Talk:Chilled beam

Residential

The difficulty with residential applications comes with controlling to relative humidity. Chilled beams must control the ambient humidity in order not to cause condensation on the beam surface. There has been some talk in the industry about its use in condos. In europe these have been used to some degree in residential settings. Currently the US market is still looking to try and establish itself with chilled beams. The largest manufacturer of chilled beams in the world, Trox, is still based heavily on the European markets, where this system has been used affectively for over 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diffusingengineer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Diagram?

Does anyone have any diagrams of a working chilled beam? Preferably I would like to add one of each of the three types. This technology is awesome, but it is very confusing to just hear about it without seeing exactly how it works. -Diffusingengineer

VAV

IP Address 63.171.65.3, a VAV system is a variable air volume system, and does not use water to cool buildings. A chilled beam system is an alternative to a standard all air VAV system. Your posts are in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.9.38 (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

LEED

Claims of LEED points are based on proper design of systems. Chilled beams are not the only source of obtaining these LEED points. However, they can directly contribute LEED points for such things as Noise, Design, and comfort. Indirectly they can contribute points for energy and materials used. LEED manual citation is still required. Please discuss future changes here prior to editing content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.9.38 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Implying that chilled beam is always more energy efficient is a biased position. Can more sources or more general language be added? Dw31415 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article has been changed well enough to remove the NPOV tage. 63.76.11.61 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Water v. Unitary Systems

This comparison between water systems and unitary systems seems out of place. Chilled beams are not the only water terminal units. Should this be moved to the hydronics page? 63.76.11.61 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Because of water’s innate properties, it can carry significantly more energy than air per unit volume. The specific heat capacity of one cubic foot of water at standard temperature and pressure is 20,050.56 J*K, and the specific heat capacity of one cubic foot of air at standard temperature and pressure is 37.05 J*K. Factoring in the increased density of air in a duct, a 1" diameter pipe of water can carry the same amount of energy as an 18" x 18" duct of air. As with typical air ventilation systems, chilled beams require the water to be heated or cooled by a separate system outside of the space. Advantages of chilled beam systems include noise reduction, significant energy savings, and increased occupant comfort. Also, in conjunction with other systems, chilled beams can contribute to obtaining between 4 and 14 LEED points for a building. There are a few important things to remember when using a chilled beam system in a building. Chilled water only removes sensible (dry) heat. This is primarily generated by lights, electronics, etc. Fresh, dry air must still be supplied to the room to compensate for the latent (wet) heat gains and in order to supply fresh air to a room. Latent heat is generated by things like people, and in some regions, outside air directly entering a space. Condensation will occur on the beam if the dew point of a room rises beyond that of the temperature of the water being supplied to the chilled beam. The water entering the chilled beam must be approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit above the dew point of the room. [2]. However, unlike typical VAV systems which require the air be cooled to 42-45ºF, the water in a chilled beam system only needs to be cooled to 55-59ºF. This difference requires significantly less energy. It also increases the viability of geothermal cooling, the use of water reservoirs, etc. for cooling a modern commercial building.

The chilled beam approach differs from traditional Hydronic systems in a number of ways. The most similar historical system to chilled beams is the fan coil unit. A fan coil unit has an operating air side pressure drop that is typically in the 5" WG to 12" WG range. In comparison, active chilled beams have an operating air side pressure drop that is typically between 0.30" WG and 0.75" WG. Also, chilled beams are not designed to operating under a condensing strategy. These are two of a multitude of fundamental changes from previous hydronic systems. The significant differences between the current chilled beam systems and water based heat exchange systems of old do warrant a separate page.

The in-depth description of functionality has been added to show case some of these functionality discrepancies. Also, more precise details on the properties of water were added to refute a claim of bias towards the energy efficiency of chilled beams verse all air systems. As such, the detailed description of the properties of water and the functionality of chilled beams should remain in order to relieve any future concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.9.38 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

VAV Systems

A VAV system is a variable air volume system. In cooling, it maintains a specific temperature of a space by varying the volumetric flow rate (typically defined in terms of cubic feet per minute {CFM} in the USA HVAC industry) of cool air being supplied to the space. The air cooled by an air handling unit. A VAV system does not work by circulating water through the building. For further details on VAV systems and/or air handling units please reference their respective Wikipedia pages.

Chilled Beam Versus "Free Cooling" Economizers

A chilled beam's true reduction in energy usage is with the way that thermal energy is transported through a building. For this reason a chilled beam still offers energy savings over a "Free Cooling" economizer. If the ambient outdoor temperature is of such a degree that it would offer "free" cooling for a building then the outside ambient air can be used as a heat sink for the chilled water. Thus still offering the free cooling effect of an economizer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.9.38 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Using the outside ambient air as a heat sink for the chilled water, otherwise known as a waterside economizer, has the practical disadvantage of the in-efficiency in the heat transfer exchange between the outside air and the chilled water being supplied to the chilled beams. So for example, while an airside economizer can provide 22% of the required cooling capacity of the building when the corresponding outdoor ambient temperature is 20C (68F) (Based on a full load design supply air temperature of 13C (55F), and space design temperature of 24C (75F)), a waterside economizer provides zero capacity due to the fact that that temperature is higher than the typical return chilled water temperature back from the chilled beams. At other conditions it must be considered the basic heat exchange temperature approach between the air and water heat exchanger. In addition, due to the added pressure drop of the waterside economizer, this must also be considered in the analysis. And as previously cited, it has been proven for climates such as the San Francisco Bay Area that VAV systems with airside economizers can be configured improved energy efficiency of operation over chilled beam systems, and at much lower costs. User 69.198.9.38, like many other like him/her does not provide a thorough enough of an actual analysis. This is why it is so important to perform a rigorous engineering and financial analysis prior to applying chilled beams or any other system type for any particular project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.40.81 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to provide a thorough analysis of an air side economizer I advise that you edit that page. With regard to the energy savings, you neglect the full effect of chilled beams and the total energy they save. I agree that any building should under go a proper energy analysis prior to construction. However, as chilled beams still require a certain part of ventilation air, an air side economizer, given an ambient 68 OAT, will still yield an increased efficiency to chilled beams. I encourage you to read the most recent article in the ASHRAE December 2010 Journal entitled "Green Call Center".

Please remember that the report within Wikipedia for chilled beams, or any other system type for that matter, is not a mere advertisement for the product, but rather an impartial description of the product or system. This description would include benefits as well as shortcomings, and also comparison to other system types. But There is either a bias or lack of scientific or economic understanding by the previous commentator on this subject as it is not understandable why one would object in having comparison of one HVAC system type vs another. It is simply a fair example that was presented where a system that is more energy efficient and less costly to install for a particular climate area. This is the scientific method. There is no neglect of energy savings and no mis-representation. What is reported is factual and unbiased in the comparison. But there does seem to be bias on the part of the commentator or maybe just a lack of understanding of how HVAC systems work. For example, you state... "a certain part of ventilation air, an air side economizer, given an ambient 68 OAT, will still yield an increased efficiency to chilled beams." But surely you can realize that VAV systems also have this portion of ventilation air, thereby resulting in no net difference in energy use between them, thereby negating your claim for this energy savings. And clearly, the amount of air can be designed to be increased for a chilled beam system, but at added cost. And the costs are already many times more for a chilled beam system than for a VAV system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.40.81 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This page discusses chilled beams. If you would like to discuss alternative forms of HVAC then please edit those pages. Or, you can edit the HVAC Systems wikipedia page and discuss the pluses and minuses of different pages. While not the best written article on wikipedia, mere description of a product does not constitute the advertisement of the product. We have been through this. It would appear that you are very interested in air economizers. This page is not designed to discuss air handling units, their benefits, or their issues. This is the chilled beam page. ~Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.188.206 (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe (74.190.188.206|74.190.188.206), it is agreed that this isn't the best written article in Wikipedia. But you will notice throughout the article comparison of chilled beams to other system types, including general claims of this system being more energy efficient than other system types. And it also seems to bother you my mentioning as an example the use of an airside economizer in certain climate areas to be superior in energy efficiency to a chilled beam system. But if I made a general statement that chilled beams are not as energy efficient as other system types, you would be O.K. with that? It would seem to me that this generalization wouldn't serve the end reader very well. You are also bothered by the references to system cost. Perhaps you can share the reason for your bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.40.81 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

An airside economizer would be grouped in with a VAV or CAV system. A air side economizer is really more of an air handling unit. I do not think that you really understand what a chilled beam is at all. A correct comparison would be to debate the theory of whether a VAV or CAV system is better, but not an air side economizer. Have you read the air side economizer page on wikipedia? I think you efforts would be better suited to editting that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.179.29 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous comment from "96.250.179.29|96.250.179.29" seemed more of a personal attack than a supply of useful information. It's obvious that there is a bias. For it isn't difficult to understand how a chilled beam functions. The reference to other system types is very fair and appropriate, as posted above, to provide the reader with a comparison to other system types. Perhaps the commenter "96.250.179.29|96.250.179.29" can provide specifics as to the inaccuracy of specific information, or cite as to which specific items are, as he/she calls them "slanderous." Every HVAC system type has certain advantages and disadvantages over other HVAC System types. These differences can be related to cost, energy efficiency of performance, noise, serviceability, space use, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.2.50 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If 96.250.179.29 can't then I will. 1) You are obviously trying to sell air side economizers '''(Rebuttal: Chilled Beams are commercial products, while airside economizers are generic - not "selling" but simply pointing out that chilled beams are obviously not appropriate for areas where the installed cost is higher and energy efficiency of performance is less)''' . 96 is right that if you are going to compare chilled beam then you compare them to VAV, or CAV. Even radiant, displacement, VRV, etc would be acceptable. But an air side economizer is more or less a type of air handling unit. If you are coming to compare air side economizer to anything then you would compare them to natural heat sinks, desiccant wheels, traditional compressor systems, etc. No where in the article does it discuss how you can get free cooling with chilled beams matched with geothermal or natural heat sinks. There is a building in London with chilled beams that gets free cooling year round because it uses the River Thames as a heat sink. It is not mentioned because it is not relevant to chilled beams universally. Geothermal, natural heat sinks, and air side economizers systems are very geographically dependent. If you want to talk about air side economizers then edit the air side economizer page, and not the chilled beam page. '''(Rebuttal: You obviously miss the point. If you have ever done alternatives analysis of various energy efficiency measures, and if one alternative is more effective than another, then at the end of the day you apply the measure that provides the most benefit at the least cost. In the prior example, in a geographic region such as the San Francisco Bay Area, if applying a VAV system with an airside economizer yields better energy efficiency of performance and costs less, one chooses the VAV system with the airside economizer. This is an obvious no brainer. This is not at all bashing the chilled beam system, but merely pointing out the obvious. This is highly fair. You however, want to suppress this dialogue because you are obviously biased and want to sell the chilled beam. If chilled beams provide a benefit at an attractive cost to my clients, then this is what I recommend to my clients. But if not, then I wouldn't recommend chilled beams. The client in this case is the reader.)''' 2) It used to be that there was an entire section of the page that talked about how many LEED points a building could potentially get from using chilled beams. This was deemed to paint too rosy of a picture of chilled beams with respect to LEED. As such, we took it down. However, allowing you to come in and paint a very gloomy picture of chilled beams with respect to LEED is equally wrong.'''(Rebuttal:: When you say "we took it down," you are certainly not referring to yourself. The postings were taken down by impartial, unbiased individuals, who are interested in the facts - good and bad, advantages and disadvantages of a product or system).''' 3) There are more then a few chilled beams on the market that utilize vertical coils instead of horizontal coils. As such, even if condensation forms on the coil it would not rain. This makes your statement flatly inaccurate.'''(Rebuttal:: Again, you miss the point. Moisture, however generated is generally not good. But the important thing is to alert the reader to the potential of moisture formation to allow him/her to be informed about it.)''' Furthermore, in tests it has been shown that an active chilled beam can actually run entering chilled water a few degrees below the room dew point before condensation forms on the coil. However, no manufacturer is going to ever advocate strategy. Rather, most manufacturers advocate the entering water temperature being a couple degrees above the room dew point. Its been stated that control of the dew point is important. Move on. '''(Rebuttal: Again you miss the point as the moisture issue is one of the biggest hurdles to be overcome by HVAC designers that apply the system.)''' 4) Every building should have its loads, latent/sensible gains, energy design, and infiltration rates calculated by a competent engineer. This is regardless of whether the building is using VAV, CAV, or chilled beams. This fact is not native to chilled beams. It has to do with the construction of buildings. Thus, it doesn't need to be dragged out in horrific detail on this page. In my personal opinion, I feel that every part of a building, its construction, and its design should be handled by a competent individual. '''(Rebuttal: It seems that missing the point is habitual for you, probably due to your bias. This product is still new to most people. So as you might know, designers applying a new system will want to be more rigorous when using a product for the first time, as opposed to ones that they have experience with)''' 5) Seismic concerns have NOTHING to do with the chilled beam itself. If a building is in a seismic zone then the same care must be taken with the installation of chilled beams as with EVERYTHING ELSE in the ceiling. The specific requirements for installing anything into a ceiling plenum of a building in a seismic zone vary based on local codes, and, again, have nothing to do with the chilled beams themselves. '''(Rebuttal: Wow, missed the point again!! The reference to seismic is in the section regarding the combining of multiple features with the chilled beam - lights, sprinklers, etc. - if this is done, the weight is heavier than the individual products. So the weights of the individual products might not require seismic bracing, but when combined, the overall weight might require it. Do you get the point now? )''' 6) This article is designed to offer a general background on chilled beams '''(Rebuttal: What makes you the authority on what this article should be? Your obvious bias should certainly rule you out from this judgment. You seem to want to make this an advertisement for chilled beams, suppressing the dis-advantages, even the obvious ones. Any unbiased, general brief of a product or system would include major benefits and drawbacks.)''' . It is not to offer he said v. she said arguments. I would advise you to contact your local chilled beam salesman or to check out any of the leading chilled beam manufacturers websites for information on chilled beams. In case you are wondering, examples of chilled beam manufacturers include Price, Dadanco, Trox, Semco, TWA, Titus, Nailor, Titus, and Halton. I'm sure that there are others, but these are the only ones that come up with a 30 second search on Google. If a job is designed badly with any system then there were be problems (have you ever seen condensation and mold form on a grille with a VAV system? It's nasty). Any design can be excessively expensive (see BAS)'''(Rebuttal: Your bias is really obvious now. Of all the projects that I have been involved with, when chilled beams were being considered, the costs for the chilled beam system was always substantially higher, even after many rounds of trying to reduce the costs. And there hasn't yet been a project where a chilled beam system was proposed to reduce cost, in place of a VAV, CAV, or other system type. If you're truly knowledgeable about chilled beams, this fact is well known. So you are either a biased salesman of chilled beams, or someone that is truly disillusioned.)''' . These are not native to chilled beams. If your concern is with bad building design then edit THAT wiki page, but leave this one alone. '''(Rebuttal: Why do you say "leave this alone." The aim is to provide the unbiased facts to the reader. And as you say, these facts can be easily verified through a Google search.)'''

If the goal is to provide an unbiased approach then you must exclude yourself. You referred to me as a "disillusioned" engineer because I actually believe the chilled beam technology has traction and is a good idea. You obviously trying to slander the product. (Comment: How is the product being slandered? You are obviously a salesman of chilled beams. The prior comments were fair. And as stated previously above, the article is not an advertisement, but rather a description of a product - including advantages and disadvantages) I'm sorry that it appears that you have worked on some badly designed chilled beam projects. I think it is awesome that every non-chilled beam project that you have worked has done so well. You aren't offering anything constructive. You are simply trying to put down chilled beams. (Comment: It would be more helpful if you were to provide specifics instead of generalizations)

Rebuttals: 1) Air side economizers are still a system that is sold. This is the same as chilled beams. They are a generic product created and sold by a number of different companies. However, you still fail to address the fact that an air side economizer would have to be compared to a geothermal or natural heat sink system, and not directly to a chilled beam system. This article does not cover geothermal, natural heat sinks, and, therefore, should not cover air side economizers. (Comment: A specific example, applying an airside economizer, was used to point out that chilled beams are not appropriate in every application, and that rigorous analysis should be used before spending more money on a system, that is less energy efficient than other available alternatives.) 2) Most of the world is not San Fran. So this article is not written specifically and solely for people in San Fran. I love the city, but most of us don't live there. Your entire argument is singularly focused to San Fran. This doesn't work. Have you seen the energy analysis for chilled beam couple with a natural heat sink (lake, river, etc) anywhere in the world? Its free energy. However, this page talks about the product itself, and does not get into geographically specific solutions. (Comment: An example was made, using the San Francisco Bay Area. Perhaps you might cite some examples.) 3) No, I did not initiate advocating taking down the LEED information. I originally wanted a very expansive section on how LEED applies to chilled beams. However, the case was made that such a section would be far too long, take over far too much of the chilled beam information, and would be far to speculative. When these details were pointed out I agreed that it was better the scrap any reference to LEED points, good or bad. 4) You are advocating a line about how the chilled beams will "rain" with regards to moisture. However, there are beams out there that have vertical coils. In buildings where there is the remotest concern with regards to condensation these beams are used. So unless the building is a very poor design, or someone has messed up the controls sequencing of a building, it should never ever "rain" in a building. You seem unaware that these beams even exist, or to the controls systems that are typically included with chilled beams. (Comment: Chilled beams are typically installed, overhead, in the ceiling space. If condensation occurs, it's a problem.) 5) Seriously, if you've ever worked on a building with chilled beams, the moisture issue is no where near as big as you are making it. In most cases the beams are run with a valve and a condensation sensor. Only 1 condensation sensor per thermal zone is required. Provided that due diligence is done, as it should be with ANY building, condensation is not hard to control. (Comment: Anytime there is potential for water damage, it is a serious issue. ) 6) I agree that any time someone is using a new product in the design of a building that they are going to be cautious. I fully advocate this, as I've stated previously. A good engineer goes slowly and methodically when using a new technology. This is part of what makes them the proper person to design a building. (Comment: A point of agreement, great.) 7) Firstly, by code you cannot suspend sprinklers from a chilled beam system in the USA. You can allow a whole by which the sprinkler head comes through, but the sprinkler itself must be independently suspended. With regards to the lights/additional parts coupled to a chilled beam, local code dictate what is required with regards to how the units must be coupled to the lights/additional parts and how the beams must be installed. These codes are not specific to chilled beams in any way shape or form. They are generic, and very geographically dependent, codes. (Comment: Why would one have a problem about informing the reader about something like a consideration for seismic codes. A reader in Houston, Texas, in seismic Zone 0, is obviously aware that this is not applicable to him/her. But a reader in Los Angeles, in seismic Zone 4, will take notice. ) 8) I'm not the authority on chilled beams or this page. But I have no interest in you slandering the product on this page. This page has gone through multiple peer reviews. It is far from perfect, but the goal, purpose, and function of the website was stated long ago. I would advise you to revisit some of those discussions. (Comment: You say that chilled beams are being slandered, a serious charge, but no specifics of the claimed slander. If you acknowledge that you are not the expert, then how can you make such a strong statement that the product is being slandered?) 9) Chilled beams are still a new technology. I would not assume them to be less from an initial installation cost then very old convectional CAV or VAV systems. That being said, the past couple chilled beam jobs that I've seen go under energy and cost analysis actually came up on par with their VAV counter parts. (Comment: Care to name the project in this discussion? That would be of great interest.) But I would never say that in the article as its case specific, and I cannot site what jobs they were and/or 3rd party sources. (Comment: So because this is a new product, wouldn't it be more informative to the reader to present advantages and disadvantages?) 10) I say "leave this alone" as you seem bent on slandering chilled beams. That's not cool. A lot of people have come together to try and create a fair and informative page. You don't seem to have anything constructive to add. (Comment: Again, you say that chilled beams are being slandered, a serious charge, but no specifics of the claimed slander.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.93.240 (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a post to <69.198.9.38> that recently reverted to a previous version of this article. Please don't go backwards on this article. There have been very good edits done by many contributors to provide a fair representation of chilled beams, their advantages and disadvantages, and also comparison of chilled beams vs. other system types.

It has also been done to encourage the reader to view this discussion thread, and seek out additional information with regard to chilled beams, especially if the reader is involved for the first time in applying a chilled beam system for his/her project.

And <69.198.9.38> is further reminded, as were others that have a clear bias, that this is not an advertisement for any particular system, but rather an attempt to present issues in a fair and objective way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.40.81 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• All of this is irrelevant. Wikipedia requires citations of challengeable claims in its articles. Uncited text has been removed. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim1965 - Could you please cite the unchallengeable claims to which you refer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.40.81 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any statement which makes a claim of fact is challengeable. Wikipedia's citation guidelines explicitly state that any fact which might be challenged must be cited. There were only five statements in that entire article which were cited. I encourage you to use the article's history tab to look at the previous version; there are but five citations. The article contained many, many other factual claims (some of them quite important) which were uncited and hence not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia under the encyclopedia's guidelines. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

This page is for discussion of the article, NOT for discussion of the subject of the article. The debate here should be about what to include in the article, how to present the information in an unbiased fashion, etc. This is not a place to list pro's and cons of the sytem, or to have a debate about this system. 842U (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• User 842U - I think that you miss the point. Where would the debate about the system be if not in the "Discussion" thread? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.32.106 (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What a joke and whitewash that this article is now. It's just an advertisement for chilled beams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.32.106 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• So you claim. If you could find neutral, reliable, third-party sources which discuss the negative aspects of chilled beam HVAC systems, you could add them to the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section (which currently seems well-balanced), and cite them. Absent such citations and sources, it doens't matter what you think. Or what I think. Wikipedia is about cited evidence, not baseless opinion from contributors. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is now a Whitewashed Advertisement

This Article was developing into a well informed and balanced representation of chilled beams. But now the article has been hijacked by biased individuals, turning it into an advertisement. All previous unbiased citations about chilled beams shortfalls have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.32.106 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• So you claim. Interestingly, the previous five citations have pretty much been included in the existing article. I also find it very amusing that you think I'm biased; I have no interest in HVAC systems (as you appear to). I'm interested in a good article with citations to neutral, reliable, third-party publications. If you were able to identify why any of the publications currently cited in the article did not meet those criteria, they would be removed. Nearly all contributors would back you up. But if you can't do that, then you have no grounds for complaining. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Performance Corrections

Dear Tim1965, I currently work for a chilled beam manufacturer. I will not say which one. Because of this, however, I feel directly editing the article would be biased. There are a few incorrect statements in the article. Unfortunately, most of the quality references that I can send you to are manufacturer's websites. I will try and use multiple manufacturers in order to not favor any specific one.

Firstly, the naturally forming convection currents only occur with the passive chilled beams and the chilled ceiling. The active chilled beams work be pulling air (inducing air) into the beam and over a heat exchange coil. The driving force behind active chilled beams is the way primary, ducted, air moves through the beam, and the pressure differential between the air in the duct and the air in the room.
General chilled beam performances explained (http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/6087/Default.aspx)

Passive chilled beams cannot be used for heating. Chilled ceilings can be used for heating, but the mechanism behind this heat transfer is radiant and not convective. Active chilled beams can be used for heating, but this is because they are forcibly moving air through the room.
Further detail behind active chilled beam functionality (http://www.activechilledbeam.com/green_air_conditioning.asp)

Your capacities for your chilled beams are incorrect. Actually capacities of chilled beams are dependent upon a number of variables. These include the room temperature, the temperature of the water running through the beam, the volume of water running through the beam, how the air moves through the beam (this is where the variant between manufacturers comes from), and with active chilled beams there are even more variables to consider. Typically a chilled ceiling is going to have a capacity of roughly 25 BTUH per square foot of ceiling area (79 Watts/m2). A passive chilled beam will have a capacity of roughly 300 BTUH per linear foot of beam (290 Watts per linear meter), and are typically 2ft wide in the USA so as to fit traditional ceiling grids. Active chilled beams can have a total capacity (air and water combined) of between 700 and 1000 BTUH per linear foot of beam (670 to 960 Watts per linear meter), and are typically 2ft wide so as to suit traditional ceiling grids.
Chilled Ceilings (http://www.troxtechnik.com/en/products/air_water_systems/passive_cooling_systems/chilled_ceilings/index.html)
Passive Chilled Beams (http://www.troxtechnik.com/en/products/air_water_systems/passive_cooling_systems/chilled_beams/index.html)
Active Chilled Beams (http://www.troxtechnik.com/en/products/air_water_systems/induction_units/active_chilled_beams/index.html)

The only standard for testing the capacity of chilled beams current in the world is the Eurovent certification (http://www.eurovent-certification.com). ASHRAE is working on something, but has not come out with one to date (3/14/2011). I would expect that ASHRAE will have one by the end of the year. The European performance standard is EN15116.

The comment "additional duct work maybe required to meet minimum outside air requirements" is not accurate. The advantage of chilled beams is that they do part of the cooling with water and part with air. Traditional all air solutions do all of the cooling with. Because of the water aspect of chilled beams less air has to be moved around the building. This yields smaller duct sizes.

If you would like to reference other manufacturers' websites then the two listed above, the main manufacturers of chilled beams to the USA include E.H. Price, TWA (a Price owned company), Dadanco, Halton, Trox, and Semco/Flaktwoods.
I would like the information on the page to be accurate regardless of which manufacturer you choose to reference. As I work for one of these companies, I believe it would be a conflict of interest to directly edit this article.

CBEngineer - March 14, 2011.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CBengineer (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chilled beam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713180423/http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/article-active-chilled-beam-lowers-energy.aspx to http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/article-active-chilled-beam-lowers-energy.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)