Didn't mean to upset you...
It's hard to argue with numbers. Sounds like yours is working
fine.
I was reacting to:
Now, the first time I made the measurements I got as follows:
Aluminum core: 83,7%
PP solid core: 88,2%
PP distanced core: 78%
I then tried the dual core solution excluding the PP distanced core:
Aluminium dual core: 97,6%
PP solid dual core: 99,2%
Hybrid (aluminium - PP solid) dual core: 87%
I wouldn't argue with an 86% number for a dual-core
cross-flow system.
I was skeptical about 99.2%
I wouldn't even represent that I could measure three
air temperatures, do the math and expect 0.8%
accuracy.
It took some doing to select two thermocouples
that gave the same reading on two ports of the same meter.
We're subtracting large numbers with small differences.
A degree of error makes a lot of difference.
I think it would be educational if you posted the six
numbers for your HRV. There are 4 in/out ports.
And two chambers between the cores. Would be interesting
to know the inside dewpoint and how much water is coming out of each core, at least
qualitatively. I theorize that getting the water out early
reduces the freeze-up problem in cold climates.
That should also correlate with the efficiency measurements
on each core. The one doing most of the condensation
oughta be more efficient. We need those
two internal temperatures to calculate all that.
What did you use to measure air flow?
I looked at the manual for the propeller gauge you mentioned.
This is one of the times I wish I were multi-lingual.
I've been using a hot-wire anemometer. The big thermistor
is about the size of a gnat. The small one is...well...
I think I can see something there....
I easily get 50% variation in the air flow depending
on where I stick the probe. I experimented with
long tubes with air straighteners, but didn't make much
progress. Closest thing I made was a quart-size
yogurt tub with a big hole cut in the end. Gives more repeatable
results, because I have a stable air flow number
and a defined area, but there's back pressure that skews the measurement.
Somewhere in the attic, I have an ancient propeller
with a turns counter on it. You measure the revolutions
over a fixed time period and calculate flow from there.
Measurements are more repeatable because there's a
zillion times larger area being sensed, but I'm not sure
that means it's accurate. I still need to come up with
an area number to calculate mass flow.