I will keep those Accords - my goal is 150,000 miles on each and then I will decide to either do major rebulding on them or buy a new Honda, Toyota, or Nissan. My 98 Accord 4 cyl gets 31 to 33 MPG, the 99 6 cyl gets around 25 hwy. All we do is change oil & tires when needed - they are low maintenance cars except for the darn timing belts which really tick me off - that is my only complaint about the Hondas. I reran my spreadsheet - factored in the 50 MPG on the Hybrid Civic and 10 bucks per gallon (and assuming my electric cost stays constant - which it won't) then the costs are comparable. But then if I double my current electric rate to 20 cents per kWh, the Civic wins again! My guess is that the Lion batteries will only last 5 years at best. So if you add in another 9 grand for a replacement battery over the car life (I keep cars until wheels fall off) then the business case for the Volt just doesn't close - even with a 7500 tax credit. I really want to buy an American designed, fuel efficient, 21st century car. I used to be a proud GM owner (I loved my Olds Delta 88) but have not had one since the early 80's. But I will not buy a Big 3 product unless it makes good financial sense, is rock solid reliable, and has an execellent safety rating - which probably means never. Looks like I need to write my senators and congressman again because I am sure they are clueless on this. The Volt is just a smoke screen. If that is the car that GM is basing its entire future on - it is doomed.

"For the question at hand, the total # hours dedicated to each function i.e. filtering, cleaning etc should be figured and compared with a proper sized pump for the application, not the Intelliflo vs 3HP whisperflo. More along the lines of the Intelliflo vs 1.5HP pump, or 2 sp etc." I was responding specifically to this statement "it will explain where and why the intelliflo is efficient at low speeds but very inefficient at high speeds." It's doesn't lose efficiency compared to a regular single speed pump at high speeds, it comes close to, or beats a single speed whisperflo in efficiencies. I dare you to find me a 2speed 3hp (true 3hp), or a pump that will work at 4 different speeds using the right amount of energy to get the job done, no more no less. In the real world I have yet to see one of these pumps move less water moving more energy. "More along the lines of the Intelliflo vs 1.5HP pump" Still less power, at least in my testing. I have yet to deal with anyone who has put one of these pumps through its paces and pass a negative judgment on it. "So in a real world application, you may actually find the opposite power usage as you state above. " Where are you getting this from? I can sell any pump I want, and I am not married to Pentair, nor is Repairguy. We are real pool professionals that are in the upper echelon of our trade, yet people still don't believe what we have to say. I never believe brochures, and I am fortunate enough to be able to take the time to do field testing of products, and everything I have experienced has refuted most of the naysayers claims. This pump is great, and other than extremely high flow low head applications, I have yet to deal with any other product that is as dynamic and well built, as this pump. In a high flow low head application( ponds waterfalls), you lose self priming ability, but can create greater efficiency, but no pool pumps currently being marketed can do this, you have to go elsewhere, but those products are not UL listed for swimming pool applications so its pretty much a moot point.

Generally, internal blowers that are capable of high flow rates will not be quiet, although they might be tolerable. The issue is turbulence from the fan blades. The closer the turbulence is to the ear, the louder it will sound. When the duct is short, little of that noise will be attenuated if the blower is moved out of the hood into the duct or onto the roof. Also, the air moving through the baffles will make noise due to turbulence, although in my experience (with a Wolf hood made by Independent) the noise is a hiss and easily tolerated. And yes, once you have determined the actual required flow rate (90 CFM per square foot of hood entry aperture recommended) then the rated flow rate of the blower can be estimated or analyzed. If the blower chosen has a large diameter blade design and is run at lower-than-maximum speed, there can be plenty of flow at the pressure loss that results from the flow. I was recommending an up-blast style blower (which would be mounted on a roof pedestal) because such blowers can be tailored to the user's needs. A catalog cover from Greenheck is shown below to clarify what an up-blast blower looks like. (You wouldn't likely need one the size the average restaurant needs.) A company like Greenheck could advise on model selection given a desired flow rate, likely pressure loss (also a factor of MUA design), and the goal of low noise. My only concern is whether there is enough room for a pedestal mount at the edge of your roof. Ultimately, you will need (a) a HVAC person who can provide the estimate of pressure loss and also aid your selection of a solution to providing make-up air, and (b) an intelligent installer who can read and follow directions, and has some skill at adapting installations to the existing architecture. I recommend reading at least the first dozen or so pages of the Greenheck guide: http://www.greenheck.com/media/pdf/otherinfo/KVSApplDesign_catalog.pdf

Evolution, For what it's worth, I happen to really like your product concept which leads to a quick story.... About 15 years ago (give or take a couple), a guy i was working with on a project asked me to help him out with an idea that he had about hurricane protection shutters. His thinking was that the major downside of shutters and plywood (pretty much 100% at the time) was that they covered the window making it impossible to see in or out. He had the idea of building shutters out of polycarbonate that wouldn't ever have to be removed from fixed windows, and when installed over any window wouldn't block the light or the view. My thinking was that he had a heck of a good idea and I offered encouragement and helped him with a few simple calculations and some minor proof of concept ideas. We lost contact not long after and I THINK he was contemplating moving to florida, but don't recall for certain. Anyway my point was that I had to wonder when I was looking at your website. Have to admit it made me wonder... To questions/comments.... 1) Nothing involving storm protection (or bullets, or bombs, etc) is proof. Resistant, yes, proof, no. Laminated glass is shatter-resistant, that's what it's for and there are required tests that exist to confirm. A dual pane impact window is with very few exceptions manufactured with one laminated lite and one non-laminated lite. As I mentioned previously, it's possible for the laminated lite to be mounted as interior or exterior, often depending on how the glass was glazed into the sash. If the laminated lite is inside and the window is broken by an impact then the loose (non laminated) broken glass WILL remain outside the building blocked by the laminated lite that isn't going to shatter. This is the make-up that I personally prefer and would generally recommend, and i have never been shy about telling people that here or real time. If the laminated lite is outside and it takes an impact that is powerful enough to break both windows, then breaking the inner non-laminated lite will result in broken glass inside the home. You have seen the hurricane impact on you tube, so have I, but I haven't seen a video of an impact that shows the glass shattering and flying into a room. In all seriousness I can't find one even though I looked for it. Can you drop a link, I am very curious to see it. I have personally performed, participated in, and/or witnessed impacts over 3000 times. I have also witnessed testing for impacts based on tornado level wind-speeds, but have never performed that test myself. The tornado test is a 12', 15#, 2x4 at 150fps. Interesting thing about the tornado testing was that over half of the impacts that I witnessed (and that was typical), the 2x4 shattered into kindling when it hit the glass and the glass was undamaged. I mentioned earlier that it is entirely possible to manufacture laminated glass that won't break when tested to TAS201 large missile and/or ASTM 1996, any level. I can think of three ways to do it as I type, and while I KNOW for a fact they all work because either I have personally been involved with manufacture and testing it or else coordinated with people who were, they aren't generally available outside of specialized applications. 2} There is no requirement for testing a window for water penetration after impact, primarily because they are two different test requirements from two different agencies. The impact test is all about the product's resistance to penetration by the 2x4. The glass can break, but penetration of the glass isn't allowed. If the interlayer isn't torn then water can't penetrate it, broken glass or not. 3) The requirement for water resistance testing is not related to or is part of the impact test protocol. As mentioned previously, windows are required to be tested for water penetration based on the DP level, and it makes zero difference whether the window is impact resistant or not, other than impact windows often have higher DP than non-impact windows. Although the requirement is based on the DP, this doesn't mean that's the maximum window performance. While I do know specific companies that do test higher than the DP requirement for their impact windows, I have no idea how many actually do so.