Talk:Ventilation (architecture)

message: This really needs work. A start, let me mention I've seen the rotary ventilator, which uses wind to create an updraft, credited to James T. Lipsett of St John, NB, in 1889. Confirm?  Trekphiler 05:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: rotary ventilator

message: summary: Flame image isn't helpful, and shows dangerous behavior
The image at the top of the page doesn't really add to the article. All it shows is that ventilation occurs. If you go to the image page, you'll find that it's supposed to show "good" ventilation (left) and "bad" ventilation (right), where "bad" seems to mean "from a hole knocked in the wall". Finally, it shows a very dangerous method of demonstrating air flow; letting a flame be pulled into an active and probably dust-laden vent is a great way to start an enthusiastic and hard-to-extinguish fire. I suggest that the image be removed.  Dan Griscom (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.--Patrick (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: the below quote needs clarification:
Is the following correct?
:The 2003 ASHRAE ventilation standard for homes requires 7.5 CFM/person plus 1 CFM/100 sq ft of floor space, but not less than 0.35 whole house air exchanges per hour.  The number of people are typically calculated as equal the number of bedrooms plus one.
::Therefore the ventilation requirement for a 1200 square foot, 3 bedroom home would be:
::(3+1)people * 7.5 CFM/person + 12 (100 sq ft)* 1 CFM/100 sq ft = 42 CFM
::If the home has 8 foot ceailings this would mean volume of the home is: 
::1200 sq ft * 8 ft = 9600 cu ft.
::The air exchange rate per hour is then:
::(42 cu ft/min * 60 min/hr)/9600 cu ft = 0.26 exchanges per hour required
::Since the whole house exchange rate is less than 0.35 the required minimum rate is:
::0.35 exchanges/hr *9600 cu ft * hr/60 min = 56 CFM
Please consider adding both the clarification and the example to the article. I am not sure that I have the standard correct. RStillwater (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification & Example 

message: I'd like to propose splitting out this article into three (or more) articles.  Something like ventilation (architecture) (which is what the current article should be moved to), ventilation (firefighting) and ventilation (physiology).  The intro para of this article can then be refactored as the start of a disambig page. dewet|™ 08:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. --David Iberri (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, done.  The ventilation (physiology) one might be too small to have an article for, but we'll see. dewet|™ 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: because ventilating is an industry; not a natural phenomenon. you can create air transfer if you have enough info--Saeed.Veradi (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting 

message: 1- the beginning part is excellent, but the rest of the article is long and useless
2- the article doesn't even have a strong structure
3- hardly understandable writing style.
--Saeed.Veradi (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the article 

message: In October 2014, the 'Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene' published an article titled 'Vortex Ventilation in the Laboratory Environment'. This is a new design technology that will significantly improve the safety and reduce the operating cost of laboratory facilities. 
Investigation reveals a direct causal relationship between volumetric air flow and fume hood containment. In order to realize the benefits of the vortex effect in hood performance, it is necessary that air changes-per-minute supersede face velocity as a performance standard.  
Effort must engage industry at the academic and professional level in order to advance the art of ventilation. Please consider my participation in any discussion, presentation or seminar regarding laboratory design or improvement. Further information may be found at: www.vtxvt.com
173.49.208.102 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have something worth adding to the article, based on the published reference.  I suggest that you get a free Wikipedia account (WP:ACCOUNT), and that you read the WP:NPOV and WP:COI guidelines. You may also find Help:Referencing for beginners to be useful.  Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ventilation (architecture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106174646/http://www.pdavis.nl/Ventil.htm to http://www.pdavis.nl/Ventil.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This is a record of explanations for some minor, but specific edits to language and content in the article:
 
 Was: "[Mechanical ventilation] may be accomplished by pressurization (in the case of positively pressurized buildings), or by depressurization (in the case of exhaust ventilation systems)."
 Issue: Supply fans don't necessarily result in building pressurization, and exhaust fans don't necessarily result in building depressurization.  Positively pressurized buildings may also have exhaust, and negative pressure buildings may also have supply ventilation. I have revised.
 Was: "Many mechanically ventilated buildings use a combination of both [supply and exhaust], with the ventilation being integrated into the HVAC system
 Issue:  By definition, an "HVAC system" includes ventilation, so the sentence does not make sense.  Likely, the original author intended to say that "mechanical ventilation is often provided by equipment that is also used to heat and cool a space".  I have revised.
 Was: "Natural ventilation does not require mechanical systems to move outdoor air, it relies entirely on passive physical phenomena, such as diffusion, wind pressure, or the stack effect."
 Issue: Diffusion does not play a significant role in natural ventilation flow (the intentional flow of outdoor air into a space).  I have removed this claim.
 Was: "Since [natural ventilation flow] can be affected by unpredictable environmental conditions"
 Issue: "Stochastic" is a better descriptor than "unpredictable". In reality, wind pressure and stack pressure can be predicted reasonably well.  There is a random component to the behavior which erode the precision of such predictions, but it can be analyzed statistically, and anticipated by design.
 Was "Since [natural ventilation flow] can be affected by unpredictable environmental conditions it may not always provide an appropriate amount of ventilation
 Issue: The issue at hand in this sentence is not whether or not natural ventilation flow is predictable; rather it is simply that environmental conditions change, and so sometimes natural ventilation may not be adequate. I have revised.
 Was: "... The United States current strategy for ventilating buildings is to rely solely on mechanical ventilation. In Europe designers have experimented with design solutions that will allow for natural ventilation with minimal mechanical interference... European designers have also switched back to the use of operable windows to solve indoor air quality issues."
 Issue: Although I agree with the sentiment, these statements are over generalizations. There are mechanically ventilated buildings in US and Europe.  There are naturally ventilated buildings in US and in Europe.  Some perform well, and some perform poorly. This point might be more appropriate in a section on the history of ventilation standards and practices. Still, over generalization should be avoided. Paragraph and reference removed.
 Was: "When a building design relies on environmentally driven circumstantial infiltration..." 
 Issue: The verbiage suggests that infiltration is only impacted by environmental pressures (wind and stack). However, infiltration rates also depend on mechanical pressures.
 Was: "Natural ventilation can also be achieved through the use of operable windows..."
 Issue: I've expanded the bullet definition of "Natural Ventilation" to be clear that natural ventilation may come through operable windows.
 Was: "Categories of ventilation"
 Issue: I've expanded and clarified the distinction between these categories within the introduction. This section is no longer necessary.
 Was "[Ventilation] can also be used to benefit thermal comfort, or for dehumidification."
 Issue: Ventilation (especially natural ventilation) has also be associated with other benefits, such as occupant satisfaction with the indoor environment (aside from thermal comfort). I've added this, but feel the sentence could be expanded further to be more open ended about the purposes and benefits of ventilation.
 Was: Bullet list titled: "Techniques and architectural features used to ventilate buildings and structures naturally include, but are not limited to: Operable windows
 *Pressurised air pumps
 *Night purge ventilation
 *Clerestory windows and vented skylights
 *Building orientation
 *Wind capture façades"
 Issue: The list is disorganized and incomplete. Furthermore, such a list is more appropriate for the article on Natural Ventilation.  I have removed the list.
 Was: "Problems" section
 Issue: The content here is disorganized and vague, even though there are some important piece of information. Can it be improved, or the info integrated elsewhere? I propose deleting in the future.
Jmwoolley (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on edits throughout the article 

message: I think this article would benefit from a more direct articulation of the manner in which architecture has influenced the design of ventilation systems, and the role the ventilation systems have played in the design of structures.  A look into how these two have co-evolved would be interesting, and more clearly tie the title of the article to the tangible world in which the reader lives.
Ewhiteh6 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct connection between architectural design and the demands of ventilation (and vice versa) 

message: I noticed that IP was used as an unexplained abbreviation in the article, presumably as an abbreviation for the imperial system of units, as it was alongside and to distinguish "SI" being used as the (correct) abbreviation for the International System of Units. After some searching it appears that "IP" is used by some in the ventilation industry in the meaning of "Inch-Pound units", which appears to basically be a variant of imperial units. Sauer202 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial system of units