Portables are not very efficient, especially if you get one-hose models. If going with window units choose carefully. Choose those with a mode that allows the fan to cycle off when the compressor is not running. They are better at dehumidifying. This is often called something like "econo mode" for some stupid reason. A low fan speed is also good for dehumidifying. What kind of heat do you have, ducts? Consider a third option that you did not mention, (heat pump) mini splits. They are more efficient than window units (and quieter) and central systems (no duct losses and higher efficiency ratings are available). Depending on the type of construction, you could install two or three mini splits for the price of the central addition. Honestly, If I only needed it for a few days I would go with window units unless I had a lot of money to burn,

Update: After running for 8 days w/o the condenser fan, I hear it no more, so I think the compressor finally locked up. It was sounding really ragged near the end, kinda like a small engine running with no oil. Whereas I would never intentionally destroy anyone else's property, having that old earsore of an air conditioner finally bite the dust through someone else's negligence isn't going to make me shed any tears. In any case, there was a huge yellowjacket's nest inside that electrical disconnect box, and I wasn't going anywhere near it, I'm allergic to wasps. Dave

Help, My central A/C Luxair unit for which the motor was replaced about 2 years ago 3/4 hp (i think), makes a loud sound and the handy man that came to look at it said the motor is shot because the bearings are shot! Is there a quick fix for it or an interim fix. He said he would charge $350 to fix it. I need help determining if it is true and if only the bearings can be replaced? Thanks Sari, asap in Palm Springs area!... its hot!

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US). And also: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2001 Responding to a post from Westom: > The protector was so grossly undersized as to disconnect from a surge ASAP. Westom believes all plug-in protectors are "grossly undersized". Francois Martzloff was the US-NIST surge guru with many published papers. One paper looked at the energy absorbed in a MOV on branch circuits of 10m and longer and surges on power service wires up to the maximum that has any reasonable probability of occurring. The maximum was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less. This is well within the ratings of plug-in protectors. With high ratings and connected correctly it is unlikely a plug-in protector will fail. There are a couple reasons the energy is so low. One is that (for US panels) there is arc-over from hot busbars to the enclosure at about 6,000V. After the arc is established it is hundreds of volts. Since the enclosure is connected to the earthing electrodes, that dumps most of the surge energy to earth (even with no service panel protector). The second reason is that a surge is a very short event. Thus the currents are relatively high frequencies. The inductance of the wire is much more important than the resistance. The impedance of the branch circuit wires greatly limit the current (and thus energy) that can reach a plug-in protector. (Neither service panel or plug-in protectors protect by absorbing energy.) >View manufacturer spec numbers on any plug-in protector. Everyone here is challenged to post >those spec numbers. Nobody does. Nonsense. Many people have provided specs for Westom. He always ignores them and repeats the lie that "nobody does". Apparently Westom knows that plug-in protectors can not possibly work, so specs can not possibly exist. > A properly sized protector does wear out ... long after you are gone. Another reason > why 'whole house' protectors start at 50,000 amps. Service panel protectors are a good idea. But from the NIST guide: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." The NIST surge guide suggests that most equipment damage is from high voltage between power and phone or cable wires. Service panel protectors do not prevent that high voltage from developing. If using plug-in protectors all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport suppressors are described in both guides. >If a 'whole house' protector is properly earthed, then any rumored surge leaking into a > building is made more than irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance. > Quoting many of the industry�s gurus. One says an adjacent protector can even > make appliance damage easier. From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper. His first >conclusion about plug-in (point of connection) protectors: At the time of the paper (1994) multiport surge suppressors were just a concept or very new. (Multiport protectors have additional ports where phone or cable wires run through them.) The *point* of the paper was that multiport protectors were effective: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge protector]." Martzloff also wrote the NIST surge guide which also says plug-in suppressors are effective: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. Westom lies about what Martzloff says about plug-in protectors. Martzloff has also written: "Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive [electronic equipment] within the house." (It is the same as what others have said in this thread.) Martzloff also talks about "induced transients" in the NIST surge guide (which Westom says are not a problem). >A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Not explained - how do you protect flying airplanes. Do they drag an earthing chain? Is it '"less than 10 feet" long? This is a completely relevant question. Protection of airplanes is somewhat like protection with plug-in protectors. Westom appears to have a religious belief that earthing must be directly involved in protection. Thus a plug-in protector that is not well earthed can not possibly work. Unfortunately for Westom, the IEEE surge guide explains (starting pdf page 40) that plug-in protectors work primarily by limiting the voltage from all wires (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. They don't work by earthing surges. For real science read the NIST and IEEE surge guides. Both are excellent sources of information. Both say plug-in protectors are effective. Westom has no sources that agree with him that plug-in protectors do NOT work. ============================================== It is likely that whatever happened to the OP, was not a surge. It is unlikely that either a service panel or plug-in protector would provide protection. A MOV that can handle a very large surge from lightning with a duration of around 200 microseconds will be rapidly destroyed by temporary overvoltage long enough to trip a breaker. There are 2 possible exceptions. A UPS may transfer to battery backup and disconnect from the line. And in the US, since 1998, UL has required disconnects for failing MOVs. The IEEE guide explains that the protected equipment can be connected across the incoming power, or it can be connected across the MOVs. In the latter case, the protected equipment may be protected as the MOVs are disconnected (it may not be effective with sustained overvoltage). Except for Westom, good information in this thread.