Q: We have a 1969 rambler in the Renton area that has earned a new furnace (the original gas forced-air furnace is very noisy and tired). We usually consult Consumer Reports magazine when making a major purchase, but it did not have current information on this topic. Is there a source you might recommend on how to judge one manufacturer's product over another's? What factors need to be considered? Is there a guideline homeowners may use to decide whether adding air-conditioning at this time is cost-effective?
A: Furnace efficiency is a government standard. All furnaces will meet the given standard (e.g. 80 percent or 90 percent efficient), so that is not really a consideration. The ultimate life of a furnace is limited much more by the maintenance it receives and the pattern of usage it is subjected to, rather than the brand.
I hesitate to call furnaces commodity items, but many share similar component parts and have similar life expectancies. What is more important than the actual brand is the installer's skill in sizing the furnace capacity to the house, installation quality and installation detail.
Is air conditioning cost-effective? No, not at all. It costs money to purchase, install and operate. Is it a nice feature? You bet it is. But cost-effectiveness is more of a concern when comparing furnace efficiency.
In my opinion, the best bang for the buck is an 80 percent furnace. Paying 50 percent more for a 10 percent increase in efficiency, higher maintenance costs and reduced life is not cost-effective in my opinion. But heating contractors push these furnaces hard, as they create more profit.
Q: About two to three years ago, I had my cedar shake roof pressure-washed and treated. This year, I'm planning on replacing the roof with fiberglass shingles. I would like to save the shakes to use for kindling but have concerns that the treatment might be a hazard. Are my concerns warranted?
A: Burning pressure-treated wood is generally not advised, as it can release toxic chemicals in the smoke. Topically treated shakes less so, but the consideration is still valid.
Q: Regarding "female" and "male" parts: My wife suggests "innie" and "outie." As for your original complainant, we can be glad he/she hasn't found the sex bolts and the black rigid nipples.
Q: In response to your challenge to come up with something as descriptive as male and female for hose fittings etc., you could consider concave and convex. Things like bowls can be stacked with the convex surface above fitting inside the concave surface below. You never hear the terms male and female used in this context, although the physical relationship is the same.
A: Points for a valiant try, but concave and convex just don't seem nearly as descriptive or intuitive.
Q: I've worked in the telephone industry for over 41 years. It was common to use the male/female terminology. Although I transferred into the male-dominated field in the early '70s during the influx of women in non-traditional jobs, it was many years before things evolved.
The terms that surfaced were plug and connector to replace male and female. The plug was male, and the connector was female. It took me some time to remember which was which. Even after all these years those terms haven't taken hold as some were hoping.
A: You had to tell me the plug was male and the connector was female. How effective is that?
Darrell Hay answers readers' questions. Call 206-464-8514 to record your question, or e-mail dhay@seattletimes.com. Sorry, no personal replies. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists.
