DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum

DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum (http://www.diychatroom.com/)
-   HVAC (http://www.diychatroom.com/f17/)
-   -   Better for AC on for shorter or longer periods? (http://www.diychatroom.com/f17/better-ac-shorter-longer-periods-146669/)

wiz561 06-10-2012 09:30 PM

Better for AC on for shorter or longer periods?
 
Hi!

I have a new thermostat and allows you to set the swing temperature from .5* to 2.0*. I find that at a lower setting, the AC runs for shorter periods of time, but more frequently. As you raise the swing to 2.0, it runs longer but less frequently.

Is it better for the AC to run more frequently in shorter periods, or less frequently in longer periods? I'm afraid that turning things on and off more frequently will break them quicker, but something makes me think it might be better overall to run it more frequently.

Thanks!

joecaption 06-10-2012 09:37 PM

Short cycling with not give time to dehumidify the home.

gregzoll 06-10-2012 10:00 PM

I have my swing set at 1.5. Reason being, is that at 1.0 it cycles too much. 1.5 it cycles the right amount of times that I want it too, and runs for a longer period. Do not go to 2.0, unless you want long periods between the unit running and sitting Idle. That means, that the temp of the house would have to get two degrees above the set point of the thermostat. So, if you set the thermostat at lets say 72, it would have to get 74 in the house before it would kick on, and would have to run for a very long period to get it back down to 72.

carmon 06-10-2012 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregzoll (Post 940648)
I have my swing set at 1.5. Reason being, is that at 1.0 it cycles too much. 1.5 it cycles the right amount of times that I want it too, and runs for a longer period. Do not go to 2.0, unless you want long periods between the unit running and sitting Idle. That means, that the temp of the house would have to get two degrees above the set point of the thermostat. So, if you set the thermostat at lets say 72, it would have to get 74 in the house before it would kick on, and would have to run for a very long period to get it back down to 72.

longer run times better... more comfort.... pulls more moisture from air....

wheelsup 06-11-2012 01:21 AM

Electric motors don't like to be cycled. They can run for a long time but cycling on and off is hard on them with the start-up amps. In addition it takes my ac about 5-10 mins to start putting out really cold 55F air, so constant cycling of it would drastically decrease efficiency as well. My opinion, is set the longest run time you can handle.

wiz561 06-11-2012 08:49 AM

Thanks all for the responses.

It came by default set to 1 or 1.5*, but I upped it to the max, which is 2.0*. At 1 or 1.5, it seemed to be cycling too much. At 2.0, it seems a lot better.

I had a feeling that for comfort and efficiency, a short cycle would be better. For equipment longevity though, I had a feeling that a longer cycle is better. It's good to hear from the experts about their thoughts.

Thanks!

gregzoll 06-11-2012 09:09 AM

What are you saying that it is cycling too much? On for 5, off for 5, then back on? On for 10, off for 15, then back on? If it is "short" cycling, whether it is on for 5, then off for 5, or on for 10, then off for 10 at either 1 or 1.5, you have other issues. Ether too many air leaks in the house, or over sized hvac equipment.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Copyright 2003-2014 Escalate Media LP. All Rights Reserved