Talk:Blower door

Untitled
I deleted the cross reference to VerdaTech. The VerdaTech article neither adds much to the topic of Blower Doors, nor does it seem balanced with only one company listed. VerdaTech is one of a huge number of companies who perform blower door tests in the course of doing business, and shouldn't be featured specially without a compelling reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.224.202 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The manfacturers list has been updated to include all of the North American manufacturers rather than some of them, and list them in alphabetical order. Wikipedia is meant to be an impartial source of information, not a marketing piece. It should list all manufacturers or none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.55.104 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference that user David Bangs added. The Blower Door page of that site contained no information (it was only a Google Search page) and shoudl not be linked to this article. Links such as this should more properly be placed under an "External Links" heading and not a reference, which is a specialized heading used only for internal text references. Please don't use this as a marketing resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwiththefan (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again it seems as if Retrotec is trying to use this page for their marketing pages by listing themselves first on the page. I've deleted them due to repeated abuse. The manufacturers list should list manufacturers in some rational order: alphabetical would be the most logical. Retrotec continues to list themselves at the top. I'm going to report the IP address for abuse and perhaps it can be banned from further editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwiththefan (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved the manufacturers in actual alphabetical order. Energy Conservatory's legal name is The Energy Conservatory. User Fspevak works for The Energy Conservatory. He keeps updating the image on the page to reflect their product. The Energy Conservatory is also guilty of using Wikipedia as a marketing source. You should consider banning their IP for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkillian (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's conventional when compiling alphabetical list to ignore standard prefixes such as "The" so I've bumped Energy Conservatory to the top a that maintains proper alphabetical order. As an analogy, "The Beatles" wouldn't be filed under T, not would The New Pornographers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwiththefan (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has been repeatedly vandalized by Retrotec staff members attempting to use it as a marketing tool. If this vandalism doesn't stop, it might be a good idea to lock the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwiththefan (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Blower door test targets
This info is all good stuff but I would like (possibly a new linked article) to see mention of figures for conventional "draughty" old housing stock, targets for new housing in various countries and the values achieved for high end "passive houses". Likewise a discussion on draughty versus stagnant/stuffy houses with associated figures and remedies ie that is there can be a negative impact to reducing airflow in a dwelling. I have seen it suggested that 0.5 ACHnat or 10 ACH50 is a "good balance". I note that the conversion from ACHnat to ACT50 actually uses an empirical conversion figure of "20". The fact this is empirical is not stated. I have seen - sorry no refs - values of 25 used, based on average wind speed figures in a particular location. ie local weather is a factor. That needs to be made clear. I would also like to see discussion of the main causes of poor figures (having identified what poor is). As I understand the hierarchy in dwellings is windows, doors, ventilators and cracks around skirting boards. I have no expertise in this area but I want to learn from those that do - especially when it comes to building new homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.112.66 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The hierarchy in dwellings is not as listed above. It would be construction changes, such as corners, or drywall to brick or stone fireplace. It would be low areas or high areas. Think Rim Joists, Band Joists or ceiling planes. Glass doesn't leak. The seals on single or double hung units may. A Casement may not fully close. All of these are repairable. If leakage is happening at an opening for a window or door it is most likely entering the wall and coming into the building at the rough opening. Two places to fix that. Neither of these involve replacing the window. I will work on this over time.

Test Protocols
Test Protocols should be listed. There are several. First the difference is residential and then commercial. I'm not sure they should be reproduced in this article. It can be a list with significant features of each protocol. I will attempt to sort this out in my head and begin the process. I do Blower Door Testing for a living.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Blower door. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141111170325/http://www.homeenergy.org/show/article/year/1995/id/1171 to http://www.homeenergy.org/show/article/year/1995/id/1171

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blower door. 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/20150414095104/http://mncee.org/getattachment/451343e4-7472-4ebd-bef1-e059baaa9894/ to http://www.mncee.org/getattachment/451343e4-7472-4ebd-bef1-e059baaa9894/

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) 03:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blower door. 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/20150402131558/http://everydaygreendc.com/blower-door-testing/ to http://everydaygreendc.com/blower-door-testing/

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) 23:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit History ( Oct 09, 2023)
I would like to propose the addition of the following information regarding the development of blower door technology in both Sweden and Canada. While this may be a slightly controversial departure from the standard historical narrative that attributes the development of the blower door solely to Sweden in 1977, I believe it's important to acknowledge earlier work in Canada.

Blower door technology was independently developed in both Sweden and Canada. These were the days before the internet and before desktop computers and word processors, so the transfer of information even within a single organization could become compartmentalized.
 * Introduction:**

The initial concept involved the use of a "blower window," which was first utilized by G.T. Tamura in Ottawa, Canada, as part of the NRC/DBR to test houses in 1967-68 and published in 1975. In Sweden, the earliest implementation of blower door technology used a fan mounted in a window around 1977[4]. Similar window-mounted measurement techniques were being pursued by Caffey in Texas in 1979[5], and door-mounted test fans were being developed by Harrje, Blomsterberg, and Persily at Princeton University to help them find and fix air leaks in homes in a Twin Rivers, New Jersey housing development.

In Canada, a team at the National Research Council of Canada's Division of Building Research (NRC/DBR) in Saskatchewan, building off the published work of Tamura in 1975, including Harold Orr, advanced the concept into the blower door used in the construction of the Saskatchewan Conservation House in 1977, employing similar testing methods. The Saskatchewan group, which included Harold Orr, was actively involved in the development of the blower door in 1977-78 and published their findings in 1980. They made available their flow nozzle to interested companies. Harold Orr, who had been in Ottawa in 1967 when Tamura was conducting his work, continued to work on blower door technology after Tamura published his paper. Their work, based on Tamura's blower window concept from 1975, preceded the Swedish work in 1977 by a decade[9]. The blower door was further used to test the airtightness of the Saskatchewan Conservation House built in 1977, which was tested at 0.8 l/s at 50Pa[10].


 * References:**

- Orr, H. W., & Figley, D. A. (1980). An exhaust fan apparatus for assessing the air leakage characteristics of houses. National Research Council of Canada. Building Research Note, no. BRN-156.

- Tamura, G. T. (1975). Measurement of air leakage characteristics of house enclosures. ASHRAE Transactions, 81(1), 202–211. Presented at the 1975 ASHRAE Semiannual Meeting, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, Jan 26-30, 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskaboom (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)