"IMM" wrote in message
...

BA in computer science. That is a BSc.


Universities such as Cambridge and the other one always award a BA.

"G&M" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

BA in computer science. That is a BSc.

Universities such as Cambridge and the other one always award a BA.

But the snotty ones don't count.

In article , bystander
writes
Gentlemen, let me say, this thread has me howling.
ROFL is pretty much true here.
I wouldn't have believed that insulation was such a fun thing

I hadn't appreciated that insulation was the art of insulting people.

John
--
John Rouse

In article , G&M
writes

Universities such as Cambridge and the other one always award a BA.

The Open University.

J.
--
John Rouse

"John Rouse" wrote in message
...
In article , bystander
writes
Gentlemen, let me say, this thread has me howling.
ROFL is pretty much true here.
I wouldn't have believed that insulation was such a fun thing

I hadn't appreciated that insulation was the art of insulting people.

Mr bystander is one of our regulars pretending to be someone else.

"John Rouse" wrote in message
...
I hadn't appreciated that insulation was the art of insulting people.
You've never heard of insultion-tape?

"IMM" wrote in message
...
Mr bystander is one of our regulars pretending to be someone else.
Of course

Universities such as Cambridge and the other one always award a BA.

The Open University.

Wrong, I'm afraid.

Christian.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:40:07 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

The Open University.

Wrong, I'm afraid.

I did an OU course several years ago and the end result would have
been a BA. Has this changed?

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

I did an OU course several years ago and the end result would have
been a BA. Has this changed?

Yes. The preponderance of scientific, engineering or arts units determines
if the result is a BA, BSc or BEng. There are also named degrees that
require you to complete specific named courses. You can get a BA (Honours)
History if you take A220, A221, AA312, AA303 and a few other options, for
example.

Christian.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:24:27 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

Yes. The preponderance of scientific, engineering or arts units determines
if the result is a BA, BSc or BEng. There are also named degrees that
require you to complete specific named courses. You can get a BA (Honours)
History if you take A220, A221, AA312, AA303 and a few other options, for
example.

Okay, thanks for that. I started a BA course in the early 80's - did
one year (M101), figured it was too hard investing the amount of time
required and trying to build a career at the same time.

Now that the career is a fond memory maybe I should think
again.....wonder what the yearly fee is? I seem to recall it was about
£600 20 years ago.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

wonder what the yearly fee is? I seem to recall it was about
£600 20 years ago.

There is no yearly fee. Each course has a cost which varies with the
resources required to teach and examine it. Arts courses are cheaper than
science ones. Cost compare very favourably with normal universities last
time I looked.

Christian.

PoP wrote in message ...
Okay, thanks for that. I started a BA course in the early 80's - did
one year (M101), figured it was too hard investing the amount of time
required and trying to build a career at the same time.

Now that the career is a fond memory maybe I should think
again.....
When I was trying to get IT work, all I got offered was wallpapering. Now
that I'm an odd job man people have started asking me to do Access
databases. Weird eh?
I'm currently doing one for a CORGI fitter so I'll make damned sure I
overcharge him and leave lots of loose ends so that he can leave me
ansaphone messages that I won't reply to.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:33:04 -0000, "stuart noble"
wrote:

When I was trying to get IT work, all I got offered was wallpapering. Now
that I'm an odd job man people have started asking me to do Access
databases. Weird eh?

IT jobs were as common as rocking horse pooh last year. It seems to be
picking up again now - I am getting a constant stream of IT agencies
asking if I'm available to take on work.

I really don't want to go back to sitting behind a keyboard 5 days a
week. I may be earning a lot less than I was, but my quality of life
has improved substantially.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:34 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

Here's my house as an exercise:-

snip details

Heat loss - downstairs
======================
Floor = 70 x 0.3 x 24 = 504 W
Walls = (27*2.1 - 5.9 - 3) * 2.0 * 24 ~ 2295 W
+( 8*2.1 - 2.2 - 3) * 0.6 * 24 = 167 W
Walls Total = 2462 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 24 = 254 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 24 = 538 W
Windows Total = 792 W

Doors = 6 * 3 * 24 = 432 W
Ceiling = 70 * 1.6 * 3 = 336 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.1 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 24 = 1896 W

Downstairs losses = 6422 W

Heat loss - upstairs


I noted that the negative loss (ie gain) from upstairs to downstairs
via the floor/ceiling, whilst initially noted, then became shown as an
actual loss:-

====================
Floor = 70 x 1.6 x -3 = 336 W
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

Walls = (27*2.2 - 5.9) * 2.0 * 21 ~ 2247 W
+( 8*2.2 - 2.2) * 0.6 * 21 = 194 W
Walls Total = 2441 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 21 = 222 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 21 = 471 W
Windows Total = 693 W

Ceiling = 70 * 0.5 * 21 = 735 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.2 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 21 = 1746 W

Upstairs losses = 5951 W

So this becomes = 5279 W

Total losses for house = 12.3kW

And this = 11.6Kw


Downstairs losses are 51.9% of total losses from house.

Now 56%


Just for accuracy's sake!


--
Regards,

Will.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:03:03 +0000, Will wrote:




I noted that the negative loss (ie gain) from upstairs to downstairs
via the floor/ceiling, whilst initially noted, then became shown as an
actual loss:-

Most of the radiator manufacturer calculator programs deal with
internal losses but not internal gains - they ignore them.

Generally though, the amount is small unless one has deliberately
large temperature differences between rooms.

For radiator sizing purposes it is probably better to ignore that heat
gain happens anyway and go for a more conservative approach.
Of course the radiator manufacturers sell a larger radiator as well.
Perhaps that's why they take this approach to the calculations.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Will" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:34 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

Here's my house as an exercise:-

snip details

Heat loss - downstairs
======================
Floor = 70 x 0.3 x 24 = 504 W
Walls = (27*2.1 - 5.9 - 3) * 2.0 * 24 ~ 2295 W
+( 8*2.1 - 2.2 - 3) * 0.6 * 24 = 167 W
Walls Total = 2462 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 24 = 254 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 24 = 538 W
Windows Total = 792 W

Doors = 6 * 3 * 24 = 432 W
Ceiling = 70 * 1.6 * 3 = 336 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.1 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 24 = 1896 W

Downstairs losses = 6422 W

Heat loss - upstairs


I noted that the negative loss (ie gain) from upstairs to downstairs
via the floor/ceiling, whilst initially noted, then became shown as an
actual loss:-

====================
Floor = 70 x 1.6 x -3 = 336 W
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

Walls = (27*2.2 - 5.9) * 2.0 * 21 ~ 2247 W
+( 8*2.2 - 2.2) * 0.6 * 21 = 194 W
Walls Total = 2441 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 21 = 222 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 21 = 471 W
Windows Total = 693 W

Ceiling = 70 * 0.5 * 21 = 735 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.2 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 21 = 1746 W

Upstairs losses = 5951 W

So this becomes = 5279 W

Total losses for house = 12.3kW

And this = 11.6Kw


Downstairs losses are 51.9% of total losses from house.

Now 56%


Just for accuracy's sake!


--
Regards,

Will.

I noticed that after I posted but I followed Andrew Gilligan's example
and kept quiet until after the enquiry :-)

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"Will" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:34 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

Here's my house as an exercise:-

snip details

Heat loss - downstairs
======================
Floor = 70 x 0.3 x 24 = 504 W
Walls = (27*2.1 - 5.9 - 3) * 2.0 * 24 ~ 2295 W
+( 8*2.1 - 2.2 - 3) * 0.6 * 24 = 167 W
Walls Total = 2462 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 24 = 254 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 24 = 538 W
Windows Total = 792 W

Doors = 6 * 3 * 24 = 432 W
Ceiling = 70 * 1.6 * 3 = 336 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.1 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 24 = 1896 W

Downstairs losses = 6422 W

Heat loss - upstairs


I noted that the negative loss (ie gain) from upstairs to downstairs
via the floor/ceiling, whilst initially noted, then became shown as an
actual loss:-

====================
Floor = 70 x 1.6 x -3 = 336 W
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

Walls = (27*2.2 - 5.9) * 2.0 * 21 ~ 2247 W
+( 8*2.2 - 2.2) * 0.6 * 21 = 194 W
Walls Total = 2441 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 21 = 222 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 21 = 471 W
Windows Total = 693 W

Ceiling = 70 * 0.5 * 21 = 735 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.2 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 21 = 1746 W

Upstairs losses = 5951 W

So this becomes = 5279 W

Total losses for house = 12.3kW

And this = 11.6Kw


Downstairs losses are 51.9% of total losses from house.

Now 56%


Just for accuracy's sake!


--
Regards,

Will.

I noticed that after I posted but I followed Andrew Gilligan's example
and kept quiet until after the enquiry :-)

Did you get the main bits wrong too?

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"Will" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:34 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

Here's my house as an exercise:-

snip details

Heat loss - downstairs
======================
Floor = 70 x 0.3 x 24 = 504 W
Walls = (27*2.1 - 5.9 - 3) * 2.0 * 24 ~ 2295 W
+( 8*2.1 - 2.2 - 3) * 0.6 * 24 = 167 W
Walls Total = 2462 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 24 = 254 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 24 = 538 W
Windows Total = 792 W

Doors = 6 * 3 * 24 = 432 W
Ceiling = 70 * 1.6 * 3 = 336 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.1 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 24 = 1896 W

Downstairs losses = 6422 W

Heat loss - upstairs


I noted that the negative loss (ie gain) from upstairs to
downstairs
via the floor/ceiling, whilst initially noted, then became shown
as an
actual loss:-

====================
Floor = 70 x 1.6 x -3 = 336 W
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

Walls = (27*2.2 - 5.9) * 2.0 * 21 ~ 2247 W
+( 8*2.2 - 2.2) * 0.6 * 21 = 194 W
Walls Total = 2441 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 21 = 222 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 21 = 471 W
Windows Total = 693 W

Ceiling = 70 * 0.5 * 21 = 735 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.2 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 21 = 1746 W

Upstairs losses = 5951 W

So this becomes = 5279 W

Total losses for house = 12.3kW

And this = 11.6Kw


Downstairs losses are 51.9% of total losses from house.

Now 56%


Just for accuracy's sake!


--
Regards,

Will.

I noticed that after I posted but I followed Andrew Gilligan's
example
and kept quiet until after the enquiry :-)

Did you get the main bits wrong too?



Which main bits?

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"Will" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:00:34 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

Here's my house as an exercise:-

snip details

Heat loss - downstairs
======================
Floor = 70 x 0.3 x 24 = 504 W
Walls = (27*2.1 - 5.9 - 3) * 2.0 * 24 ~ 2295 W
+( 8*2.1 - 2.2 - 3) * 0.6 * 24 = 167 W
Walls Total = 2462 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 24 = 254 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 24 = 538 W
Windows Total = 792 W

Doors = 6 * 3 * 24 = 432 W
Ceiling = 70 * 1.6 * 3 = 336 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.1 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 24 = 1896 W

Downstairs losses = 6422 W

Heat loss - upstairs


I noted that the negative loss (ie gain) from upstairs to
downstairs
via the floor/ceiling, whilst initially noted, then became shown
as an
actual loss:-

====================
Floor = 70 x 1.6 x -3 = 336 W
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

Walls = (27*2.2 - 5.9) * 2.0 * 21 ~ 2247 W
+( 8*2.2 - 2.2) * 0.6 * 21 = 194 W
Walls Total = 2441 W

Windows = 2.2 * 4.8 * 21 = 222 W
+5.9 * 3.8 * 21 = 471 W
Windows Total = 693 W

Ceiling = 70 * 0.5 * 21 = 735 W
Air changes = 70 * 2.2 * 0.36 * 1.5 * 21 = 1746 W

Upstairs losses = 5951 W

So this becomes = 5279 W

Total losses for house = 12.3kW

And this = 11.6Kw


Downstairs losses are 51.9% of total losses from house.

Now 56%


Just for accuracy's sake!


--
Regards,

Will.

I noticed that after I posted but I followed Andrew Gilligan's
example
and kept quiet until after the enquiry :-)

Did you get the main bits wrong too?

Which main bits?

The bits which matter, just like Gilligan. Gilligan has now been banished
to an Island.

Did you get the main bits wrong too?

Which main bits?

The bits which matter, just like Gilligan. Gilligan has now been
banished
to an Island.


In that case, no.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

Did you get the main bits wrong too?

Which main bits?

The bits which matter, just like Gilligan. Gilligan has now been
banished
to an Island.


In that case, no.

Then you have no need to resign. The fat slob should have been sacked.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

Did you get the main bits wrong too?

Which main bits?

The bits which matter, just like Gilligan. Gilligan has now been
banished
to an Island.


In that case, no.

Then you have no need to resign. The fat slob should have been
sacked.



That's handy - I'll tell my boss...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

Did you get the main bits wrong too?

Which main bits?

The bits which matter, just like Gilligan. Gilligan has now been
banished to an Island.

In that case, no.

Then you have no need to resign.
The fat slob should have been
sacked.

That's handy - I'll tell my boss...

Keep it above board, like Blair did, and no problems.

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:51:21 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

I noticed that after I posted but I followed Andrew Gilligan's example
and kept quiet until after the enquiry :-)

When can we expect your resignation?

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:51:21 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

I noticed that after I posted but I followed Andrew Gilligan's
example
and kept quiet until after the enquiry :-)

When can we expect your resignation?

I have been vindicated by the completely fair, open and balanced
investigation held by the IMM.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:51:21 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

I noticed that after I posted but I followed Andrew Gilligan's
example
and kept quiet until after the enquiry :-)

When can we expect your resignation?

I have been vindicated by the completely fair, open and balanced
investigation held by the IMM.

Look again.

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:15:27 -0000, "Neil Jones"
wrote:

I have been vindicated by the completely fair, open and balanced
investigation held by the IMM.

Well that must be reassuring then

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

Andy Hall wrote in message . ..
On 23 Jan 2004 07:12:33 -0800, (timegoesby)
wrote:

"Neil Jones" wrote in message ...
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

These are quite typical numbers, Neil.

I guess that this is an older house with a new extension?

Yes. The old part is 500 year old, or so. The extension was bulit in
1995.

It's interesting to note that the losses are close to being the same
upstairs and downstairs.

Just to add my 2p. I insulated my loft to 150mm. I had lots of
insulation over so doubled up over the main bedroom where I sleep.
This bedroom is warmer in winter, and thankfully last summer a lot
cooler.

As compared with having nothing? It would be. That is certainly
worth doing but was not the point.

I removed old tatty 100mm glassfibre insulation to 150mm Rockwool and
300mm over the main bedroom. The main bedroom was certainly cooler
than the other bedrooms in August.

I could always sleep while neighbours complained they were too
hot to sleep in similar houses to mine.

With how much insulation?

When I have time I will do
the whole loft to at least 300mm. If I can get a decent deal maybe
thicker. To me it will be worth it. I don't know about economics as I
haven't kept a watch on the gas bills. To me that is not the real
issue during a hot summer.

That's fine if you want to do it, but there is nothing to support that
just doubling the insulation like this is going to make any
significant difference to what you have now.

It is certainly "a lot" cooler in summer and warmer in winter and that
is what matters to me. There must savings in heating bills. I can't
put a figure on being cool as I never paid a/c bills before I put the
insulation in.




Quite.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

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.

Insulation would only become more expensive if there was really a very
limited supply of raw materials for it. There's not really, is there? So
if energy gets much more expensive there'll be more demand for
insulation material, which in turn means: higher volume of manufacture
- economy of scale - cheaper product; bigger market - more
competition - cheaper product; bigger market - more incentive for R&D
to find better and cheaper insulating products - cheaper and/or better
product.

"Steve Toledo-Brown" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

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.

Insulation would only become more expensive if there was really a very
limited supply of raw materials for it. There's not really, is there? So
if energy gets much more expensive there'll be more demand for
insulation material, which in turn means: higher volume of manufacture
- economy of scale - cheaper product; bigger market - more
competition - cheaper product; bigger market - more incentive for R&D
to find better and cheaper insulating products - cheaper and/or better
product.


I've missed the beginning of this thread so I apologise if I am going over
old ground, but please could you tell me if this is reasonable.
I have had a company in this morning who have quoted me on fitting loft
insulation. We have a reasonably small sized end of terraced three
bedroomed house and they have quoted 10 inches of insulation. The price
that they have quoted is £125.00, is this amount about right, we are in the
London area (don't know if that makes a difference!)

Thanks in advance

"Steve Toledo-Brown" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

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.

Insulation would only become more expensive if there was really a very
limited supply of raw materials for it. There's not really, is there? So
if energy gets much more expensive there'll be more demand for
insulation material, which in turn means: higher volume of manufacture
- economy of scale - cheaper product; bigger market - more
competition - cheaper product; bigger market - more incentive for R&D
to find better and cheaper insulating products - cheaper and/or better
product.

Rockwool is made by melting rocks. This is energy intensive.

"Sarah Hodge" wrote in message
...

"Steve Toledo-Brown" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

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.

Insulation would only become more expensive if there was really a very
limited supply of raw materials for it. There's not really, is there? So
if energy gets much more expensive there'll be more demand for
insulation material, which in turn means: higher volume of manufacture
- economy of scale - cheaper product; bigger market - more
competition - cheaper product; bigger market - more incentive for R&D
to find better and cheaper insulating products - cheaper and/or better
product.


I've missed the beginning of this thread so I apologise if I am going over
old ground, but please could you tell me if this is reasonable.
I have had a company in this morning who have quoted me on fitting loft
insulation. We have a reasonably small sized end of terraced three
bedroomed house and they have quoted 10 inches of insulation. The price
that they have quoted is £125.00, is this amount about right, we are in
the
London area (don't know if that makes a difference!)

Thanks in advance

250mm. Sound a decent price to me and a decent thickness too.