This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Architecture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What is corrigated screen as mentioned in the Smoke/Fire Dampers section?Kember (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we merge the article Trickle vent into Duct_(HVAC)#Air_terminals. That section could probably use a little more information, anyways. Jminthorne (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trickle vent stub has grown a bit; it just might make it on its own. I am closing the merge proposal. Jminthorne (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do the acoustic lining in preinsulated duct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.38 (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to the French entry should be removed or corrected. Said entry points to a much more specific type of duct (one used to cool the CPU or GPU chips of a computer).

Pierre. 24.231.11.40 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great point; I changed the link to fr:Ventilation. Updates to a still better match are welcomed. VQuakr (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There's not really a page on Induction Units, or very much information on them. They are mentioned briefly here under "Terminal Units". Where would be the best place to put Induction Unit information? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.234.12 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for bringing up this question on IRC and following up here. I agree they should be addressed but I think maybe it should be on the main article on HVAC, I seemed to understand from some reading that there are water, air, and combined water and air systems and that "induction unit" was a term that only applied to the last of these. I don't know enough about the topic to know if I have that right, but if so, it seems that this difference between three major types of systems should be discussed on HVAC and, as far as I could tell, is not. I would consider that the bigger gap with the likely need for a short mention of induction units in that discussion or (depending on how much the article grows) separate articles to discuss the three major types (again assuming I understood this point). I think there'd need to be a lot of material on the combined systems in general and induction units in particular before induction units would justify it's own article. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, this is where I came up with some of my understanding, right or wrong: HVAC Alternatives--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took down this site from the external links section twice; I do not think it is particularly helpful to include this site. The poster points out that "Duct cleaning" redirects to this article, so my mistake on that. However, the website still does not appear to be a reliable source, but more of a business directory. It also seems a bit weak on content, mostly youtube videos and articles copied from elsewhere. Can we establish a consensus on whether this site should be in the external links section? VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of this site: the only air duct cleaning section on Wikipedia is in this article - despite the wealth (of conflicting) information on the internet the majority of duct cleaning pulls up scams, marketing/affiliate sites and/or commercial companies advertising. In my research on the subject this is the only site ive found which claims to be independent and non profit - more so it has no affiliate links or Google adverts on it anywhere. There are lots of youtube ads on there - and a directory or sorts (although appears to be in embryo stage with no listings as yet) the information provided (which to me seemed to be a 50/50 mix of quality articles and original content) provides a very through and balanced view on the subject. In my eyes this fits perfectly into the "further reading section" as there is little information for people to pick up further upon this subject compared to other sections. Considering their are commercial websites quoted as references in the reference section I think it wise to balance these out with a website that has no commercial interests in its opinion - and as mentioned the only one on the internet that I can find. As the only other further reading referenced is a book it a least provides people an avenue - second to that its not as if the further reading section is forced upon people, with the correct description they can chose to visit this or not on their own terms depending what they will have wanted to find when searching on Wikipedia in the first place. This site - and the short section on duct cleaning are the only two non-commercial references on the internet with the exception of the EPA's site (which is already referenced) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdeejay (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any update to this VQuakr? Doesn't appear to be any objections or support (or interest?!!)

This isn't in the External links section now; no idea how long it since it was (last) removed, but I certainly support keeping it out of the article; don't think it meets WP:RS. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "class 1 duct" is used but neither defined nor a reference given to ascertain what it means. peter (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest adding an "in popular culture" section to talk about the "escape thru the air ducts" trope in movies and tv? Apparently it's happened in real life too (one of Richard Lee McNair's many prison escapes for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.158.138 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to rewrite (hopefully) everything into standard, passive form (no more personal "you", etc.). Please check and if ok, remove the block at the top from March 2014. Noggo (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Went over the article for a second time and removed the box "tone of the article" at the top. If someone objects, feel free to put it back in and leave a comment/suggestion here. Noggo (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duct cleaning is, to say the least, controversial among experts in the field. Here's an article that has lots of useful sources: https://www.checkbook.org/boston-area/air-duct-cleaners/

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]