dymonite69
I'm sure it is definitely more efficient but as much as you would expect if you were to just have single unit being operated solely for that room.
Is there a typo there? Do you mean 'not' as efficient as "if you were to just have single unit being operated solely for that room"?
dymonite69
Another thing I have found to help improve system efficiency is to close off (i.e. shut doors to) inactive areas near the return air grille. This reduces the volume of non-conditioned air entering into the system and improves the pressure gradient (and flow) from the zoned areas. You hit target temperatures faster which mean less work (and energy consumption) on the unit.
Agreed. We keep all the doors closed whenever the unit is on. Keeps the pressure up.
In a way there's a little too much flexibility with this ESP system. I struggle a bit with the best way to operate it. You have a lot of different operational modes. In ESP for instance the system brings the zone(s) to temperature and then shuts down the compressor until such time as it needs to bring it on again. In 'Continous' mode it works by getting the zone(s) to the set temp in the same way as ESP but then keeps the compressor running, but at a very low level, to maintain a constant temp.
The installers tell me that for cooling, when you're only operating a couple of zones, that continuous is more efficient. For heating it's the opposite; ESP is the way to go. Actron however maintain that ESP is more efficient for both cooling and heating. Me, I can't decide.