Originally Posted by makdan
Whose AC philosophy is more defensible and why? (I have a strong opinion on this, but want to be able to show the other party a response from an objective, disinterested third party.) Do both sides have valid points, or is there clearly only one reasonable position? How unreasonable is the less defensible position?
Situation: 10:15 am on July 8, near Washington, DC, where summer humidity is almost always high and the high temperature for the day is projected to be 98, with wind between 2-5 mph. House is currently at 70 degrees, as measured by thermostat, while outside temp is significantly higher, but still nowhere near 98.
Person A: wants to leave house doors and windows open until indoor temp reaches 75, then close house up and set AC on 71. No underlying rationale stated for this position.
Person B: wants to close house immediately (hours earlier, actually), reducing heat and humidity inflow as much as possible, relying on insulated house to keep house cool for several more hours before AC will be needed. Points out to Person A that warm, humid air can be felt to be flowing in across screen door boundary and that AC's basically do 2 things, remove humidity and reduce temp. And as a result, letting in more heat and humidity will cost more to keep house cool. Also appeals to Person A's sense of environmental concern.
The is by no means an isolated scenario. Help!