ᐅ Decision on Mechanical Ventilation System: Helios EC 300 W R vs. HomeVent Comfort FR 301
Created on: 4 Jul 2018 21:50
D
Don_Mikele87
Hello everyone,
We are currently at the stage of deciding on the heating system for our house construction. We have decided to use an air-to-water heat pump and have chosen the Viessmann Vitocal 200S model AWB-M-E. So far, so good.
Now we need to decide on the controlled residential ventilation system. Our heating installer has presented us with the following options:
1. Helios Controlled Residential Ventilation EC 300 W R
2. HOVAL HomeVent comfort FR 301
According to the installer, the main difference is that with the Hoval system, you do not need to buy and connect a separate enthalpy exchanger, as this is already integrated (or otherwise technically unnecessary, with the same function). The price difference between the two is only €400 (Helios being more expensive), so this is not a major factor in the overall cost. There is some information available online about the Helios unit, but unfortunately not much about the Hoval.
Therefore, my question is: Has anyone already had experience with these devices or with either of them, and can offer some advice? What should be taken into account? Which would you choose and why?
Many thanks in advance for your support!
Best regards,
Michael
We are currently at the stage of deciding on the heating system for our house construction. We have decided to use an air-to-water heat pump and have chosen the Viessmann Vitocal 200S model AWB-M-E. So far, so good.
Now we need to decide on the controlled residential ventilation system. Our heating installer has presented us with the following options:
1. Helios Controlled Residential Ventilation EC 300 W R
2. HOVAL HomeVent comfort FR 301
According to the installer, the main difference is that with the Hoval system, you do not need to buy and connect a separate enthalpy exchanger, as this is already integrated (or otherwise technically unnecessary, with the same function). The price difference between the two is only €400 (Helios being more expensive), so this is not a major factor in the overall cost. There is some information available online about the Helios unit, but unfortunately not much about the Hoval.
Therefore, my question is: Has anyone already had experience with these devices or with either of them, and can offer some advice? What should be taken into account? Which would you choose and why?
Many thanks in advance for your support!
Best regards,
Michael
D
Don_Mikele879 Jul 2018 16:14Mycraft schrieb:
Phew, when it comes to the living area, it’s already clear that both systems are undersized. I wouldn’t go below 350, rather closer to 400 (whichever manufacturer you choose).Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, it doesn’t match my research. The applicable standard is DIN 1946-6. This defines various airflow rates, with the mechanical ventilation system required to meet the nominal ventilation rate.
Moisture protection = fWS * (-0.001 * Ane² + 1.15 * Ane + 20)
Nominal ventilation = -0.001 * Ane² + 1.15 * Ane + 20
Reduced ventilation = 0.7 * (-0.001 * Ane² + 1.15 * Ane + 20)
Intensive ventilation = 1.15 * (-0.001 * Ane² + 1.15 * Ane + 20)
where Ane = floor area of the dwelling unit
and fWS = factor accounting for thermal insulation (0.3 for new/renovated buildings, 0.4 for others)
This results, rounded, for our house in:
Moisture protection = 0.3 * (-0.001 * 183² + 1.15 * 183 + 20) = 60 m³/h (35 cfm)
Nominal ventilation = -0.001 * 183² + 1.15 * 183 + 20 = 197 m³/h (116 cfm)
Reduced ventilation = 0.7 * (-0.001 * 183² + 1.15 * 183 + 20) = 138 m³/h (81 cfm)
Intensive ventilation = 1.15 * (-0.001 * 183² + 1.15 * 183 + 20) = 227 m³/h (134 cfm)
The Helios unit is rated at 315 m³/h (185 cfm), the Hoval at 300 m³/h (177 cfm). According to the DIN standard, both should be adequately sized.
We will discuss this again with the heating engineer — he must have had reasons for his choice, or his offer is based on similar calculations as above.
You are assuming the ideal case, which is rarely the situation.
Sufficient systems are indeed acceptable, but the DIN standard only specifies the minimum requirements.
This means you have little to no room for expansion. Conversely, the system will frequently operate at its performance limit, leading to increased energy consumption, noise, and so on.
However, it is your house, so you can install whatever you want; I don’t mind.
Sufficient systems are indeed acceptable, but the DIN standard only specifies the minimum requirements.
This means you have little to no room for expansion. Conversely, the system will frequently operate at its performance limit, leading to increased energy consumption, noise, and so on.
However, it is your house, so you can install whatever you want; I don’t mind.
D
Don_Mikele8710 Jul 2018 11:13I understand that “up to” or “max” represents an ideal case that is rarely, if ever, achieved.
Compared to the specified value for the intensive ventilation level, which is the highest possible setting, the system would still have about a one-third performance margin—that should be sufficient. Also, I don’t understand your point about little or no airflow being desirable. Isn’t it more the case that people consciously choose not to run ventilation systems at full capacity because a) it uses less electricity and b) too much airflow eventually becomes uncomfortable and is perceived as drafts?
Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate your feedback. But I have to verify whether the offered device is adequate—and that ultimately seems to be the case.
More is not necessarily better; sometimes it just means higher costs without real necessity...
Compared to the specified value for the intensive ventilation level, which is the highest possible setting, the system would still have about a one-third performance margin—that should be sufficient. Also, I don’t understand your point about little or no airflow being desirable. Isn’t it more the case that people consciously choose not to run ventilation systems at full capacity because a) it uses less electricity and b) too much airflow eventually becomes uncomfortable and is perceived as drafts?
Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate your feedback. But I have to verify whether the offered device is adequate—and that ultimately seems to be the case.
More is not necessarily better; sometimes it just means higher costs without real necessity...
Here you can clearly see what happens when systems are designed to meet only the minimum requirements. The standard ventilation is running at about 70%, which is already relatively noisy, yet apparently still not sufficient, as there is still a feeling of stale air.
We will disregard the likely missing telephone sound attenuators for now. Installing these would increase the pressure in the ducts, which would result in the system becoming even noisier.
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/kwl-man-hoert-jedes-Wort-im-anderen-Raum-ist-das-normal.28338/
We will disregard the likely missing telephone sound attenuators for now. Installing these would increase the pressure in the ducts, which would result in the system becoming even noisier.
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/kwl-man-hoert-jedes-Wort-im-anderen-Raum-ist-das-normal.28338/
We have a Helios controlled residential ventilation system EC 500 W ET in a 160sqm (1722 sq ft) house. Most of the time, it can run so quietly that you can hardly hear it, but it can also exchange all the air very quickly. I wouldn’t have chosen a 300, especially not for a 180sqm (1937 sq ft) house.
Similar topics