Indiana sophomore forward Eriq Zavaleta’s penalty, but the shot scorched past the sophomore goalkeeper’s outstretched arms. Indiana led, 2-0. Bluem did not agree with the penalty call, saying it was “a very bad decision by the referee that ended the game.” The Buckeyes abandoned their defensive mindset in their attempt to erase the two-goal deficit. OSU outshot the Hoosiers, 10-4, in the second half but were eventually held scoreless. The shutout is the second consecutive for OSU. “We did create some good moments,” Bluem said, “and sometimes that’s all you need. We just weren’t sharp enough to get it done.” Riding a two-game losing streak, Bluem said his team is “having a difficult time,” but is still in the mix to compete for a conference championship. “You’re not out of this conference race at all just because you lost your first game,” Bluem said. “We played today what many people are thinking is the best team in the conference. I think we held our own against them.” OSU will take a break from Big Ten action on Wednesday when they host Butler (2-1-4) at 7 p.m. at Jesse Owens Memorial Stadium.