Simon Gardner wrote:

In article ,
derek wrote:


for the few days per year it is so uncomfortably hot.


You mis-typed. "For the several months of the year it is so uncomfortably
hot."

I acknowledge you may not have as much heat-generating electronics around
as I do. But a ceiling fan is merely better than nothing. It certainly
isn't adequate for getting on for half the year. I prefer a temperature of
21 or lower. Air con is a must. I wouldn't be without it.


I prefer a temperature of 21C or higher frankly.

30C is getting a bit on the warm side for me if its humid, 40C if it
isn't. My limits are around 40C humid 50C not.

John Rumm wrote:

Grunff wrote:

But given that we have CH, I don't think I'll be using it to heat.


I wonder how the "recovered" heat works out cost wise compared to the CH
since the heat recovery is supposed to be more than 100% efficent... if
it is cheap enough (and you have a TRV on the radiator) it might be
worth using.



Its very efficient. I can;t remember details, but heat pumps are - even
with teh cost of electricity to pump the heat - reckoned to be overall
better than burning the oil.

One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

I would love to give it a try one day.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

What a strange little person you are.

I am not little.

I suppose Jack the Ripper was a
Victorian Aircon engineer then?

The Americans had a/c long before us using ice, hence a/c units are rated
in
tons, which comes from tons of ice used. Jack the Ripper was American
and
would be have been exposed to a/c. The a/c is the connection. I'm
afraid
we have potential serial killers on this ng. They should be stopped from
doing what they are doing before it is too late.

I think one sacrifice would be perfectly adequate

Maxie, are you volunteering?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Sleeping at night in a tin topped house with no insulation was equally
hard.

But possible.
Ive been in full humidity 40C + conditions (Mexico), and near Death
Valley, been up and about by day peaking around 55C and at night
something like 50C without aircon.

Have you walked to the North Pole barefoot as well?

And in this country you whinge if it gets over 30C.

Wimps the lots of them!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

In article ,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

It doesn't get unbearably hot until the low 40'sC.

You mis-typed. You should have written: "It doesn't get unbearably hot
until 25."

But that's not the point. The point is what is pleasant to live and work
in? The answer to that is about 21 degrees and 40 per cent humidity.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Its very efficient. I can;t remember details, but heat pumps are - even
with teh cost of electricity to pump the heat - reckoned to be overall
better than burning the oil.

This depends on the efficiency of the heat pump. The are rated by their
COP.

One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

I would love to give it a try one day.

A US university did this. They heated a building during the winter by
extracting heat from the ground. This turned to near permafrost by the heat
pump(s). They then cooled the building during the summer by extracting the
coolth from the permafrost they created.

The a/c in question is an air-to-air heat exchanger, which generally is the
most inefficient. Ground or water sourced, tend to be the most efficient
setups. With an air to water heat pump, when the outside temps are around
freezing they usually only supply warmish water.

The cost of running them is slightly more than a good natural gas condensing
boiler, but the problem is the "very" high capital cost of installation, the
main reason they have not been taken up, except in special conditions.
Enthusiasts tend to install heat pumps. The government does not promote
them as they use electricity which is very efficient from burnt fuel in the
power station to point of use. If heat pumps were taken up en-mass the
greenhouse gasses would rocket. The government is attempting to get people
to use high efficiency, low emission, natural gas burning at point of use.
They also have faith in the new MicroGen Stirling boiler electricity/heat
boiler. Much more efficient all around burning gas at point of use. Unless
we adopt the Swedish method of local combined heat and power, power
stations. This is unlikely as the UK centralised power generation after
WW2, and is investing heavily in wind power.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jesus H.

YOU try working in a tin topped uninsulated factory unit in
Johannesburg, with intenal temperatures goind up top 40C, and the
heatsink you left in the sun, measuring 55C BEFORE YOU EVEN SWITCHED IT ON.

Wusses the lot of you.

:-)

This isn't a survival exercise you know...

I'm sure we could cope very well without CH - one or two wood
stoves would keep enough of the house warm enough through the
winter. But we *choose* to have CH because it makes life that
little bit more pleasant.

My reasons for installing aircon are very similar. I've survived
perfectly well without it for many years, and I'm sure I'd
continue to do so. But since there are new two of us working
from home, it seemed sensible to spend a little money on
something which will ultimately make the summer more pleasant.

--
Grunff

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

It doesn't get unbearably hot until the low 40'sC.

You mis-typed. You should have written: "It doesn't get unbearably hot
until 25."

He is talking about normal people. The figure is 40.

But that's not the point. The point is what is pleasant to live and work
in? The answer to that is about 21 degrees and 40 per cent humidity.

Wrong! usually about 22-23C. And I have had to address the office
thermostat wars. I took them away.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Simon Gardner wrote:

In article ,
derek wrote:


for the few days per year it is so uncomfortably hot.


You mis-typed. "For the several months of the year it is so uncomfortably
hot."

I acknowledge you may not have as much heat-generating electronics around
as I do. But a ceiling fan is merely better than nothing. It certainly
isn't adequate for getting on for half the year. I prefer a temperature of
21 or lower. Air con is a must. I wouldn't be without it.


I prefer a temperature of 21C or higher frankly.

30C is getting a bit on the warm side for me if its humid, 40C if it
isn't. My limits are around 40C humid 50C not.

24-25 about 40 RH is my limit for productivity. Ain't human variation
wonderful?

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

We are in the process of working with architects to design a new learning
resource centre (library ). One plan put forward is a huge amount of
concrete below ground to use as heat store. During the day hot air will
blow through it and during the night this heat will be removed.

Sound fun (might be perfectly standard these days I guess). Will be
interesting to see how well it copes with 1000 PCs...

Darren

"dmc" wrote in message ...
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

We are in the process of working with architects to design a new learning
resource centre (library ). One plan put forward is a huge amount of
concrete below ground to use as heat store. During the day hot air will
blow through it and during the night this heat will be removed.

Sound fun (might be perfectly standard these days I guess). Will be
interesting to see how well it copes with 1000 PCs...

Darren,

It is called an air-core slab. The disadvantage is that nasties may
inhabit and mould may grow in the passageways down there. See "The Passive
Solar House" by James Kachadorian, in which the air-core slab is central to
the design, using it as an return plenum for a forced air system. The
system can be used to heat and cool.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:48:23 +0000, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
derek wrote:

for the few days per year it is so uncomfortably hot.

You mis-typed. "For the several months of the year it is so uncomfortably
hot."

I acknowledge you may not have as much heat-generating electronics around
as I do. But a ceiling fan is merely better than nothing.

I'll acknowledge it's in that ballpark but they start at less than 20
quid and can be fitted in place of a light fitting.

It certainly
isn't adequate for getting on for half the year. I prefer a temperature of
21 or lower. Air con is a must. I wouldn't be without it.


It's because you've become accustomed to having it. ;-)

Having said all that my "home office" is really my car and I always
get a car with aircon. Oddly it does not seem to affect the fuel
consumption at all.

DG

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

YOU try working in a tin topped uninsulated factory unit in
Johannesburg, with intenal temperatures goind up top 40C, and the
heatsink you left in the sun, measuring 55C BEFORE YOU EVEN SWITCHED IT ON.

This is rapidly declining into I can stand it hotter than you pi$$ing
contest... ;-)

Ive been in full humidity 40C + conditions (Mexico), and near Death
Valley, been up and about by day peaking around 55C and at night
something like 50C without aircon.

And in this country you whinge if it gets over 30C.

Much depends on what you are acclimatised to... I worked with some
students from Oman once - in mid summer when we all though it was
uncomfortably hot they, were still wearing jumpers.

Another point to consider - is just because you may be able to function
in a 40 deg environment - it is not going to do the reliability of the
computer equipment you are working with much good.

Wusses the lot of you.

Not really - if you don't like the heat / humidity - can use air con to
fix it - and accept the implications (cost etc) of using it then what is
the problem?

Personally I find once the temperature gets to 30 ish in my office I can
no longer work properly on concentrate for long periods, so I become
less productive. That costs me money - using air con in those
circumstances is not just because I am a wuss (which I freely admit - so
what?), it is also economic good sense.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"derek" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:48:23 +0000, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
derek wrote:

for the few days per year it is so uncomfortably hot.

You mis-typed. "For the several months of the year it is so uncomfortably
hot."

I acknowledge you may not have as much heat-generating electronics around
as I do. But a ceiling fan is merely better than nothing.

I'll acknowledge it's in that ballpark but they start at less than 20
quid and can be fitted in place of a light fitting.

It certainly
isn't adequate for getting on for half the year. I prefer a temperature
of
21 or lower. Air con is a must. I wouldn't be without it.


It's because you've become accustomed to having it. ;-)

Having said all that my "home office" is really my car and I always
get a car with aircon. Oddly it does not seem to affect the fuel
consumption at all.

Do some tests and the a/c uses about 10% more fuel. You get nothing for
nothing.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

YOU try working in a tin topped uninsulated factory unit in
Johannesburg, with intenal temperatures goind up top 40C, and the
heatsink you left in the sun, measuring 55C BEFORE YOU EVEN SWITCHED IT
ON.

This is rapidly declining into I can stand it hotter than you pi$$ing
contest... ;-)

Just wait and see then try to outdo each other when stating how poor they
were! Which one lived in the shoebox?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"dmc" wrote in message ...
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

We are in the process of working with architects to design a new learning
resource centre (library ). One plan put forward is a huge amount of
concrete below ground to use as heat store. During the day hot air will
blow through it and during the night this heat will be removed.

Sound fun (might be perfectly standard these days I guess). Will be
interesting to see how well it copes with 1000 PCs...

Where is this building?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

"derek" wrote in message
Having said all that my "home office" is really my car and I always
get a car with aircon. Oddly it does not seem to affect the fuel
consumption at all.

DG

On aircon cars that I'd hired in the past it was always very noticable that
the engine note on idle changed when the aircon was switched on suggesting
that there was a noticeable load being switched in.

Early in the year I tried a Seat something or other that had a dash computer
that gave Km per Litre (it wasn't a UK car) averaged over some time this
dropped from around 9 to around 7. something when the aircon was switched
on.
Sorry to be vague but I was only playing with it out of idle curiosity.
mikej

"derek" wrote in message
.. .


Providing you're actually moving, rather than sat in traffic, the
improved aerodynamics engendered by having the windows wound up pays
for the increased fuel consumption caused by the aircon.

The results I report earlier were with the windows up in both cases.

Besides, I can afford it, so I don't care. I wouldn't buy a [main] car
without aircon, now.

And I agree with the sentiment even though I'm sure it does cost more per
mile to drive with the aircon on.
mikej

In article ,
"mike.james" wrote:

Besides, I can afford it, so I don't care. I wouldn't buy a [main] car
without aircon, now.

And I agree with the sentiment even though I'm sure it does cost more per
mile to drive with the aircon on.

I wouldn't buy any car without aircon. Nor would I live for long in a house
without it.

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
"mike.james" wrote:

Besides, I can afford it, so I don't care. I wouldn't buy a [main] car
without aircon, now.

And I agree with the sentiment even though I'm sure it does cost more
per
mile to drive with the aircon on.

I wouldn't buy any car without aircon. Nor would I live for long in a
house
without it.

Have you seen a doctor? I'm serious. Anyone in this country that can't
live in a house without a/c is either:

1) An Eskimo
2) Has health problems of some sort.

The NHS is free, so no excuse.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:17:32 -0000, "mike.james"
wrote:


"derek" wrote in message
Having said all that my "home office" is really my car and I always
get a car with aircon. Oddly it does not seem to affect the fuel
consumption at all.

DG

On aircon cars that I'd hired in the past it was always very noticable that
the engine note on idle changed when the aircon was switched on suggesting
that there was a noticeable load being switched in.

My wife's Ford Escort does that. My last Fiat Ulysse, and my current
Toyota Previa don't. This might be something to do with the way the
A/c switches on/off (on all time ?) dunno.

Early in the year I tried a Seat something or other that had a dash computer
that gave Km per Litre (it wasn't a UK car) averaged over some time this
dropped from around 9 to around 7. something when the aircon was switched
on.

Current Previa (Diesel) has fuel consumption display, no change
detectable at around 6.7.

DG

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Its very efficient. I can;t remember details, but heat pumps are - even
with teh cost of electricity to pump the heat - reckoned to be overall
better than burning the oil.


This depends on the efficiency of the heat pump. The are rated by their
COP.


One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

I would love to give it a try one day.


A US university did this. They heated a building during the winter by
extracting heat from the ground. This turned to near permafrost by the heat
pump(s). They then cooled the building during the summer by extracting the
coolth from the permafrost they created.

The a/c in question is an air-to-air heat exchanger, which generally is the
most inefficient. Ground or water sourced, tend to be the most efficient
setups. With an air to water heat pump, when the outside temps are around
freezing they usually only supply warmish water.

The cost of running them is slightly more than a good natural gas condensing
boiler, but the problem is the "very" high capital cost of installation, the
main reason they have not been taken up, except in special conditions.
Enthusiasts tend to install heat pumps. The government does not promote
them as they use electricity which is very efficient from burnt fuel in the
power station to point of use.


Not very actually. About 50% efficient.

If heat pumps were taken up en-mass the
greenhouse gasses would rocket.


No they would go down. Since all you are doing is moving teh heat from
where it isn't beeded in winter - underground - to where it is.
Essentially you are using suprlus summer heat to heat the house in
winter, at about a similar or less cost than buring oil to do it, since
the electricity used by the pump is about half the equivalent that would
be be needed to heat the house. More efficient heat pumps could get
better net gains in energy usage.



The government is attempting to get people
to use high efficiency, low emission, natural gas burning at point of use.


That's because teh government is full of spin merchants, not scientists.
Lile you, they have to take their socks off to count beyond ten...


They also have faith in the new MicroGen Stirling boiler electricity/heat
boiler. Much more efficient all around burning gas at point of use. Unless
we adopt the Swedish method of local combined heat and power, power
stations. This is unlikely as the UK centralised power generation after
WW2, and is investing heavily in wind power.


Anyine who wants can install a CHP plant and drive the grid with spare
capacity. The bigger problem is working out how to charge people for it.
Scandinavia uses this a lot in 'council flats' because they dictate the
terms and can ensure proper maintenance.


The econmomies of scale of individual CHP sets are not so good.

Heat pumps ought to be excellent, especailly for heating rather than
cooling. The heat generated by the pump goes into heating the water
anyway, and the majority of the heat comes from the sun more or less
directly. In towms where there is excess heat generated the ambient
temperature is higher and te sli warmer - thus can be pumped into the
houses. Oveal a much better use of energy than direct heating all round.

Windmills are complete ******** IMHO. Huge, ugly, variable output and
not a very great deal of it compared to the actual area used.

You could take an aerea a hundred or a thousand times smaller than all
the windfarms, doig a big hole, line it with forreo concrete and tip the
resiude from 100 nuclear sets down it and leave it for the next 10,000
years at far better energy efficiency etc. etc.

But by far the biggest gains in energy and fossil fuel usage would come
from staying at home and working there. Probably 50% of all oil burnt
goes into private cars. That plus removing speed humps, traffic lights,
congestion charges, and speed limits would actually release the roads
for vital transport and save enormous amounts of fuel.











---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jesus H.

YOU try working in a tin topped uninsulated factory unit in
Johannesburg, with intenal temperatures goind up top 40C, and the
heatsink you left in the sun, measuring 55C BEFORE YOU EVEN SWITCHED
IT ON.


Wusses the lot of you.


:-)

This isn't a survival exercise you know...

I'm sure we could cope very well without CH - one or two wood stoves
would keep enough of the house warm enough through the winter. But we
*choose* to have CH because it makes life that little bit more pleasant.

My reasons for installing aircon are very similar. I've survived
perfectly well without it for many years, and I'm sure I'd continue to
do so. But since there are new two of us working from home, it seemed
sensible to spend a little money on something which will ultimately make
the summer more pleasant.



Only kidding Grunff. I can't function below 20C. The other half goes
limp above 23C. Balancing the heating system is getting to be a bit of
an art form :-)

Simon Gardner wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Simon Gardner wrote:


In article ,
derek wrote:



for the few days per year it is so uncomfortably hot.


You mis-typed. "For the several months of the year it is so uncomfortably
hot."

I acknowledge you may not have as much heat-generating electronics around
as I do. But a ceiling fan is merely better than nothing. It certainly
isn't adequate for getting on for half the year. I prefer a temperature of
21 or lower. Air con is a must. I wouldn't be without it.


I prefer a temperature of 21C or higher frankly.

30C is getting a bit on the warm side for me if its humid, 40C if it
isn't. My limits are around 40C humid 50C not.


24-25 about 40 RH is my limit for productivity. Ain't human variation
wonderful?



I agree, if you are talking about UK productivity. We bustle around a lot.

In hot countrues, peiple learn to adopt a plodding style, which is just
as productive. They walk slowly, arms away from their sides and legs
slightly apart, to let air circulate. Its a different way of life.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Only kidding Grunff. I can't function below 20C. The other half goes
limp above 23C. Balancing the heating system is getting to be a bit of
an art form :-)

My God! That's exactly what we're like. The eternal battle for
control of the bedroom TRV...

The odd thing is, I really think I like my room temperature
higher in the winter than I do in the summer. The living room is
at about 22C, and that's just right for me at the moment. I
suspect that come summertime, the aircon will go on as soon as
the temperature creeps above 21C!

Maybe it's just a humidity thing.

--
Grunff

derek wrote:


Having said all that my "home office" is really my car and I always
get a car with aircon. Oddly it does not seem to affect the fuel
consumption at all.


Someone once pointed out that the loss of aerodynamic efficiency ona car
with opened windows equalled the losses due to having aircon on.

I do remember switching off the aircon in my old Nissan 200sx, to get

another 15bhp during overtaking...



Ther is alos another effect, when driving in aircon, its so nice that
teh urge to rush doesn't come into it as much. One just potters along at
a steady 100 instead of 130 and saves even more fuel. On the autobahns
of course....:-)

Cars in hot climates do need aircon tho - internal temps can reach well
over 50C in even modest sun.




DG

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

This depends on the efficiency of the heat pump. The are rated by their
COP.

One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

I would love to give it a try one day.

A US university did this. They heated a building during the winter by
extracting heat from the ground. This turned to near permafrost by the
heat
pump(s). They then cooled the building during the summer by extracting
the
coolth from the permafrost they created.

The a/c in question is an air-to-air heat exchanger, which generally is
the
most inefficient. Ground or water sourced, tend to be the most
efficient
setups. With an air to water heat pump, when the outside temps are
around
freezing they usually only supply warmish water.

The cost of running them is slightly more than a good natural gas
condensing
boiler, but the problem is the "very" high capital cost of installation,
the
main reason they have not been taken up, except in special conditions.
Enthusiasts tend to install heat pumps. The government does not promote
them as they use electricity which is very inefficient from burnt fuel
in the
power station to point of use.

Not very actually. About 50% efficient.

Les than that at about 35-40%

If heat pumps were taken up en-mass the
greenhouse gasses would rocket.

No they would go down.

If all gas boilers were replaced by heat pumps, electricity useage would
rocket!!!! Electricity is a very dirty and ineffecient fuel overall. The
UKs greenhouse gasses would rocket up.

snip drivel


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

In article , IMM wrote:

Sound fun (might be perfectly standard these days I guess). Will be
interesting to see how well it copes with 1000 PCs...

Where is this building?

Chatham

Darren

Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Only kidding Grunff. I can't function below 20C. The other half goes
limp above 23C. Balancing the heating system is getting to be a bit of
an art form :-)


My God! That's exactly what we're like. The eternal battle for control
of the bedroom TRV...

The odd thing is, I really think I like my room temperature higher in
the winter than I do in the summer.


There is a perfectly simple explanation for that, and that is relative
humidity. I am not a very fat person really, tho fatter than I was, and
I can lose a LOT of heat by sweating - especially if its dry ...women
are better padded mostly, and don't. In summer, teh interanl unheated RH
is up well above 50%, my fl;oorboards swell, and I feel hot.

In winetr, the air is heated, RH comes down, my floor boards shrink
again, and I feel cold.


I can handle dry deser air up to 50C, but tropical rainforest at 40C is
subjectively worse.

The living room is at about 22C, and
that's just right for me at the moment. I suspect that come summertime,
the aircon will go on as soon as the temperature creeps above 21C!


Yes. IU run the car climate control at about 21C in summer with the sun
pouring in, and 22-23C in winter...a good trick in the car is to use
aircon and the heater to dry the air out in summer.



Maybe it's just a humidity thing.

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


This depends on the efficiency of the heat pump. The are rated by their
COP.


One can envisage a huge underground heat or cool bank, that heats the
ground in summer, and freezes it rock solid in winter, being used to
heat and cool a house.

I would love to give it a try one day.

A US university did this. They heated a building during the winter by
extracting heat from the ground. This turned to near permafrost by the

heat

pump(s). They then cooled the building during the summer by extracting

the

coolth from the permafrost they created.

The a/c in question is an air-to-air heat exchanger, which generally is

the

most inefficient. Ground or water sourced, tend to be the most

efficient

setups. With an air to water heat pump, when the outside temps are

around

freezing they usually only supply warmish water.

The cost of running them is slightly more than a good natural gas

condensing

boiler, but the problem is the "very" high capital cost of installation,

the

main reason they have not been taken up, except in special conditions.
Enthusiasts tend to install heat pumps. The government does not promote
them as they use electricity which is very inefficient from burnt fuel

in the

power station to point of use.

Not very actually. About 50% efficient.


Les than that at about 35-40%



Drivel. That is typical of what is installed in 3rd world countries
burning coal. Modern sets, especially gas turbones followed by steam
turbines driven of the exhaust are easily 50%, and some have reached
much better than that in full production.



If heat pumps were taken up en-mass the
greenhouse gasses would rocket.

No they would go down.


If all gas boilers were replaced by heat pumps, electricity useage would
rocket!!!! Electricity is a very dirty and ineffecient fuel overall. The
UKs greenhouse gasses would rocket up.

snip drivel


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:01:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
"mike.james" wrote:

Besides, I can afford it, so I don't care. I wouldn't buy a [main] car
without aircon, now.

And I agree with the sentiment even though I'm sure it does cost more
per
mile to drive with the aircon on.

I wouldn't buy any car without aircon. Nor would I live for long in a
house
without it.

Have you seen a doctor? I'm serious. Anyone in this country that can't
live in a house without a/c is either:

1) An Eskimo
2) Has health problems of some sort.

The NHS is free, so no excuse.

Yes there is. It's almost worthless.



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Jerry.
writes

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

It plays havoc with the body's metabolism. That is why in the USA they
revert to serial killing, which crept into the UK when we started this
a/c
thing. So, overall a/c is dangerous to society at large because:

1) The needless electricity used adds to global warming.
2) Serial killing is now more common.
3) It stops obese people from loosing weight (obese people, who are a
menace to society too, overheat too much).
4) This obesity takes its toll on the NHS with self inflicted fatty
diseases.
5) Obese people give off far too much flatulence adding to the ozone
layer
destruction.
6) Obese people don't walk driving everywhere adding to global
warming.

So a/c units are bad all around.


Talk about ROFLO.....

You make a village idiot sound like Albert Einstein ! :~(

Don't talk that way about my mate John. He is always trying (very)
--

If it's a private conversation please take it to email - or did you miss off
the smiley ?

In message , IMM
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

What a strange little person you are.

I am not little.

I suppose Jack the Ripper was a
Victorian Aircon engineer then?

The Americans had a/c long before us using ice, hence a/c units are rated
in
tons, which comes from tons of ice used. Jack the Ripper was American
and
would be have been exposed to a/c. The a/c is the connection. I'm
afraid
we have potential serial killers on this ng. They should be stopped from
doing what they are doing before it is too late.

I think one sacrifice would be perfectly adequate

Maxie, are you volunteering?

Yes, you put your head on the block and I'll do the chopping
--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes
IMM wrote:


It plays havoc with the body's metabolism. That is why in the USA they
revert to serial killing, which crept into the UK when we started this a/c
thing.


My God. Is this guy for real? The secret of Myra Hindly is out. She had
AIR CONDITIONING!!!


No that was hair conditioner


I challenge you to walk 10 miles in 85% humidity and 40C plus
temperatures anyway.

Walk?

Try jogging it carrying an inflated inner tube - no don't ask
--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Grunff wrote:


You try working in a home office with several PCs running.


Jesus H.

YOU try working in a tin topped uninsulated factory unit in
Johannesburg, with intenal temperatures goind up top 40C, and the
heatsink you left in the sun, measuring 55C BEFORE YOU EVEN SWITCHED IT
ON.

I remember complaining to my boss that I could no longer work as my
sweat was making the ink run on the circuit I was drawing.

"No problem" he said. "Today we drink beer instead?"

So we did.

Sleeping at night in a tin topped house with no insulation was equally
hard.

But possible.
Ive been in full humidity 40C + conditions (Mexico), and near Death
Valley, been up and about by day peaking around 55C and at night
something like 50C without aircon.

And in this country you whinge if it gets over 30C.


Wusses the lot of you.

As I said
--
geoff

In message , mike.james
writes

"derek" wrote in message
Having said all that my "home office" is really my car and I always
get a car with aircon. Oddly it does not seem to affect the fuel
consumption at all.

DG

On aircon cars that I'd hired in the past it was always very noticable that
the engine note on idle changed when the aircon was switched on suggesting
that there was a noticeable load being switched in.

When I lived in Indonesia, the air con in my Kijang was good at cutting
in just as I was pulling away from traffic lights resulting in an
embarrassing stall


Early in the year I tried a Seat something or other that had a dash computer
that gave Km per Litre (it wasn't a UK car) averaged over some time this
dropped from around 9 to around 7. something when the aircon was switched
on.
Sorry to be vague but I was only playing with it out of idle curiosity.
mikej



--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
derek wrote:


Having said all that my "home office" is really my car and I always
get a car with aircon. Oddly it does not seem to affect the fuel
consumption at all.


Someone once pointed out that the loss of aerodynamic efficiency ona
car with opened windows equalled the losses due to having aircon on.

I do remember switching off the aircon in my old Nissan 200sx, to get
another 15bhp during overtaking...



Ther is alos another effect, when driving in aircon, its so nice that
teh urge to rush doesn't come into it as much. One just potters along
at a steady 100 instead of 130 and saves even more fuel. On the
autobahns of course....:-)

So that's you is it ?


Cars in hot climates do need aircon tho - internal temps can reach well
over 50C in even modest sun.


--
geoff

In message , dmc writes
In article , IMM wrote:

Sound fun (might be perfectly standard these days I guess). Will be
interesting to see how well it copes with 1000 PCs...

Where is this building?

Chatham

And it's not been vandalised yet?

Is this at the uni ?
--
geoff

In article , geoff wrote:
In message , dmc writes

Where is this building?

Chatham

And it's not been vandalised yet?

:-)

Well, its pretty much a shell at the moment anyway :-)


Is this at the uni ?

Hmmm...

Not sure how much I am meant to be saying about this at the moment...

A quick hunt on our website produces:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/studying/why/vision.html

Mind you, that artists impression on there looks nothing like the plans
that we are working from (in fact, I'm not entirely sure what this
picture is of!!)

The building that may have the concrete block underground is the LRC (old
drill hall). An artist impression of the inside of it is on

http://www.gre.ac.uk/pr/pressreleases/927.htm

I'm sure it will all be lovely :-)

Darren

In message , dmc writes

Is this at the uni ?

Hmmm...

Not sure how much I am meant to be saying about this at the moment...

A quick hunt on our website produces:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/studying/why/vision.html

What, and destroy the Drunken Sailor?


Mind you, that artists impression on there looks nothing like the plans
that we are working from (in fact, I'm not entirely sure what this
picture is of!!)

The building that may have the concrete block underground is the LRC (old
drill hall).

Big concrete block !


http://www.gre.ac.uk/pr/pressreleases/927.htm

I'm sure it will all be lovely :-)

Darren


--
geoff