"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:54:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

If fuel rises, which it will as
cheap energy is coming to an end,
then this is meaningless and 450-500mm
is the optimum.

That's a separate issue. Can you suggest
a rate at which fuel prices would need to
rise to justify that?

Hold a finger to the air. Fuel prices will rise.
They always do. Also
enviro taxes will start to bite.

This is arm waving.

But arm waving with realism. All I read is that energy will become more
scarce and more expensive. As it becomes more exp[expensive so will
insulation too. best pack it in now while it is cheap enough. You will
not
regret it in the future.

This is all qualitative stuff.



Yes we know all of that, but the figures are
not solid. Do you have energy price
projections for 5 and 10 years
time? You can make some guesses and
take a punt, but that is all it is.

See above.

In this instance, the cost of totally filling the roof with insulation
if you want is not significant so it doesn't matter.

My point was that focussing on this alone is misleading.

Who said focus on this alone?I never. I said pack in as much as you can
while it is cheap as it will not be, neither will energy, in the future.
probably sooner than later too.

At some point it may well be interesting to do this, but at a saving
of a tenner a year, when several hundred quids worth of heat is going
out through the walls means that the focus should be on that now and
situations where there is no roof insulation at all.

You missed it again. It is not a mater of either or. It is cheap to pack
the loft full of insulation and super easy to do so. So do it. The walls
leaking heat is another matter, and of course should be tackled eventually.
To do the walls is not easy and expensive. because the walls leak heat more
than the loft does not mean you ignore the loft, or insulate it to the level
of then walls. You have strange logic.

You haven't made a convincing case at all.

Very convincing. Based on pure logic.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:03:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Andy Hall wrote:



Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going
to
the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, if the walls and
window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless.


IMM's uni only taught him about straight lines and binary thinking.

Its no good talking to him about curves and maxima/minima.

The only curves he ever takes notice of, are on page 3.

And when he switched to the socialist worker, he lost track of even
those.


So you studied to build bridges and design electronic boards all in
one
course. My, oh my. Was this skule in Toytown.

Yes.
It was in Cambridge.

A bulldozer should be run through the lot of it.

Philistine......

And through there as well?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

In article , Dean Richard
Benson writes
I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting
the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put
insulation down. However I have some questions about it.

Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in
insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists
are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to
ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there.

Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types,
such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool is
a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than
crown insulation. (b&q special offer).

I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool :
(http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is
unbelievable.

Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received.

Thanks.

Whilst we are on the subject on loft insulation what's the consensus for
insulating in, around and over the cold water tank? I popped into the
loft the other day to set the traps for our annual tiny footed visitors
and thought I must do something with the tank, at the moment I have the
tank insulated and up on a platform with the patch of loft insulation
removed underneath it, I was thinking of boxing the whole thing in with
ply and some polystyrene sheet fixed to that to form an insulated box.

TIA
--
David

wrote in message
...
In article , Dean Richard
Benson writes
I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting
the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put
insulation down. However I have some questions about it.

Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in
insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists
are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to
ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there.

Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types,
such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool
is
a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than
crown insulation. (b&q special offer).

I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool :
(http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is
unbelievable.

Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received.

Thanks.

Whilst we are on the subject on loft insulation what's the consensus for
insulating in, around and over the cold water tank? I popped into the
loft the other day to set the traps for our annual tiny footed visitors
and thought I must do something with the tank, at the moment I have the
tank insulated and up on a platform with the patch of loft insulation
removed underneath it, I was thinking of boxing the whole thing in with
ply and some polystyrene sheet fixed to that to form an insulated box.

The usual method is to have a tank jacket and the loft insulation curved up
and to the sides of the tank.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

I was thinking of boxing the whole thing in with ply and some
polystyrene sheet fixed to that to form an insulated box.

If you're going to that much trouble, keep the insulation removed beneath it
and tie the boxing in insulation to the surrounding loft insulation. That
makes the cold water tank part of the "warm" side of the house.

Christian.

In article , IMM
writes

wrote in message
.. .
In article , Dean Richard
Benson writes
I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting
the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put
insulation down. However I have some questions about it.

Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in
insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists
are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to
ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there.

Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types,
such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool
is
a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than
crown insulation. (b&q special offer).

I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool :
(http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is
unbelievable.

Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received.

Thanks.

Whilst we are on the subject on loft insulation what's the consensus for
insulating in, around and over the cold water tank? I popped into the
loft the other day to set the traps for our annual tiny footed visitors
and thought I must do something with the tank, at the moment I have the
tank insulated and up on a platform with the patch of loft insulation
removed underneath it, I was thinking of boxing the whole thing in with
ply and some polystyrene sheet fixed to that to form an insulated box.

The usual method is to have a tank jacket and the loft insulation curved up
and to the sides of the tank.

The tank has a jacket but is about 4' in the air on its platform which
is why I thought of putting insulated panels around its open support
structure, I suppose the real question is whether the insulation below
needs to be still left out if the tank itself is insulated well enough
--
David

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:34:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




You missed it again. It is not a mater of either or. It is cheap to pack
the loft full of insulation and super easy to do so. So do it. The walls
leaking heat is another matter, and of course should be tackled eventually.
To do the walls is not easy and expensive. because the walls leak heat more
than the loft does not mean you ignore the loft, or insulate it to the level
of then walls.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Insulate it to the level of the walls
which is a U value of 0.25 to 0.35 for a place with cavity walls and
insulation. That equates to 100-150mm of glass fibre, not
350mm-600mm.

On an older property, the U value of the walls can easily be 2.0.

There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:16:24 +0000,
wrote:



The tank has a jacket but is about 4' in the air on its platform which
is why I thought of putting insulated panels around its open support
structure, I suppose the real question is whether the insulation below
needs to be still left out if the tank itself is insulated well enough


I would insulate with sheets around the platform as you describe,
David. That way there is a small heat source from the house. I
suppose you could put a small amount of insulation on the ceiling
below the tank if you box in like this, but there is probably nothing
much to be gained.

If you simply put a thicker insulation around and under the tank, it
will simply reduce the rate at which the water cools in the tank when
the loft is very cold. In effect you are then gambling with how
long that is going to take.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:28:12 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Insulate it to the level of the walls
which is a U value of 0.25 to 0.35 for a place with cavity walls and
insulation. That equates to 100-150mm of glass fibre, not
350mm-600mm.

I think I am seeing your point.

On an older property, the U value of the walls can easily be 2.0.

Yep, my house is 250 years old, so really thick walls, but certainly no
cavity.

There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.

Is there a way to find out the current heat loss through a wall?

Thanks

Dean

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:24:50 +0000, Dean Richard Benson
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:28:12 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Insulate it to the level of the walls
which is a U value of 0.25 to 0.35 for a place with cavity walls and
insulation. That equates to 100-150mm of glass fibre, not
350mm-600mm.

I think I am seeing your point.

On an older property, the U value of the walls can easily be 2.0.

Yep, my house is 250 years old, so really thick walls, but certainly no
cavity.

This will have a U value better than that which is for a 220mm solid
brick wall with plaster. A 335mm one is at about 1.6 W/m^2.K

For other materials it's necessary to know the construction of the
wall. If there are several components to it then the effect can be
summed mathematically using reciprocals but if there is air inside
that can make a fair difference even before insulation is added.
For example for a cavity wall of two 105mm brick layers with 25mm air
gap, the U value drops from 2.0 to 1.5.
As soon as insulation is put into the gap it falls to around 0.5




There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.

Is there a way to find out the current heat loss through a wall?

There is a reasonably rigorous way of doing it in the Approved
Document to the Building Regulations for Part L1.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...reg_600288.pdf

although the examples work on how much insulation is needed to achieve
a certain U value for typical constructions.

There are also various references to U values on the internet if you
search with Google.

If the wall is very thick, then you will also have the issue of
thermal mass - in other words the amount of heat required to raise the
temperature of the masonry itself. This has an impact on how
quickly the air warms from cold, since to begin with, until steady
state is achieved, you are also having to warm the walls.
This is a separate issue but can influence heating design and
controls.



Thanks

Dean

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:45:58 -0000, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

I didn't say it wasn't unless the space lost matters. That can be
worth a lot more than £10 a year.

My point was that there are much larger losses of heat.

Take the same house of 7m square and 5m high. Take out 10% for
windows.

The total wall area is 125 sq m.

Under the worst case conditions of temperature outside of -3 and
inside of 21 degrees then the numbers work out as follows:-

Solid walls U=2.0
===============

Heat loss = 125 x 24 x 2 = 6kW

Cavity walls with no insulation U=1.5
==============================

Heat loss = 125 x 24 x 1.5 = 4.5kW

Cavity walls with insulation U=0.55
=============================

Heat loss = 125 x 24 x 0.55 = 1.65kW


Under the typical 10 degree average outside temperature the figures
become 3.25kW, 2.44kW and 894W respectively

So looking at cavity insulation or not in the cavity wall, there is an
energy saving of 1546W.

At a gas unit price of 1.4p and assuming 24*365 heating at 10 degrees
outside (which was the basis of the £10-12 figure) then this comes to
a saving of £190 per annum.

Typical costs for cavity insulating a house are about £1000 so the
payback is in 5 years rather than the the 10-20 years of incremental
loft insulation.

The difference is obvious and significant.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Know any sheep farmers? Sheep wool is virtually worthless, unless you have *LOTS*.

Rick

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:16:10 +0000, Dean Richard Benson wrote:
I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting
the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put
insulation down. However I have some questions about it.

Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in
insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists
are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to
ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there.

Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types,
such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool is
a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than
crown insulation. (b&q special offer).

I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool :
(http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is
unbelievable.

Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received.

Thanks.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:34:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You missed it again. It is not a mater of either or. It is cheap to
pack
the loft full of insulation and super easy to do so. So do it. The
walls
leaking heat is another matter, and of course should be tackled
eventually.
To do the walls is not easy and expensive. because the walls leak heat
more
than the loft does not mean you ignore the loft, or insulate it to the
level
of then walls.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You have totally missed it! Wow!

There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.

Missed it again. Look back at my post the upper floor/loft ceilings
having a large area. That is half the house.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"Dean Richard Benson" wrote in
message newsan.2004.01.22.17.24.49.501186@spamlessharker hill.co.uk...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:28:12 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Insulate it to the level of the walls
which is a U value of 0.25 to 0.35 for a place with cavity walls and
insulation. That equates to 100-150mm of glass fibre, not
350mm-600mm.

I think I am seeing your point.

Don't. It is totally wrong.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

If that extra costs £100, then that is 10%. very god. Then if energy costs
rise then even greater return.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:45:58 -0000, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

I didn't say it wasn't unless the space lost matters. That can be
worth a lot more than £10 a year.

My point was that there are much larger losses of heat.

Take the same house of 7m square and 5m high.

NO! Take a house of 7m square and 5m high and split it in two and calulate
it separtely. Then adding a lot of insulation in the loft makes one half of
the house, the upper floors, very cheap to run and very comfirtable in
winter and summer.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:06:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:34:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You missed it again. It is not a mater of either or. It is cheap to
pack
the loft full of insulation and super easy to do so. So do it. The
walls
leaking heat is another matter, and of course should be tackled
eventually.
To do the walls is not easy and expensive. because the walls leak heat
more
than the loft does not mean you ignore the loft, or insulate it to the
level
of then walls.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You have totally missed it! Wow!

There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.

Missed it again. Look back at my post the upper floor/loft ceilings
having a large area. That is half the house.


If you think that, there is something wrong with your arithmetic.

---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:12:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:45:58 -0000, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

I didn't say it wasn't unless the space lost matters. That can be
worth a lot more than £10 a year.

My point was that there are much larger losses of heat.

Take the same house of 7m square and 5m high.

NO! Take a house of 7m square and 5m high and split it in two and calulate
it separtely. Then adding a lot of insulation in the loft makes one half of
the house, the upper floors, very cheap to run and very comfirtable in
winter and summer.


I did this assuming different upstairs temperatures. It doesn't
alter the point in any significant way.

In fact if the upstairs is cooler as is typically recommended, then
there is even less point in your argument because the heat loss is
less anyway.




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:09:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

If that extra costs £100, then that is 10%. very god. Then if energy costs
rise then even greater return.


Qualitative argument. I illustrated how greater savings and higher
ROI could be achieved.



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:06:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:34:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You missed it again. It is not a mater of either or. It is cheap to
pack
the loft full of insulation and super easy to do so. So do it. The
walls
leaking heat is another matter, and of course should be tackled
eventually.
To do the walls is not easy and expensive. because the walls leak
heat
more
than the loft does not mean you ignore the loft, or insulate it to the
level
of then walls.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You have totally missed it! Wow!

There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.

Missed it again. Look back at my post the upper floor/loft ceilings
having a large area. That is half the house.


If you think that, there is something wrong with your arithmetic.

A lot is right with the logic though.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:12:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:45:58 -0000, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save
about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be
done.

I didn't say it wasn't unless the space lost matters. That can be
worth a lot more than £10 a year.

My point was that there are much larger losses of heat.

Take the same house of 7m square and 5m high.

NO! Take a house of 7m square and 5m high and split it in two and
calulate
it separtely. Then adding a lot of insulation in the loft makes one half
of
the house, the upper floors, very cheap to run and very comfirtable in
winter and summer.


I did this assuming different upstairs temperatures. It doesn't
alter the point in any significant way.

It does!!!!!!!!!! The upstairs then is much more well insulated, warmer and
consumes les fuel to heat. The upstairs room benefit greatly by heavy
insulation in the loft.

In fact if the upstairs is cooler as is typically recommended, then
there is even less point in your argument because the heat loss is
less anyway.

You have strange logic.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:09:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

If that extra costs £100, then that is 10%. very god. Then if energy
costs
rise then even greater return.

Qualitative argument. I illustrated how greater savings and higher
ROI could be achieved.

You illustrated a flawed one.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Missed it again. Look back at my post the upper floor/loft ceilings
having a large area. That is half the house.


If you think that, there is something wrong with your arithmetic.

A lot is right with the logic though.


I prefer to base logical argument on hard facts.


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:02:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:12:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:45:58 -0000, "G&M" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save
about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be
done.

I didn't say it wasn't unless the space lost matters. That can be
worth a lot more than £10 a year.

My point was that there are much larger losses of heat.

Take the same house of 7m square and 5m high.

NO! Take a house of 7m square and 5m high and split it in two and
calulate
it separtely. Then adding a lot of insulation in the loft makes one half
of
the house, the upper floors, very cheap to run and very comfirtable in
winter and summer.


I did this assuming different upstairs temperatures. It doesn't
alter the point in any significant way.

It does!!!!!!!!!! The upstairs then is much more well insulated, warmer and
consumes les fuel to heat. The upstairs room benefit greatly by heavy
insulation in the loft.

Do I need to do the sums again for you to demonstrate the point?


In fact if the upstairs is cooler as is typically recommended, then
there is even less point in your argument because the heat loss is
less anyway.

You have strange logic.

I suppose logic must seem strange to you.......




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:04:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:09:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be done.

If that extra costs £100, then that is 10%. very god. Then if energy
costs
rise then even greater return.

Qualitative argument. I illustrated how greater savings and higher
ROI could be achieved.

You illustrated a flawed one.

Read the post again. I don't believe there is a mistake in the
arithmetic. If you believe there is then please correct the numbers
and provide the figures.


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Missed it again. Look back at my post the upper floor/loft
ceilings
having a large area. That is half the house.

If you think that, there is something wrong with your arithmetic.

A lot is right with the logic though.

I prefer to base logical argument on hard facts.

Then you must agree with me then.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

It does!!!!!!!!!! The upstairs then is much more well insulated, warmer
and
consumes less fuel to heat. The upstairs rooms benefit greatly by heavy
insulation in the loft.

Do I need to do the sums again for
you to demonstrate the point?

Well do them by having a before and after of the ground floor and the 1st
floor. Then see how much fuel is saved in each. I bet the 1st floor saves
more fuel. Then there is superior cooling of the 1st floor and higher
comfort conditions.

You have strange logic.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:04:26 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:09:50 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"G&M" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save
about
£10 a year.

That us actually a good return on the investment and so should be
done.

If that extra costs £100, then that is 10%. very god. Then if energy
costs
rise then even greater return.

Qualitative argument. I illustrated how greater savings and higher
ROI could be achieved.

You illustrated a flawed one.

Read the post again. I don't believe there is a mistake in the
arithmetic. If you believe there is then please correct the numbers
and provide the figures.

Read my posts again, about how you approach it.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:40:43 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Missed it again. Look back at my post the upper floor/loft
ceilings
having a large area. That is half the house.

If you think that, there is something wrong with your arithmetic.

A lot is right with the logic though.

I prefer to base logical argument on hard facts.

Then you must agree with me then.

With two affirmative words:

Yeah. Right.




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:44:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

It does!!!!!!!!!! The upstairs then is much more well insulated, warmer
and
consumes less fuel to heat. The upstairs rooms benefit greatly by heavy
insulation in the loft.

Do I need to do the sums again for
you to demonstrate the point?

Well do them by having a before and after of the ground floor and the 1st
floor. Then see how much fuel is saved in each. I bet the 1st floor saves
more fuel. Then there is superior cooling of the 1st floor and higher
comfort conditions.

It doesn't use it in the first place if the temperature is lower.

For the ground floor, the heat calculation is generally what passes to
the first floor and may be taken off of the local heating requirement
of the first floor.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:45:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




You illustrated a flawed one.

Read the post again. I don't believe there is a mistake in the
arithmetic. If you believe there is then please correct the numbers
and provide the figures.

Read my posts again, about how you approach it.


I prefer to stick to using information with demonstrable and known
figures.

What-if scenarios are a separate topic.


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:40:43 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Missed it again. Look back at my post the upper floor/loft
ceilings
having a large area. That is half the house.

If you think that, there is something wrong with your arithmetic.

A lot is right with the logic though.

I prefer to base logical argument on hard facts.

Then you must agree with me then.

With two affirmative words:

Yeah. Right.

That's better.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:45:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You illustrated a flawed one.

Read the post again. I don't believe there is a mistake in the
arithmetic. If you believe there is then please correct the numbers
and provide the figures.

Read my posts again, about how you approach it.

I prefer to stick to using information with demonstrable and known
figures.

Then you agree with me then.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:07:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:45:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You illustrated a flawed one.

Read the post again. I don't believe there is a mistake in the
arithmetic. If you believe there is then please correct the numbers
and provide the figures.

Read my posts again, about how you approach it.

I prefer to stick to using information with demonstrable and known
figures.

Then you agree with me then.

No.


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:07:15 +0000, IMM wrote:

I think I am seeing your point.
Don't. It is totally wrong.

Funny thing is tho, I can see your point too, I just don't know who is
right.

What I do know, is that while I have the opportunity, I will spend as much
as I feel comfortable and/or can afford at the moment on sticking in loft
insulation into the loft.

Although I realise there is also heat being lost through the walls and
windows in each room, I dont have the time or finances to spend at this
moment in increasing the insulation for that.

However when I replace the windows, and/or decide to add insulation
into/to the walls, I will adopt the same route as I have done for the
loft, ie, insulate as much as I can afford at the time.

My goal throughout this insulation in my house is to increase comfort, not
so much to save cost. Therefore return on investment for the insulation
isn't as important to me as having a comfortable house. This is within
reason of course, I do have a limited budget

I hope the above explains my angle.

Thanks to both IMM and Andy Hall for their points too.

Dean

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:07:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:45:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You illustrated a flawed one.

Read the post again. I don't believe there is a mistake in the
arithmetic. If you believe there is then please correct the numbers
and provide the figures.

Read my posts again, about how you approach it.

I prefer to stick to using information with demonstrable and known
figures.

Then you agree with me then.

No.

You have just contradicted yourself.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:02:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:07:41 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:45:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

You illustrated a flawed one.

Read the post again. I don't believe there is a mistake in the
arithmetic. If you believe there is then please correct the numbers
and provide the figures.

Read my posts again, about how you approach it.

I prefer to stick to using information with demonstrable and known
figures.

Then you agree with me then.

No.

You have just contradicted yourself.

Nope.


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Dean Richard Benson" wrote in
message newsan.2004.01.22.17.24.49.501186@spamlessharker hill.co.uk...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:28:12 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Insulate it to the level of the walls
which is a U value of 0.25 to 0.35 for a place with cavity walls and
insulation. That equates to 100-150mm of glass fibre, not
350mm-600mm.

I think I am seeing your point.

On an older property, the U value of the walls can easily be 2.0.

Yep, my house is 250 years old, so really thick walls, but certainly no
cavity.

There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.

Is there a way to find out the current heat loss through a wall?

Thanks

Dean

I was going to suggest the Knauf U value calculator normally available as a
trial version from
http://www.knaufinsulation.co.uk/ but it is unavailable at the moment as it
is apparently being updated.

It may be worthwhile checking the site in a week or so if you \re still
interpreted.

cheers

David

"David Moodie" wrote in message
...

"Dean Richard Benson" wrote in
message newsan.2004.01.22.17.24.49.501186@spamlessharker hill.co.uk...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:28:12 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Insulate it to the level of the walls
which is a U value of 0.25 to 0.35 for a place with cavity walls and
insulation. That equates to 100-150mm of glass fibre, not
350mm-600mm.

I think I am seeing your point.

On an older property, the U value of the walls can easily be 2.0.

Yep, my house is 250 years old, so really thick walls, but certainly no
cavity.

There is very little point in reducing the U value for the roof below
0.25 in the context of that.

Is there a way to find out the current heat loss through a wall?

Thanks

Dean

I was going to suggest the Knauf U value calculator normally available as
a
trial version from
http://www.knaufinsulation.co.uk/ but it is unavailable at the moment as
it
is apparently being updated.

It may be worthwhile checking the site in a week or so if you \re still
interpreted.


The point is that the house has to be viewed as upper and lower floors. the
difference in the upper floors is marked in most houses.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004