https://www.smallplanetsupply.com/small-planet-blog/2020/6/6...
$300 option from Alibaba, http://mistersustainable.blogspot.com/2021/08/another-mini-e...
$700+ options, https://old.reddit.com/r/hvacadvice/comments/wdl0mn/do_windo...
OpenERV design (writeup pending), https://x.com/open_erv
I start with a board and cut/slot it so it fits neatly into the top and bottom tracks, then I move the latch receiver to the board, zip a few screws through the board where the holes won't be noticed.
The glass door opening becomes a bit narrower, and I can cut as many holes as I want in that little bit of wall.
If it's painted white it usually ends up looking better than most of the corporate maintenance work on the building.
The CO2 cognition studies show huge results. It’s virtual impossible that none of the military CO2 studies would have picked this up with much higher CO2 levels.
Also navies the world over have been running submarines for decades with astronomically high CO2 levels with no reported cognitive deficits.
Whatever these recent CO2 cognitive decline studies are measuring it’s not coming from CO2.
One of the commonly citied cognitive decline studies shows a 50% reduction in cognitive ability at 1,400ppm. Submarines routinely operate at much higher levels and there was a study done where they exposed subjects to 40,000ppm for 2 weeks with no measurable cognitive decline.
Here’s a good summary from an old HN comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319
Are they published in reputable journals?
The real kicker for me is how absurdly high the effect is in the recent studies. You should basically see A students failing tests when the teacher closes the window.
You should see huge swings in standardized test scores based on building ventilation.
Companies with good ventilation, should absolutely dominate their markets.
And nuclear submariners operating at 10,000 ppm should basically be non functioning if there is any kind of dose dependent effect (which the studies in question say there is).
If you’re saying they suggested soldiers only need 4 hours of sleep long term, do you have any citations for this? Links to the studies they used to justify it.
Because you can read the studies on CO2 and judge the methodology yourself.
Hell, if I have a day where I am quasi-forced to spend most of it in musty rooms, I get a guaranteed headache.
ISS astronauts are routinely living in a 5000ppm environment. If the size of the effects of these studies were real, they’d be noticeable.
The most commonly cited study shows that 1400ppm cuts basic decision making ability by 25% and complex decision making ability by 50%. The study also shows a dose dependent response.
So how are people routinely operating at nearly 5 times that level for weeks at a time with no noticeable decline?
Results this large should by very easy to detect by simply measuring the CO2 levels at multiple SAT test taking sites and comparing scores.
Even without looking, an effect this large is the kind of thing that would jump out at the College Board or any other standardized test creator anytime they’re looking through their data to normalize scores or detect cheating.
Like I said I’m usually a scientific man but this is such a basic thing that anyone with any daily life experience would immediately recognize this 4000ppm (or whatever) as wrong.
Humans are also quite sensitive to noticing when a room is “stuffy”, so, yeah.
The problem with these casual discussions about CO2 levels is they don’t control for other factors. Opening a window definitely wakes you up, but is it the cold breeze or the CO2?
So yeah, my gut feeling was right. It’s probably good to not consider one negative study disproving a body of positive studies.
Here’s a good walkthrough of a meta study attempting to figure out what’s going on.
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/we-need-more-research...
This is why we do randomized, placebo controlled studies.
Saying “you can feel the mental fog clear” is likely a placebo effect.
> The CO2 cognition studies are almost definitely wrong. The military has done numerous studies over the decades with much much higher CO2 levels with none of the reported cognitive results reported more recently.
So dozens of studies by disinterested parties are wrong, yet the studies by a single interested party is right? If you really have good standing for believing this, I would like some more information. I am considering installing such a system.Thank you.
2. There aren’t dozens of positive studies. There are a handful by 1 or 2 research groups.
There was a meta analysis in 2020 looking at only the academic literature (so excluding military studies). It found that for every positive result there was at least 1 negative one.
Here’s a good walkthrough of that paper.
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/we-need-more-research...
For those with more room, an exhaust duct can transfer heat to cold intake air, https://www.loudawson.com/17884/how-to-build-air-cross-flow-.... Commercial units start around $1K+, https://www.sylvane.com/search/results/?keywords=hrv.
One can also combine a DIY enclosure with commercial parts, e.g. crossflow, https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256801499168685.html or ductless, https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805773352155.html.
ERV pros/cons and review of $500 Panasonic FV-04VE1 ventilation fan: https://doctorpapadopoulos.com/in-depth-advantages-and-disad... & https://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-FV-04VE1-WhisperComfortTM-V....