Final report on the project to measure the effects of ECM furnace motors on gas use at the CCHT research facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evaluation of the impact of Electronically Commutated Motors (ECM*) on electrical and gas energy use has been carried out at the Canadian Centre for Housing Technology (CCHT) in Ottawa, Canada. The purpose was not only to demonstrate the ability of the high efficiency ECM motor technology to save large amounts of electrical energy in moving air in forced air heating and cooling systems, but also to quantify the amount of any extra natural gas that would be required during the heating season, and extra electrical energy that could be saved in the cooling season, in a climate that is typical of the Canadian winter heating season. The two CCHT houses were benchmarked (run with the normal permanent split capacitor (PSC) fan motors in both) to show that their operation was nearly identical for 17 days during the heating season, and for 29 day during the air conditioning season. Heating season testing was done over 29 days between February 15th and May 25th 2002, and clearly showed significant reductions in the use of electricity, and corresponding increases in natural gas use. Cooling season testing occurred over 41 days between August 1st and October 3rd 2002, and showed reductions in electricity use for both the furnace fan and the air conditioner compressor. The HOT2000 energy simulation model was used to generalize the results to an entire year, for both mid- and high-efficiency furnaces in a variety of house types in four Canadian cities. The house types are R-2000, typical new, typical existing, typical row, and typical row with a horsepower (HP) fan motors. (All other houses have ½ HP motors). The cities are Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Moncton.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".