I am very interested in buying a barn I have seen. All the services are in place and it 'looks' in good repair. I would be very thankfull if anybody could advise me of the most common mistakes (£) people make when attempting to convert a barn. I have read the posts relating to foundations of barns on this site and have found them interesting. The barn when converted will have a livable area of 1600 sq. ft., I know its a near impossible question but if anyone would like to hazard a guest at the sort of buget required to finish it to a reasonable standard I would be greatfull.
Ultimately I would like to build a house and see this as a taste of things to come. Any constructive comments will be very welcome.

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 21:57:18 +0100, philt
wrote:


I am very interested in buying a barn I have seen. All the services are
in place and it 'looks' in good repair. I would be very thankfull if
anybody could advise me of the most common mistakes (£) people make
when attempting to convert a barn. I have read the posts relating to
foundations of barns on this site and have found them interesting. The
barn when converted will have a livable area of 1600 sq. ft., I know
its a near impossible question but if anyone would like to hazard a
guest at the sort of buget required to finish it to a reasonable
standard I would be greatfull.
Ultimately I would like to build a house and see this as a taste of
things to come. Any constructive comments will be very welcome.

Based on my experience, its about the same price as building new of
the same size. Much will depend upon what you need to do to get the
walls in the right place. Then finisher range in price from sensible,
through the idiots on property ladder, right the way to the stars.

Many architects will do you a couple of hours of consultancy, for a
hundred quid or so, and this will really help you get an idea of what
is needed.


IMHO its not a cheep way of getting a house, its a good way of getting
a fantastic house in a fantastic location.


Rick

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
Great idea. So with a sudden cold snap the house takes days to heat
up. And insulating the outside will look just great instead of that
nasty natural stone.

With a sudden cold snap it would take days to cool down surely? It's
like having an engine with a huge flywheel.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone 1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

"philt" wrote in message
news

I am very interested in buying a barn I have seen. All the services are
in place and it 'looks' in good repair. I would be very thankfull if
anybody could advise me of the most common mistakes (£) people make
when attempting to convert a barn. I have read the posts relating to
foundations of barns on this site and have found them interesting. The
barn when converted will have a livable area of 1600 sq. ft., I know
its a near impossible question but if anyone would like to hazard a
guest at the sort of buget required to finish it to a reasonable
standard I would be greatfull.
Ultimately I would like to build a house and see this as a taste of
things to come. Any constructive comments will be very welcome.

Best build a structure inside the existing structure.like a timber frame
inside the existing walls. Make sure you superinsulate it as they cost an
arm and a leg to heat.

Best go over to the UK_Selfbuild forum on Yahoo groups. They are more in
tune to this sort of thing.

On 9 Oct 2005 06:01:02 -0700, wrote:

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone 1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

Stone buildings remain the temperature of the stone, which you can
alter with a lot of expence. So if you get your stone walls wharm in
winter, the house will remain wharm for a couple of days with the
heating off. But it takes 7 days to get the house wharm when it was
cold.

I am puting 120mm of kingspan on all my stone walls, except the ones
when I want to see stone.

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct 2005 06:01:02 -0700, wrote:

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone 1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

Stone buildings remain the temperature of the stone, which you can
alter with a lot of expence. So if you get your stone walls wharm in
winter, the house will remain wharm for a couple of days with the
heating off. But it takes 7 days to get the house wharm when it was
cold.

I am puting 120mm of kingspan on all my stone walls, except the ones
when I want to see stone.

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal mass
is usable.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct 2005 06:01:02 -0700, wrote:

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone 1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

Stone buildings remain the temperature of the stone, which you can
alter with a lot of expence. So if you get your stone walls wharm in
winter, the house will remain wharm for a couple of days with the
heating off. But it takes 7 days to get the house wharm when it was
cold.

I am puting 120mm of kingspan on all my stone walls, except the ones
when I want to see stone.

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass
is usable.

I didn't see the original post. I have a flint wall barn with thick walls.
Flint
is a good conductor. We had an additional block wall built inside the
existing wall with a good layer of insulation in the cavity. The result is a
very
low rate of heat, judged by the bills and the size of the house. It is warm
in
winter and cool in summer.

Peter Scott

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:41:01 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Rick" wrote in message
.. .
On 9 Oct 2005 06:01:02 -0700, wrote:

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone 1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

Stone buildings remain the temperature of the stone, which you can
alter with a lot of expence. So if you get your stone walls wharm in
winter, the house will remain wharm for a couple of days with the
heating off. But it takes 7 days to get the house wharm when it was
cold.

I am puting 120mm of kingspan on all my stone walls, except the ones
when I want to see stone.

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal mass
is usable.

Maybe, depends what the nature of the use of the house is. It would be
stupid for say when I was communiting to work by plane, and only home
at the weekends - you would never get the house wharm in winter.

Rick

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:29:55 +0100, "Peter Scott"
wrote:


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct 2005 06:01:02 -0700, wrote:

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone 1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

Stone buildings remain the temperature of the stone, which you can
alter with a lot of expence. So if you get your stone walls wharm in
winter, the house will remain wharm for a couple of days with the
heating off. But it takes 7 days to get the house wharm when it was
cold.

I am puting 120mm of kingspan on all my stone walls, except the ones
when I want to see stone.

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass
is usable.

I didn't see the original post. I have a flint wall barn with thick walls.
Flint
is a good conductor. We had an additional block wall built inside the
existing wall with a good layer of insulation in the cavity. The result is a
very
low rate of heat, judged by the bills and the size of the house. It is warm
in
winter and cool in summer.

Peter Scott


Thats what I have done, but as I don't have windows in yet, I have no
isea if its gonna work - I have new confidence now.

Rick wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:41:01 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Rick" wrote in message
.. .
On 9 Oct 2005 06:01:02 -0700, wrote:

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone 1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

Stone buildings remain the temperature of the stone, which you can
alter with a lot of expence. So if you get your stone walls wharm in
winter, the house will remain wharm for a couple of days with the
heating off. But it takes 7 days to get the house wharm when it was
cold.

I am puting 120mm of kingspan on all my stone walls, except the ones
when I want to see stone.

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal mass
is usable.

Maybe, depends what the nature of the use of the house is. It would be
stupid for say when I was communiting to work by plane, and only home
at the weekends - you would never get the house wharm in winter.

If you want it to warm up quickly then you insulate inside and anyway
it's the only way that's practical.
Our chapel conversion has dry lining with 2" air gap, 2" kingspan, 1"
air gap, 1/2" plasterboard with foil back - and same in the ceiling +
6" rockwool. It's easy to heat large rooms which also stay warm inspite
of low 'thermal mass'. Have also insulated partitions so that only
rooms in use need heat. Less heat required also means simple heating
with electric fan heater becomes viable - at least for heating up
quickly before other system kicks in - really useful if you come back
to a cold house.

cheers

Jacob

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass is usable.

Great idea. So with a sudden cold snap the house takes days to heat up.
And insulating the outside will look just great instead of that nasty
natural stone.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass is usable.

Great idea.

Good. You are getting the message.

snip senile drivel

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
Great idea. So with a sudden cold snap the house takes days to heat
up. And insulating the outside will look just great instead of that
nasty natural stone.

With a sudden cold snap it would take days to cool down surely? It's
like having an engine with a huge flywheel.

Don't try and explain things to him as he gets confused easily.

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
Great idea. So with a sudden cold snap the house takes days to heat
up. And insulating the outside will look just great instead of that
nasty natural stone.

With a sudden cold snap it would take days to cool down surely?

That would depend on other factors like the overall insulation? But in any
case who wants a house that stays at the same temperature all the time?
Maybe fine if achieved by insulation, but not by just having a vast
thermal mass.

It's like having an engine with a huge flywheel.

Yup. But again who wants this?

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

Great idea. So with a sudden cold snap the house takes days to heat
up. And insulating the outside will look just great instead of that
nasty natural stone.

With a sudden cold snap it would take days to cool down surely?

That would depend on other factors like the overall insulation?

snip senile drivel

It is clear he hasn't the slightest clue about thermal mass and emissivity -
yet he keeps babbling dross. Sad I know. Very sad.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
That would depend on other factors like the overall insulation?

snip senile drivel

It is clear he hasn't the slightest clue about thermal mass and
emissivity - yet he keeps babbling dross. Sad I know. Very sad.

You'll be recommending storage rads next.
How sad is this.

--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal mass
is usable.

Drivel, just for the record on this occasion I actually agree with
you.


--

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass is usable.

Drivel, just for the record on this occasion I actually agree with you.

I'd not bother asking Drivel since he never gives a sensible reply, but
just why would you want a high thermal mass house? I have a programmable
thermostat which is set to give different temperatures throughout the day
and night. With high thermal mass this would be difficult. To me, a well
insulated interior would be the ideal so you could quickly change the temp.
But then there's also the question of just how you insulate the outside of
an old building with thick walls without ruining the appearance? Which is
possibly why it was bought in the first place?

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Matt" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass
is usable.

Drivel, just for the record on this occasion I actually agree with
you.

Lord Hall, that is nice. How is the Makita?

Seems to be some confusion about "thermal mass" - the only point in
using your masonry as a heat store would be if you have a source of
cheap/free heat which otherwise would be wasted such as a solar heat
set up. If you are paying for gas electricity etc you don't want to
waste it heating up the walls even if they are insulated outside. Much
better to have high insulation within the building and only heat the
minimum necessary i.e. the air and surfaces within the rooms used.

cheers

Jacob

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass is usable.

Drivel, just for the record on this occasion I actually agree with you.

I'd not bother asking Drivel since he never gives a sensible reply, but
just why would you want a high thermal mass house?

If you rely on low grade but highly variable heat sources it is
useful. For instance in a house with high solar gain it can moderate
the extremely high room temperatures that might otherwise be attained
with a low thermal mass house while "banking" the useful heat for
later use. Adding active shutters or blinds to the windows and/or
throttling venting of the interior then caps the heat input but the
internal mass will maintain the temperature within a reasonable range
for many hours.

You will probably need a top up from a conventional heat source but
typically this would be much later in the day or even overnight, less
important in the UK perhaps but in some other areas of the world
moving your peak demand either for heating or cooling can be very
useful.

I have a programmable
thermostat which is set to give different temperatures throughout the day
and night. With high thermal mass this would be difficult.

It is, but assuming the same insulation levels a high thermal mass
house will usually be designed for using solar gain (or passive
cooling) to a much greater extent than conventional properties and so
overall it's usually cheaper to run. Using only conventional heat
sources with no time of use incentives and having high thermal mass on
the inside makes little sense.

To me, a well
insulated interior would be the ideal so you could quickly change the temp.
But then there's also the question of just how you insulate the outside of
an old building with thick walls without ruining the appearance? Which is
possibly why it was bought in the first place?

You can't. One of the first examples I saw was back in the mid 70's
when Granada TV did a series "House For The Future" where they took a
derelict barn near Macclesfield and rebuilt it as a low energy
property. A fascinating experiment as a reaction to the oil crisis
and way ahead of its time with many interesting technologies being
demonstrated. But I remember throwing up my hands in horror as they
added a foot of insulation on the outside and then clad it in high
maintenance timber, turning a relatively pleasant stone built barn
into something off Little House on the Prairie. But the upside is
that it may enable the house to retain the stone on the inside which
is probably what you look at more :-)


--

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
Matt wrote:

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass is usable.

Drivel, just for the record on this occasion I actually agree with you.

I'd not bother

Please don't bother at all, ever.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:22:10 +0100, Matt
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Matt wrote:
Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass is usable.

Drivel, just for the record on this occasion I actually agree with you.

I'd not bother asking Drivel since he never gives a sensible reply, but
just why would you want a high thermal mass house?

If you rely on low grade but highly variable heat sources it is
useful. For instance in a house with high solar gain it can moderate
the extremely high room temperatures that might otherwise be attained
with a low thermal mass house while "banking" the useful heat for
later use. Adding active shutters or blinds to the windows and/or
throttling venting of the interior then caps the heat input but the
internal mass will maintain the temperature within a reasonable range
for many hours.

You will probably need a top up from a conventional heat source but
typically this would be much later in the day or even overnight, less
important in the UK perhaps but in some other areas of the world
moving your peak demand either for heating or cooling can be very
useful.

I have a programmable
thermostat which is set to give different temperatures throughout the day
and night. With high thermal mass this would be difficult.

It is, but assuming the same insulation levels a high thermal mass
house will usually be designed for using solar gain (or passive
cooling) to a much greater extent than conventional properties and so
overall it's usually cheaper to run. Using only conventional heat
sources with no time of use incentives and having high thermal mass on
the inside makes little sense.

To me, a well
insulated interior would be the ideal so you could quickly change the temp.
But then there's also the question of just how you insulate the outside of
an old building with thick walls without ruining the appearance? Which is
possibly why it was bought in the first place?

You can't. One of the first examples I saw was back in the mid 70's
when Granada TV did a series "House For The Future" where they took a
derelict barn near Macclesfield and rebuilt it as a low energy
property. A fascinating experiment as a reaction to the oil crisis
and way ahead of its time with many interesting technologies being
demonstrated. But I remember throwing up my hands in horror as they
added a foot of insulation on the outside and then clad it in high
maintenance timber, turning a relatively pleasant stone built barn
into something off Little House on the Prairie. But the upside is
that it may enable the house to retain the stone on the inside which
is probably what you look at more :-)

Thanks for the explination, I see whay in some case it can be usefull.

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:22:10 +0100, Matt
aka Lord Hall wrote from Makita mansion:

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote: In article ,
Matt aka Lord Hall wrote:
Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the
thermal
mass is usable.

Drivel, just for the record on this occasion I actually agree with
you.

I'd not bother asking Drivel since he never gives a sensible reply, but
just why would you want a high thermal mass house?

If you rely on low grade but highly variable heat sources it is
useful. For instance in a house with high solar gain it can moderate
the extremely high room temperatures that might otherwise be attained
with a low thermal mass house while "banking" the useful heat for
later use. Adding active shutters or blinds to the windows and/or
throttling venting of the interior then caps the heat input but the
internal mass will maintain the temperature within a reasonable range
for many hours.

You will probably need a top up from a conventional heat source but
typically this would be much later in the day or even overnight, less
important in the UK perhaps but in some other areas of the world
moving your peak demand either for heating or cooling can be very
useful.

I have a programmable
thermostat which is set to give different temperatures throughout the
day
and night. With high thermal mass this would be difficult.

It is, but assuming the same insulation levels a high thermal mass
house will usually be designed for using solar gain (or passive
cooling) to a much greater extent than conventional properties and so
overall it's usually cheaper to run.

Lord Hall, high thermal mass homes are not usually designed for using solar
gain (or passive cooling) at all.

Using only conventional heat
sources with no time of use incentives and having high thermal mass on
the inside makes little sense.

To me, a well
insulated interior would be the ideal
you could quickly change the temp.

Richard Cranium is totally wrong again.

You can't. One of the first examples I saw was back in the mid 70's
when Granada TV did a series "House For The Future" where they took a
derelict barn near Macclesfield and rebuilt it as a low energy
property. A fascinating experiment as a reaction to the oil crisis
and way ahead of its time with many interesting technologies being
demonstrated. But I remember throwing up my hands in horror as they
added a foot of insulation on the outside and then clad it in high
maintenance timber,

Lord Hall, some timber is maintenance free.

Rick, you don't get anything for nothing. Thermal mass absorbs heat and then
gives it back off slowly. So, the heat you purchased goes to heat the
thermal mass. If a house is designed for passive solar, the sun can heat
the thermal mass. Or active solar with panels and this can heat the floors
(UFH).

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct 2005 06:01:02 -0700, wrote:

A bare shell is an opportunity to dry-line and incorporate as much
insulation as you can afford. Check out thermal conductivity; stone
1.3
to 2.3 W/mK, foam 0.02 to 0.035W/mK. So 50mm thick foam can be better
insulation than an astonishing 5 metres of stone. Stone buildings are
cool in summer and freezing in winter!

cheers

jacob

Stone buildings remain the temperature of the stone, which you can
alter with a lot of expence. So if you get your stone walls wharm in
winter, the house will remain wharm for a couple of days with the
heating off. But it takes 7 days to get the house wharm when it was
cold.

I am puting 120mm of kingspan on all my stone walls, except the ones
when I want to see stone.

Best to have the insulation on the outside of the walls so the thermal
mass
is usable.

I didn't see the original post. I have a flint wall barn with thick walls.
Flint
is a good conductor. We had an additional block wall built inside the
existing wall with a good layer of insulation in the cavity. The result is
a
very
low rate of heat, judged by the bills and the size of the house. It is
warm
in
winter and cool in summer.

Peter Scott

Build one of these:
http://tinyurl.com/3tiq

"The main thrust of the idea for this building was the elimination of
dedicated heating plant was through the use of insulation between 300 and
400 mm thick."

"The interior floor is exposed concrete, acting as a thermal mass, with
300mm of insulation beneath."

"In its primary aim of reducing heating costs the 'zero heating' house
succeeds, on paper, in reducing annual heating costs to £43.40 for a gas
fired heating system. This represents an 84% saving over current 'standard'
housing designed in accordance with modern building regulations, before
discounting."

It costs less than a normal house and the cost breakdown to prove it.

philt wrote:

I am very interested in buying a barn I have seen. All the services are
in place and it 'looks' in good repair. I would be very thankfull if
anybody could advise me of the most common mistakes (£) people make
when attempting to convert a barn. I have read the posts relating to
foundations of barns on this site and have found them interesting. The
barn when converted will have a livable area of 1600 sq. ft., I know
its a near impossible question but if anyone would like to hazard a
guest at the sort of buget required to finish it to a reasonable
standard I would be greatfull.
Ultimately I would like to build a house and see this as a taste of
things to come. Any constructive comments will be very welcome.


I saw quoted in a weekend magazine some years ago that a total makeover
of a london flat to 'modern standards' was £100 a sq ft.

That to my mind is incredible, but it places an upper bound on your
project of £160,000.

Making it 'Barrat superhutch' standard yourself is probably about one
fifth of that.

I mean do you want £25k kitchens and bathrooms, or £2.5k ones?

Will you floor it at £20 a square meter (£320) or polished limestone at
£200 a sq meter? (£3200)

Will you stick in a central lamp pendant with a single switch and low
energy bulb and a £5 shade for what - £50 a room...or 4 fully dimmable
wall units , and mood lighting accessories at £500 a room?

Will you be content with 'magnolia' sprayed plasterboard lining, or want
reproduction flock victorian wallpaper.

Is furniture included?

What about a drive and the garden?

All one can really say is that the barn is probably worth about £30-£50
a square foot, unconverted, plus the land value, and its up to you to
settle on a budget, and then advice can be given as to the appropiate
ways to spend it.

I would NOT tackle it without at leasts £50k realistically avialable.

Unless you are prepared to live in it 'as it goes' and just do what you
can when funds are available...then maybe £20-30k would get it street
legal for habitation, and you can settle in to many happy years of
DIY...;-0)


What you must have is a weatherproof, properly glazed and insulated
house, with at least one working toilet and kitchen, proper drainage of
rain water and sewage, and electrical power coming at least to a deceent
consumer unit..and a couple of rings laid in. I'd advise also a properly
functional central heating system, and since it all has to go in before
walls are finished off, the heating system. wiring and pipework at least
laid in to where its going to be needed, even if its not connected up.

wrote:

Seems to be some confusion about "thermal mass" - the only point in
using your masonry as a heat store would be if you have a source of
cheap/free heat which otherwise would be wasted such as a solar heat
set up.

You have. In one room in our house - the most glazed room of all on the
south side, the temperature rise is such that, unheated, it sits about
5-8 degrees above ambient on a sunny day. Its got massive brick chimeny
in it, and a massive solid concrete floor...after dark, it stays warm...

Temerature rise due to solar heating is enough to be factored into the
overall energy requieremenst of the building code.

High thremal mass evens out the diurnal range of temperatures en****ered
- unhteated, this equates to the average between day and night
temperures. In our temperate climate, this is arguably a very efficient
thing - cool by day, warm by night relatively..

Where it falls down is when teh house is unnocuyppied in te day in
winter, and allowed to cool dramatically. The extra heat required to
bring it up to temperature may negate any gains due to storage of solar
energy during te day.

In scandinavia, the requiremenst are such that its irrelevant anyway, as
teh houses there riun 24x7 heating in winter, and maintain constant
temeperatures - because the peak loads on getting an icy house up to
temp anyway are too severe.

Surprisingly in this case, for the UK climate, I am with Drivel as well.

I have one section of the house that is very low thermal mass, and its
noticeanbly less comfortable in summer and winter than the rest - its
never at the RIGHT temperature...

...and there is the issue of having high thermal capacity houses run at
24x7 heating...this certainly reduces the need for a high peak output
boler, which can save money. IO don';t know whether a 10% duty cycle on
a 100KW boiler ins more or less efficient than a 100% on on a 10KW
one...whih is prettty much what I have in -7 deg C mornings. the old
boiler fires up, and stays up for several hours...more or less..


-
If you are paying for gas electricity etc you don't want to
waste it heating up the walls even if they are insulated outside. Much
better to have high insulation within the building and only heat the
minimum necessary i.e. the air and surfaces within the rooms used.

cheers

Jacob

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
t...
wrote:

Seems to be some confusion about "thermal mass" - the only point in
using your masonry as a heat store would be if you have a source of
cheap/free heat which otherwise would be wasted such as a solar heat
set up.

You have. In one room in our house - the most glazed room of all on the
south side, the temperature rise is such that, unheated, it sits about 5-8
degrees above ambient on a sunny day. Its got massive brick chimeny in it,
and a massive solid concrete floor...after dark, it stays warm...

Temerature rise due to solar heating is enough to be factored into the
overall energy requieremenst of the building code.

High thremal mass evens out the diurnal range of temperatures en****ered -
unhteated, this equates to the average between day and night temperures.
In our temperate climate, this is arguably a very efficient thing - cool
by day, warm by night relatively..

Where it falls down is when teh house is unnocuyppied in te day in winter,
and allowed to cool dramatically. The extra heat required to bring it up
to temperature may negate any gains due to storage of solar energy during
te day.

In scandinavia, the requiremenst are such that its irrelevant anyway, as
teh houses there riun 24x7 heating in winter, and maintain constant
temeperatures - because the peak loads on getting an icy house up to temp
anyway are too severe.

Surprisingly in this case, for the UK climate, I am with Drivel as well.

I have one section of the house that is very low thermal mass, and its
noticeanbly less comfortable in summer and winter than the rest - its
never at the RIGHT temperature...

..and there is the issue of having high thermal capacity houses run at
24x7 heating...this certainly reduces the need for a high peak output
boler, which can save money. IO don';t know whether a 10% duty cycle on a
100KW boiler ins more or less efficient than a 100% on on a 10KW
one...whih is prettty much what I have in -7 deg C mornings. the old
boiler fires up, and stays up for several hours...more or less..


-
If you are paying for gas electricity etc you don't want to
waste it heating up the walls even if they are insulated outside. Much
better to have high insulation within the building and only heat the
minimum necessary

I think that this is the approach common in *very* cold countries such as
Sweden and Finland. Many houses use 30cm of insulation and triple
glazing. They recycle the heat in the air using a heat exchanger to warm the
incoming cold air needed to keep the interior fresh. Some years back, but
I remember seeing a video/programme about a house where only a few
hundred watts was needed to maintain the interior temp at 22C with
outside temps at about -10. Often only body heat was needed.

Obviously this is way over the top for the UK (until the Gulf Stream
switches off of course) but it shows that good interior insulation is
a good solution if you can afford the loss of inside dimension. As I
said earlier I used this approach. I lost the thickness of two interior
block walls and cavities off my rooms. There were other reasons.
The new walls carry the loads so relieving the old outside ones that
are up to 230 years old. However it has been very effective. I use
about 4000 litres of oil for a large and generously heated house and
hot water with a sizable family.

Peter Scott