Hi there,
Bro, glad to have you in here to share and welcome again! I guess you were doing a google search or something an this AP thread turned up or something like that.
Really excellent, we have another clean air enthusiast here, with a F7 HVAC + Sharp APs.
Wow, I don't think that you are a Singaporean living in Moscow? This forum may seem somewhat queer to you, in a sense that it very much caters to the local crowd hence the language can get weird in a way that we talk in long slang/colloquial. So sometimes, you might not be able to understand us.
Anyway, many years back IIRC early 2000s, I used to have this similar model from this brand "Novita". Pretty common stuff, I think they have similar models retailing in local malls nowadays. Typical 5-litre tank etc.
http://estore.novita.com.sg/products/humidifier/humidifier-nh-659.html#.VcPkjtocR-E
Power Consumption
40 Watts
Recommended Coverage
Up to 130 sq. ft or 14 m²
Tank Capacity
5.0 litres
Humidification Rate (note : it does this constantly, not dependent on the ambient RH % level)
400ml/hr
Continuous Humidification
Minimum
12 hours
Nice of you to share your data!
Sharp KC-A61RW RH %, mL/hr humidification rate
Specs 20С
30% 300 600 730
Real data 25С
41% 230 460 660
Sharp KC-A51RW RH %, mL/hr humidification rate
Specs 20С
30% 250 500 600
Real data 24С
44% 180 360 560
Below is the specs of the Sharp KC-A40 (same league as the newest Sharp KC-D40, my old KC-840E etc). Your measurements seems legit, the specs are the same as the A40, as below :
Sharp A40
Tank Capacity (L)
A40 =
3.0L (the new KC-D40 has even less @ 2.5L)
Humidifying Capacity*1 (Max / Med / Low) (mL / hour)
450 / 400 / 200 mL/hr
1.Humidification amount changes in accordance with indoor and outdoor temperature and humidity. Measurement Condition: 20°C,
30% Humidity (JEM 1426)
Personally, I have not done any tests to verify, but I guess it's safe to say the ones given above are believable.
Ultrasound humidification's humidification rate does not depend on the Relative Humidity (RH) of the air, coz it's "active" instead of relying on natural evaporation. While an air purifier's wick based humidifier totally depends on the RH level and work best in drier climates.
You raised a good point in saying that Air purifier's wick based system is much less energy consuming, as it's just a rotating wick that picks up water in the water pan and evaporates it in the airflow.
An ultrasound humidifier consumes heckloads more electricity to get the same effect, airflow is key.
Over here in Singapore, it's always pretty warm so we use air-conditioning extensively after reaching home from work. RH on sunny "dry" days reach about 55% in the afternoon and gets to 70% at 8pm and 80% midnight (hits 90s or even close to 100% whenever it rains and it's quite frequent here in the tropics).
The air-con is what makes the air relatively dry if one sets the thermostat for the air-con at a low temp say 24-25 coz then the compressor would be working and the aircon heat exchanger fins become lower than the dew point (you'd get condensation water discharged in the drainage pipe).
This is an active process even if the room is relatively air-tight, as the heat does get in from the windows/ceilings/floors.
By personal experience when I was still using the humidifier in the Sharp KC-840, we usually set the thermostat @ 25 deg C or so and I couldn't get the humidity to rise lot my desired ~ 75%, the air's RH probably was in the 50+% range. I remember with the Novita Ultrasound, I could even hit 100% a few times if I waited long enough, of coz as mentioned that's for fun.
Your data : Sharp KC-A51RW (Sharp A50)
RH %, mL/hr humidification rate
Specs 20С
30% 250 500 600
Real data 24С
44% 180 360 560
44-30% = 14%.
I may be wrong, but I suspect if we add another 14% to it to make it to 58%, the humidification mL/h rate would drop to maybe 200mL/h in Medium fan if we are gonna push it further to 70-75%. I suspect that the humidification rate would taper off a bit as the delta gets less. And probably ard 150-180mL/h for the Sharp A40 league smaller APs.
But your are right that the ultrasound humidification devices would consume quite a fair number of watts more, vs the APs.
Of course, that's just me then, with my acute allergic rhinitis surffering then and I felt best at 70+% RH esp when the air is cold. And perhaps for the locals here as we are used to the local climate of perennial warmer temps and RH versus to you folks in Russia which do get very crazy stuff.
I remember I was just sensitive to lower humidity conditions.... My condition is much better now and travelling to countries to Beijing (20%!!! T-shirt nearly dries within 1hr in the hotel room @ 22 deg C! LOL!).
Thus, some of the more kancheong people expecting instant relief (eg antihistamine meds) would say that APs don't work at all.
