On 18 Jan 2005 13:06:56 -0800, "cjra" wrote:

We have an 1890s Victorian, fabulous HUGE windows, which work great for
natural cooling, but we're installing central a/c and heat. Some panes
are broken and have to be replaced anyway, but what can we replace them
with, without replacing the entire window (for $860/window!)?

What would be the most energy efficient, given the size - can't do
double pane because there's not enough space. We can re-work the
windows ourselves a bit to add an extra 1-2/16s of space to fit glass,
but would such glass be any more energy efficient than what's there?

We have 14 windows - most 8ft x 3 ft (one is 8 ft x 6ft, and 2 are
smaller). Eventually we'd like to make all more energy efficient, but
for now, will just replace the broken ones.

Thoughts?

If I understand your question, you are asking if replacing 1/16 thick
single pane glass with 2/16 single pane glass will save any energy.

For all practical purposes, no. Double pane glass saves energy
because of the insulating air (or inert gas) space between panes, not
because of the double glass.

Using low-e glass might help, but I don't think there is such a thing
as single pane low-e because the coating is fragile.

There are companies around that will take your window sash, remove the
glass, rout a deeper rabbet in the frames, and install double pane
glass. IIRC it is a little cheaper than replacing the entire window
with top quality windows, but more expensive than, say, replacing with
a good grade of vinyl window. But if you want to retain the original
look, this might be the way to go.

You could consider installing exterior triple track storms, but it
would ugly up that lady. Best to fix the broken panes, and save your
pennies for good replacement windows as you can affort them.

HTH,

Paul