"." wrote in message
...
In article , Roger
writes
The message .com
from contains these words:

Thought of another one for new builds generally: enough height in the
loft to allow conversion later. The extra cost is minimal, just another
2' of bricks.

If you do that you also need a properly structured roof instead of the
matchstick maze new builds usually get these days.

That's straightforward enough though, even if you want to go the trussed
rafter route you can specify attic trusses, and you could prepare it
with joists, floorboards, electricity etc ready for the conversion, it
wont add a lot to the new build cost. I know of two bungalows that were
built with that all done ready for a conversion

Very true Mr ., very true. It is knowing what is available.

IMM wrote:
That is why it is best to have two low to mid priced washing machines
running different coloured loads, and no down time if one needs attention.

With each one fed by its own combi boiler, no doubt?

David

On 19 Jan 2005 13:53:56 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andy Hall writes:
On 19 Jan 2005 11:39:10 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


Like dishwashers, the detergents are different as well, also seeming
to be old technology.

So my mother, who lives in the US tells me. She says American washing
machines are only marginally better than banging stuff on a rock.

Arguably though, the European method of having clothes tumbling and
falling on top of each other in the drum with small amounts of water
is more like the rock thing than swirling them in lots of water, a
l'Americain.







--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:54:48 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



That is why it is best to have two low to mid priced washing machines
running different coloured loads, and no down time if one needs attention.


Perhaps you could get them each with a built in combi and miniature
North Sea gas field to run them self sufficiently.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
That is why it is best to have two low to mid priced washing machines
running different coloured loads, and no down time if one needs
attention.

With each one fed by its own combi boiler, no doubt?

David

Good thinking.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:54:48 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

That is why it is best to have two low to mid priced washing machines
running different coloured loads, and no down time if one needs
attention.

Perhaps you could get them each with a built in combi and miniature
North Sea gas field to run them self sufficiently.

I like this sort of thinking...encouraging.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:34:41 -0000, "Mike" wrote:

Steps aren't allowed now either.

That's a shame, it would have meant that this historic industrial
building would have been demolished and replaced by yet more identikit
flats instead of converted into a house; since it is on a slab of
concrete higher than the surrounding land and the only place for a ramp
would have prevented the space to turn a car round that the council
insisted on as part of planning permission for the original conversion
in around 1980.

--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

"John Rumm" wrote
| It is possible to get a decent top loader ... The downside is that you
| can't have worktop over them.

panto Oh yes you can.

You have a lift-up section of worktop with flushed trapdoor/counter hinges
on one side and an angled cut on the other.

Owain

"Nick Atty" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:34:41 -0000, "Mike" wrote:

Steps aren't allowed now either.

That's a shame, it would have meant that this historic industrial
building would have been demolished and replaced by yet more identikit
flats instead of converted into a house; since it is on a slab of
concrete higher than the surrounding land and the only place for a ramp
would have prevented the space to turn a car round that the council
insisted on as part of planning permission for the original conversion
in around 1980.

Yep. It isn't only Part P that's a load of b*****ks

John Rumm wrote:

It is possible to get a decent top loader that is basically like
conventional automatic with a drum mounted on a horizontal axis, but
with a trap door in the side of the drum. Hence you open the lid, rotate
the drum round so the trap is at the top and open it. They have the
advantage of only being approx 400mm wide, and also the drum can be
supported on bearings on both ends of the axel. The downside is that you
can't have worktop over them.
Philips and Whirlpool did some... not sure who still makes them though.


These are very common in Italy. Probably standard output from all the
Italian factories, just not imported here -- 'no demand for it' I
suppose. The capacity is small ut useful for a one person household.
They also seem to take a very long time to wash a load.


--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

Huge wrote:
So my mother, who lives in the US tells me. She says American washing
machines are only marginally better than banging stuff on a rock.


But their tumble dryers are infinitely superior in performance to any
we've experienced in Europe. I'm convinced that it's the bigger diameter
drum and the higher hot air temperature that makes most clothes come out
in a state which do not need further crease removal. The new Maytag
dryer/warm air drying cabinet is an object of desire in this household,
but I can't face the problems of fitting it into the kitchen (or
excavating a basement!).

Regards
Capitol

"Nick Atty" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:34:41 -0000, "Mike" wrote:

Steps aren't allowed now either.

That's a shame, it would have meant that this historic industrial
building would have been demolished
.........and replaced with proper modern house that was designed and built
for people not cows.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Capitol writes:


Huge wrote:
So my mother, who lives in the US tells me. She says American washing
machines are only marginally better than banging stuff on a rock.

Aren't they all still top-loaders ? Sure I saw a Usenet group discussing
this and all the European people there thinking they were on another planet.


But their tumble dryers are infinitely superior in performance to any
we've experienced in Europe.

You reckon?

The only American white goods I have any time for are refrigerators.

Only for the size. Looks are awful. Why can't they produce an American
'fridge' with European styling. Siemens gave it a try but I really don't
want the rounded unpainted aluminium look.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:17:02 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
Capitol writes:


Huge wrote:
So my mother, who lives in the US tells me. She says American washing
machines are only marginally better than banging stuff on a rock.

Aren't they all still top-loaders ? Sure I saw a Usenet group discussing
this and all the European people there thinking they were on another planet.

Maytag do one with an angled drum which is something more akin to a
European design. It's still a monster though.



But their tumble dryers are infinitely superior in performance to any
we've experienced in Europe.

You reckon?

The only American white goods I have any time for are refrigerators.

Only for the size. Looks are awful. Why can't they produce an American
'fridge' with European styling. Siemens gave it a try but I really don't
want the rounded unpainted aluminium look.

I have a Maytag one with stainless steel finish giving it more of a
European than American look.

The internal design and performance are very good.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Huge wrote:

The only American white goods I have any time for are refrigerators.

Yes, I can agree within limits about this. However, when you try to
live with these, assuming you are talking about large fridge freezers,
you find that they are very deep back to front which gives positioning
problems. Also, the freezer sections are always very much smaller than
the huge! fridge section, which doesn't suit the older families, where
the children have left home, but keep returning with their families, to
see "what's in the freezer" that we can eat! Very few have pull out
drawers in the freezer section, which makes stacking/finding, things in
them a nightmare. My experience is that US fridges encourage storing too
much left over fast food for a few days before it is consigned to the
waste disposer! I've been looking for some years now for a fridge
freezer with the fridge smaller than the freezer and appropriate depth
to fit into a British kitchen. Even in US kitchens, you will normally
find that the front of the fridge projects beyond the front of the work
surface.

Regards
Capitol

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
The only American white goods I have any time for are refrigerators.

Only for the size. Looks are awful. Why can't they produce an American
'fridge' with European styling. Siemens gave it a try but I really don't
want the rounded unpainted aluminium look.

I have a Maytag one with stainless steel finish giving it more of a
European than American look.

The internal design and performance are very good.

Does it have squared off edges and no curvy bits ?

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:29:20 -0000, "Mike" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
The only American white goods I have any time for are refrigerators.

Only for the size. Looks are awful. Why can't they produce an American
'fridge' with European styling. Siemens gave it a try but I really don't
want the rounded unpainted aluminium look.

I have a Maytag one with stainless steel finish giving it more of a
European than American look.

The internal design and performance are very good.

Does it have squared off edges and no curvy bits ?


It's fairly square and simple.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:04:14 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



Huge wrote:

The only American white goods I have any time for are refrigerators.

Yes, I can agree within limits about this. However, when you try to
live with these, assuming you are talking about large fridge freezers,
you find that they are very deep back to front which gives positioning
problems. Also, the freezer sections are always very much smaller than
the huge! fridge section, which doesn't suit the older families, where
the children have left home, but keep returning with their families, to
see "what's in the freezer" that we can eat!

Certainly the freezer section in ours is smaller than the fridge, but
we only use it for short term storage anyway. We have a separate
freezer for longer term things.

The fridge is much more useful than a typical European one, and even
though the kids aren't around much any more, it gets good use. Having
individual temperature controls for the chiller drawers means that
things can be kept optimally for rather longer. We quite often
prepare something for dinner, then keep some of it back and modify it
for lunch the following day and perhaps freeze the rest.
So having a good amount of refrigerator space works well for us.


Very few have pull out
drawers in the freezer section, which makes stacking/finding, things in
them a nightmare.

I'd noticed that and we got one with pull out baskets both inside and
in the door which can be moved around, as well as being of different
sizes for different purposes.



My experience is that US fridges encourage storing too
much left over fast food for a few days before it is consigned to the
waste disposer!

I have a simple solution for that. Don't buy fast food.


I've been looking for some years now for a fridge
freezer with the fridge smaller than the freezer and appropriate depth
to fit into a British kitchen. Even in US kitchens, you will normally
find that the front of the fridge projects beyond the front of the work
surface.

Ours is certainly a bit deeper, but we were able to incorporate it
into the kitchen design to accomodate that.



Regards
Capitol


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

quisquiliae wrote:

These are very common in Italy. Probably standard output from all the
Italian factories, just not imported here -- 'no demand for it' I
suppose. The capacity is small ut useful for a one person household.
They also seem to take a very long time to wash a load.

The couple I saw take the same (or in fact slightly more) load as a
"normal" machine, no difference in the wash cycle either IIRC.

In fact, this is the sort of thing I had in mind:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...3736 374&rd=1


--
Cheers,

John.

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

I wonder why we dont see more of the spray idea. These washers have a
much moer open drum, more like gauze, and no water pool to dip the
clothes in. Instead the runoff is pumped back on top of the clothes, so
the only water in the sytem is that held in the clothes. Result, less
water and leccy use.

They were invented a while ago, but I dont see them around. Maybe when
the pat expires they'll become standard kit.


NT

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:29:30 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Nick Atty" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:34:41 -0000, "Mike" wrote:

Steps aren't allowed now either.

That's a shame, it would have meant that this historic industrial
building would have been demolished
........and replaced with proper modern house that was designed and built
for people not cows.

It was originally designed for machines. 1930s automatic switching
equipment - very rudimentary machine intelligence.

You'd have been right at home.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

Lurch wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 03:47:13 -0800, strung together
this:

snip while I go OT

NT,

Although it's nice that you are now posting in thread it's just as
annoying not having any quoted text in your replies. Just use a proper
newsreader for ****s sake or you're in the killfile.

I see this more and more with people using the (IMHO) broken, or at least
fundamentally flawed Google Groups beta. When they click the reply link it
simply lets them add text without providing the previous post for quoting.
The way to do it right is to click on the show options link by the post
header, and then reply that way. So in many cases I blame Google as much as,
if not more than, the actual poster.

The other killer (in some groups) is people responding via Google to threads
that are two or three years old, again without quoting. These people gain
all my ire, as even an idiot should be able to follow the entire thread and
read the date before replying.

Cheers
Clive

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:09:27 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
strung together this:


So in many cases I blame Google as much as,
if not more than, the actual poster.

There is that, but he's been told so it's not Googles fault now.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

Thanks for all the assistance have just caught up with this thread got a bit
messy half way.

Things that we are going to be considering a

Cellar, not for living.
Superinsulation,
Cat5 wiring

Just one Q's with superinsulation what kind of heating would you go for,
were just a bit concerned that the house will be cold, (We tend to like the
house warm)

"John Borrman" wrote
| Just one Q's with superinsulation what kind of heating would you
| go for, were just a bit concerned that the house will be cold,

In this month's Homebuilding and Renovating (or similar titled glossy)
there's a Super E (?) airtight house built to canadian standards which uses
ground source heat pump heating.

Owain

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:35:00 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:12:42 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Insulation under the floor can't be done afterwards. Insulation in walls
can't be done aftewards either. Rimming the foundations can.


Are you an expert on rimming of foundations?

LOL!

--
Frank Erskine

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"John Borrman" wrote
| Just one Q's with superinsulation what kind of heating would you
| go for, were just a bit concerned that the house will be cold,

In this month's Homebuilding and Renovating (or similar titled glossy)
there's a Super E (?) airtight house built to canadian standards which
uses
ground source heat pump heating.

Yeah - but Canadian electricity is cheap. I'd look at mains gas driven heat
pumps as these are a lot cheaper to run, albeit more noisily.

In message , Frank Erskine
writes
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:35:00 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:12:42 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Insulation under the floor can't be done afterwards. Insulation in walls
can't be done aftewards either. Rimming the foundations can.


Are you an expert on rimming of foundations?

LOL!

Can you laugh with a perforated tongue ?

--
geoff

Things that we are going to be considering a

Cellar, not for living.
Superinsulation,
Cat5 wiring

Just one Q's with superinsulation what kind of heating would you go
for,
were just a bit concerned that the house will be cold, (We tend to
like the
house warm)

Good opportunity to install a wall of solar flat plate space heating.
Excellant payback. Alt.solar-thermal can help there.


NT

"John Borrman" wrote in message
...
Thanks for all the assistance have just caught up with this thread got a
bit
messy half way.

Things that we are going to be considering a

Cellar, not for living.
Superinsulation,
Cat5 wiring

Just one Q's with superinsulation what
kind of heating would you go for,
were just a bit concerned that the house
will be cold, (We tend to like the
house warm)

If it is genuinely superinsulated (walls to U value 0.1ish) and air tight,
you will need a heat recovery ventilation unit. Uprate the ducting and have
either an electric duct heater battery or a wet copper coil heated by a
boiler which will also do the DHW. Forget underfloor heating as a
superinsulated, or just well insulated, buildings don't require it. With
electricity the capital cost is far lower for heating and DHW, than a gas
boiler, and no annual boiler maintenance costs to offset the electricity
costs. A boilers flue has to be taken through the roof in a solar house, so
to prevent a large cold bridge via the flue through the wall.

Also install solar DHW panels on the roof and shower waste heat recovery.
http://gfxtechnology.com Using these two, the cost of electricity is
substantially reduced for DHW, so making electricity competitive. A
superinsulated house requires so little heat that electricity can be used
with no large bills. Use an electric heat bank like the Pandora, which
requires no overflow or mains feed (no penetration of the outside walls with
overflow pipes). The heat bank may also heat the copper duct coil too, by
pumping hot water from the heat bank to the coil. Depends on what is
cheapest to install: copper coil or electric battery.

Well insulated houses can have the room temperature lowered without any
discomfort. Far less heat is being extracted from your body due to the high
insulation.

I would consider superinsulation for one minute and then go for it. Get the
basic shell right in insulation, thermal bridging and air tightness. All
the rest after those three are aesthetic toys in comparison. You can fit a
kitchen in later, but not change the insulation with major cost and
disruption.

Join the Selfbuild list or group. They are much more clued up on this.

The message
from "IMM" contains these words:

Well insulated houses can have the room temperature lowered without any
discomfort. Far less heat is being extracted from your body due to the high
insulation.

A scientific breakthrough?

To the accepted methods of heat transfer (conduction, convection and
radiation) we will have to add another to account for the remote action
of insulation. It will be only fair to call it the DIMM -
distance-insulation-magical margin.

OTOH it is much easier just to accept conventional wisdom that dIMM will
take a not entirely improbable notion, multiply its effect 100 fold and
then come up with a completely wrong explanation which he will
relentlessly promote in a vain attempt to wear down those who would
challenge his absurd pretensions.

--
Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "IMM" contains these words:

Well insulated houses can have the room temperature lowered without any
discomfort. Far less heat is being extracted from your body due to the
high
insulation.

A scientific

snip drivel

Babling misinformation.

"Roger" wrote in message

To the accepted methods of heat transfer (conduction, convection and
radiation) we will have to add another to account for the remote action
of insulation. It will be only fair to call it the DIMM -
distance-insulation-magical margin.

OTOH it is much easier just to accept conventional wisdom that dIMM will
take a not entirely improbable notion, multiply its effect 100 fold and
then come up with a completely wrong explanation which he will
relentlessly promote in a vain attempt to wear down those who would
challenge his absurd pretensions.

Poor thing, everyone needs a hobby. Why not indulge hIMM ...

Mary

--
Roger

Am I being stupid but wtf was Roger going on about

"John Borrman" wrote in message
...

Am I being stupid but wtf was Roger going on about

You are not stupid at all. Roger is not quite with us in many ways. Ignore
him.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...

"Roger" wrote in message

To the accepted methods of heat transfer (conduction, convection and
radiation) we will have to add another to account for the remote action
of insulation. It will be only fair to call it the DIMM -
distance-insulation-magical margin.

OTOH it is much easier just to accept conventional wisdom that dIMM will
take a not entirely improbable notion, multiply its effect 100 fold and
then come up with a completely wrong explanation which he will
relentlessly promote in a vain attempt to wear down those who would
challenge his absurd pretensions.

Poor thing, everyone needs a hobby.

Quite right Mary, Roger needs to do jigsaw puzzles 24/7.

Roger wrote:

The message from "IMM" contains these words:
Well insulated houses can have the room temperature lowered without any
discomfort. Far less heat is being extracted from your body due to the high
insulation.

A scientific breakthrough?

No, but in fairness to IMM his first sentence is correct (provided the
value of "lowered" is not excessive). The second sentence is also true,
except that "far less" is something of an exaggeration.

Better insulation implies higher surface temperatures at the walls,
which in turn, for any given air temperature, raises the mean radiant
temperature and thus environmental temperature. Comfort is related to a
combination of the air and radiant temperatures - not just the air
temperature. It's a common experience that a room containing a source
of radiant heat can feel quite cosy even though the air temperature is
quite low.

To the accepted methods of heat transfer (conduction, convection and
radiation) we will have to add another to account for the remote action
of insulation.

It's called radiation :-)

The law of diminishing returns will have come into play on this
particular effect though, well before you reach the 'superinsulation'
category.

--
Andy

The message
from Andy Wade contains these words:

The message from "IMM" contains these words:
Well insulated houses can have the room temperature lowered without any
discomfort. Far less heat is being extracted from your body due to
the high
insulation.

A scientific breakthrough?

No, but in fairness to IMM his first sentence is correct (provided the
value of "lowered" is not excessive). The second sentence is also true,
except that "far less" is something of an exaggeration.


I suspect the value of 'lowered' is very small indeed but the 2nd
proposition is untrue and what's more doesn't follow from the first.

Better insulation implies higher surface temperatures at the walls,
which in turn, for any given air temperature, raises the mean radiant
temperature and thus environmental temperature. Comfort is related to a
combination of the air and radiant temperatures - not just the air
temperature. It's a common experience that a room containing a source
of radiant heat can feel quite cosy even though the air temperature is
quite low.

Comfort is the basis of the remark in the paragraph you snipped
completely:- viz

"OTOH it is much easier just to accept conventional wisdom that dIMM will
take a not entirely improbable notion, multiply its effect 100 fold and
then come up with a completely wrong explanation which he will
relentlessly promote in a vain attempt to wear down those who would
challenge his absurd pretensions."

Feeling cold is by no means the same as losing heat. The better the
insulation the smaller the temperature gradient across the room between
heat source and cold sink and almost certainly in a well insulated house
there will be none of those irritating little drafts that can con
stationary bodies into thinking they are cold. However if the couch
potato and the thermometer are in the same position then what dIMM
alleges cannot take place. (In fact the reverse is true).

I'm not convinced that the marginally greater radiation from warmer
walls would have any significant effect (see final para for the reverse
effect) but to the extent that it does it makes diMMs conjecture even
less tenable. The lower the air temperature (at which the body feels
comfortable) the greater the temperature difference between it and the
warm body and hence the greater the heat loss.

To the accepted methods of heat transfer (conduction, convection and
radiation) we will have to add another to account for the remote action
of insulation.

It's called radiation :-)

In which case it would not be another method.

The law of diminishing returns will have come into play on this
particular effect though, well before you reach the 'superinsulation'
category.

Have you considered the fact that in a poorly insulated room there is
much more radiant energy about that in a well insulated room?

--
Roger

Roger wrote:
The message
from "IMM" contains these words:


Well insulated houses can have the room temperature lowered without any
discomfort. Far less heat is being extracted from your body due to the high
insulation.


A scientific breakthrough?

To the accepted methods of heat transfer (conduction, convection and
radiation) we will have to add another to account for the remote action
of insulation. It will be only fair to call it the DIMM -
distance-insulation-magical margin.

OTOH it is much easier just to accept conventional wisdom that dIMM will
take a not entirely improbable notion, multiply its effect 100 fold and
then come up with a completely wrong explanation which he wil l
relentlessly promote in a vain attempt to wear down those who would
challenge his absurd pretensions.

A well insulated house will have fewer draughts (one would hope) so will
feel more comfortable at lower temperatures. Not quite what IMM wrote,
but some truth buried in there!

Roger wrote:

I'm not convinced that the marginally greater radiation from warmer
walls would have any significant effect (see final para for the reverse
effect) but to the extent that it does it makes diMMs conjecture even
less tenable.

I'm having difficulty following your argument. I agree that the
difference in surface temperature, at least in the steady state, is
pretty small. If you compare two walls, one with a U-value of 0.4
W/(m^2.K) and the other with U = 2.2, assuming 21 deg. inside temp and
-3 outside, and using the usual value of 0.06 m^2.K/W for the resistance
of the internal boundary layer, the difference in the inside surface
temperature works out at only 2.6 K, according to my back-of-envelope
calculation. However that 2.6 K difference is about 15% of the
temperature difference between the couch-potato-body and the wall, so it
will have a fairly significant effect on the heat flux. With
intermittent heating in the poorly insulated place the difference will
tend to be larger, due to the lag introduced by the thermal mass of (for
example) solid brick walls.

The lower the air temperature (at which the body feels comfortable)
the greater the temperature difference between it and the warm body
and hence the greater the heat loss.

By "warm body" here I presume you mean the heat source. In "the
greater the temperature difference between it and the warm body" does
"it" refer to the air mass or the (human) body? If the latter, it's at
a fairly well-regulated 37 deg. or so and the air temperature doesn't
affect the heat flow very much from the radiation point if view.

Have you considered the fact that in a poorly insulated room there is
much more radiant energy about that in a well insulated room?

Well, no, my argument was constructed on the principle of there being
less. Why is there more? It does depend on the heating source of
course. A good blazing fire can make you feel quite warm in a very cold
room, so in some cases you may be right, but so what? - it doesn't alter
the radiation to the walls argument.

--
Andy