<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>I never said I NEED seven. I said I HAVE seven. Four are non-digital that
were installed when I had the house built. Two on main floor, one in utility
room, one in storage part of garage. I’ve since added three digital which I can
move around easily, but I generally keep one in the bedroom, one in the main
living area near the kitchen, and one in the utility room where all the solar
and other off-grid equipment is. Thus seven. Sounds excessive but I don’t think
it is, though if I were redoing it, I probably wouldn’t install all four
non-digitals.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The irony is tight houses are supposed to be a good thing. I had a
fantastic builder who overbuilds everything, and this house has proven to be
extremely tight. Even when way below freezing, the passive solar almost
completely heats the house, day and night. For three seasons of the year it’s
not a problem as the house has very high clerestory windows meant specifically
for venting as well as very low ones which help with circulation. Once winter is
past, I’ll have those windows open full-time. Just not right now. Next winter I
may try leaving one or a few of the high windows open a crack all winter (not
now—it’s a pain to get an extra high ladder to get up and reach them, and spring
will be coming soon enough) to see if that resolves the problem. Meantime, for
the cooking issue I’m about to order some wok stands as I think the person who
mentioned the large pans on the propane burners may cause the CO problem may be
onto something. As far as the solar batteries, no one is at all addressing my
question, so I think I need to find some off-grid, not green building, forums
for that. To me, however, green building includes off-grid energy sources.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jfstraube@gmail.com
href="mailto:jfstraube@gmail.com">John Straube</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 19, 2012 2:44 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">Green Building</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=ktottotc@gmail.com
href="mailto:ktottotc@gmail.com">KTOT (g)</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Greenbuilding] More CO problems--equalizing solar
batteries</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><FONT
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Well, I think RT is right on.<BR>With seven
CO sensors, CO likely wont get you. But why would you live in a house that needs
7 alarms?<BR>How do those alarms protect you from excess moisture, high aledhyde
and benzene levels, and all other common indoor air quality issues.<BR>It is for
these reasons that we require ventilation of houses. This
ventilation worked in the past by leaks, and today by some designed system that
works for most hours of the day and does not require occupant input.<BR><BR>As I
have pointed out before, wether the house is to code or not is not as relevant
as if the house works or not.<BR><BR></FONT>
<DIV class=moz-signature>Dr John Straube, P.Eng. <BR><A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="http://www.BuildingScience.com">www.BuildingScience.com</A></DIV><BR>On
12-02-19 2:05 PM, KTOT (g) wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:D6E95D9FBCC94A598CCF7EED8ABD4E6F@BWHPW7G71150MT
type="cite">Actually, you're being a little overly dramatic. I catch the CO
levels when they just start rising. Before they get dangerous, alarms go off.
None have recently. With seven alarms, I doubt they'd all fail. Also the
location of the batteries is completely separate from the kitchen, so
ventilation strategies for the two need to be completely different. Also the
wood stove never causes a problem nor does regular cooking or baking or
anything else. So your email really isn't too helpful. <BR><BR>-----Original
Message----- From: RT <BR>Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:48 AM <BR>To:
Green Building <BR>Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] More CO problems--equalizing
solar batteries <BR><BR>On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:47:19 -0500, KTOT (g) <A
class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="mailto:ktottotc@gmail.com">mailto:ktottotc@gmail.com</A> wrote: <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I encountered another, potentially very serious, CO
problem yesterday <BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>As mentioned the other day, I think
that your ventilation strategy needs <BR>revising. <BR><BR>Currently it seems
to be one of reactive measures (ie wait until CO <BR>sensors tell you CO
levels are too high, then open a window or door). <BR><BR>Generally-speaking,
reactive solutions are seldom a very good approach to <BR>a problem. In your
case, it could be lethal. <BR><BR>Simply relying upon opening a door to let
the mutts in or out to provide <BR>the necessary ventilation air changes is
clearly not working. <BR><BR>There needs to be a means put in in place provide
regular air changes -- <BR>either an exhaust-only/passive inlet system or
something like an HRV that <BR>will provide you with heat recovery on the
exhaust air stream. <BR><BR>Until one or the other is implemented, you will
likely be back on this <BR>list asking about every CO event (making soup,
canned preserves, charging <BR>batteries, lighting a fire, having guests over
for a dinner party etc ) .
<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>