On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:47:57 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:48:45 -0400, "George Willer"
wrote:

Don,

You've made my point... thank you. My point was that the log construction
yields higher heat loss and therefore higher expenses IF AND WHEN THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE IS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALLS. I haven't seen any posts
that indicate otherwise... except for those wishful thinkers who have log
homes. If that position offends you or is considered arrogant, that's just
too bad.

I'm sure you will now also admonish Steve Spence for his demeaning attitude
this subject.

George Willer

No it wasn't. It was "why forget about the loss", a reasonable
question. The response was because fuel bills were similar in some
frame structures and one log structure. Then you got abusive.

Attributing low fuel bills to thermal mass is indeed incorrect, but
rather than helpfullly explaining why that is so (if you know), you
just became abusive. The fact that thermal mass does not explain
low fuel bills does not make the bills any higher. It just means
that the compared structure with less lossy walls (if that is the
case) has other leaks unaccounted for in a simple R-value calculation.

Mr. Spence's responses have been remarkably civil and restrained,
given the abuse sent his way.



Hear hear Don! Steve's explanations have been reasonable and clear all through
the thread.

Mark Rand (just building the workshop with 6"PU foam SIP walls, roof and door,
8" concrete on 4" EPS floor and triple glazed windows)
RTFM