Should be a good match for the stretch.
But you lost me a bit.
Foxwalker wrote:... I have a similar duct on the other side of my yurt so the air can move through.)...
By 'similar duct on the other side' do you mean hole?
But you can put that hole to work as the required structure exhaust for a swamp cooler.
And as you have ducting, consider running ducting from your exhaust hole up to the top of the inside of your yurt. That way when you turn your swamp-cooler on, as it pushes air into your yurt the air exhausted is the hottest air up near the peak of your yurt. (shows a bucket cooler, but that's not relevant)
Duct to collect from the top to the exhaust is NOT required
, but just a tweak to improve the cooling inside.
Foxwalker wrote:...I don't think it would affect the efficiency of the cooler, in fact, it should improve it, as it would make the incoming air hotter...
I don't see how making incoming air hotter helps you get the coolest air possible into your interior, nor how it would be made hotter.
Anyway, here's some images illustrating what I mean by having a duct bring air from a hole in your yurt to your swamp cooler would introduce heat to the interior. This a crude marking of your photo, but the blue shows the surfaces that would be cool, and the red those surfaces that would be hot (conducting and radiating heat to the interior), while pretending there's a duct going to your box intake hole. So technically it doesn't affect the efficiency of the swamp cooler, but it does affect the efficiency of your interior cooling, as you're are introducing heat at the same time you're blowing in cooled air.
You can insulate the duct going from the hole in the wall to your box, or simply place the box against the wall and skip the duct. Then no need for an insulated duct and the intake side of the box is against your insulated wall, reducing the heated surface area putting heat into your interior to part of two sides.
Also, if you have time and like to play: you noticed how going to a single thickness pad from a double thickness pad allowed your fan to move more air, as it reduced the resistance to the airflow. Going for a greater pad area (by longer pad path) will also further reduce the air flow resistance.
If a longer/larger pad is routed as shown, then it has more area for reduced air resistance and the surface area of the box that is heated is reduced! If it's against the wall, then there's only a tiny bit of heated surface along the edge, and against the lid (you can insulate that if you'd like, but you've reduced the hot surface area by so much already (80% or more?)).
To test if the size of your air intake on the box is limiting the air flow that the fan & pad are capable of, compare the output airflow you're getting with the top completely covered, vs if you cover only the top from the pad to the side with the fan. If the second way has more fan flow and you want that, then your intake hole needs to be larger. (If you make your intake hole larger, then your structure exhaust hole may need to be larger to, so that's not the limiting factor, although you do get air leakage with a yurt.)
And you can use the chicken wire to devise support for pad that gives you even more pad area, playing with different configurations: for reduced air resistance allowing for a potential higher CFM, or lower velocity through the pad at a given CFM for greater air dwell time within the pad (if CFM is so high it's not having time to have it's full cooling potential).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.