"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:36:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




If you do the heat loss (or gain) calculations for a brick and block
property with tiled roof, having ridiculous amounts of space wasting
insulation in the roof space is making no more than a tiny
difference
when set in the context of what is gained or lost through the walls
and windows.

Figures and evidence please. Not rambling thoughts.

I already did this once for you and
not very long ago. Would you
like me to dig out the figures that
demonstrate once again that you
are talking nonsense?

You claim anything over 100mm of loft insulation is not worth it. Please
convince me. Don't make it up.

It's pretty simple.

It is:

On a 3 year spread the initial cost of loft insulation to the money saved in
heating using gas, levels out at 400mm. It starts to rise at around 500mm.
The bottom line: 400mm is the optimum thickness over 3 years. In the longer
term, over 3 years, the thickness level rises. Source: The Whole House
Book, by The Centre of Alternative Technology. http://www.cat.org.uk

The thicker the better.

Note: A reputable source is given.

And again...

In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated in
1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices.

As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole
payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels on
energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The
conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure to
hold as much insulation as possible.

Note: A reputable source is given.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:07:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

snip heat calculation

Andy, your patience is truly infinite...

You mean his foolishness is infinite. There was no calculations from a
reputable source, just Andy and his scattered uncoordinated thoughts.


The sources were quite clearly stated as the Approved Document to Part
L1 of the Building Regulations.

I took a simple example of a 4 bedroomed detached house of typical
dimensions.

U values for materials and surfaces, where they were not listed in the
above publication were taken from BS5449 : 1990.

The remainder is perfectly co-ordinated multiplication, subtraction,
division and addition.



---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:06:06 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:36:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




If you do the heat loss (or gain) calculations for a brick and block
property with tiled roof, having ridiculous amounts of space wasting
insulation in the roof space is making no more than a tiny
difference
when set in the context of what is gained or lost through the walls
and windows.

Figures and evidence please. Not rambling thoughts.

I already did this once for you and
not very long ago. Would you
like me to dig out the figures that
demonstrate once again that you
are talking nonsense?

You claim anything over 100mm of loft insulation is not worth it. Please
convince me. Don't make it up.

It's pretty simple.

It is, so where is the evidence? Figures and reputable source please!!!!!


The numbers are quite clear and the sources official....

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:30:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:36:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




If you do the heat loss (or gain) calculations for a brick and block
property with tiled roof, having ridiculous amounts of space wasting
insulation in the roof space is making no more than a tiny
difference
when set in the context of what is gained or lost through the walls
and windows.

Figures and evidence please. Not rambling thoughts.

I already did this once for you and
not very long ago. Would you
like me to dig out the figures that
demonstrate once again that you
are talking nonsense?

You claim anything over 100mm of loft insulation is not worth it. Please
convince me. Don't make it up.

It's pretty simple.

It is:

On a 3 year spread the initial cost of loft insulation to the money saved in
heating using gas, levels out at 400mm. It starts to rise at around 500mm.
The bottom line: 400mm is the optimum thickness over 3 years. In the longer
term, over 3 years, the thickness level rises. Source: The Whole House
Book, by The Centre of Alternative Technology. http://www.cat.org.uk

The thicker the better.

Note: A reputable source is given.

And again...

In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated in
1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices.

As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole
payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels on
energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The
conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure to
hold as much insulation as possible.

Note: A reputable source is given.


That all assumes a house constructed on some sort of "eco-principle"
from scratch. You don't say who "they" are, so it is not possible to
determine the reputation of the material.


I did not base my illustration on that, and did not say that I was
doing so.

I clearly stated that the illustration was on the basis of today's
requirements from the Building Regulations and used figures to
illustrate the point that in the overall context of a house built to
those standards, the effect of the amount of insulation in the roof
beyond 100mm becomes negligible.

I then illustrated what the case would be for less well insulated
walls, and that is even less.

These are real-world examples from the typical housing stock of today.

Your material from CAT and elsewhere is interesting I'm sure, but I
don't really think that the average person is going to insulate their
walls with 650mm of material or even their loft with 500mm, so it's
academic.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

You sound like my kinda girl Mary ... short & to the point!! ;o)

Short, yes, wide, yes, Tyke, yes.

M

I've only just caught up with this thread because on Friday we went off and
only got back last night.

We had the best two night's sleep - and days working too - we've had for
weeks, despite sleeping on a hard earth floor.

We were at Bede's World, Jarrow (I can thoroughly recommend it) and living
in a Dark Age long house.

The floor, as I said, is beaten earth. There were two ill fitting doors on
the long walls, almost opposite each other.

Two unglazed and high windows could be shuttered but we didn't.

The roof was thickly thatched and overhanging, the ceiling high.

The building was timber framed, the infill was thick daub.

It was cool, delightfully cool. Even during the day when I was working over
a charcoal firepot I was cooler than when I went into the sun. The hens
stayed in the building rather than go outside. Spouse worked outside but
under the shade of the eaves.

On Sunday morning we had very heavy rain and a long thunderstorm but I
reckon (didn't measure it) that the temperature indoors stayed more or less
the same as the rest of the time. The butter didn't melt, the milk didn't
sour, the fruit and vegetables didn't wilt, we didn't sweat.

We were sorry to come home.

Mary

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 23:56:20 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Madness.

Plonk.

Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

The remainder is perfectly co-ordinated multiplication, subtraction,
division and addition.

I should think that's the part he has greatest difficulty with.

Please put me on your killfile.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:30:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:36:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




If you do the heat loss (or gain) calculations for a brick and
block
property with tiled roof, having ridiculous amounts of space
wasting
insulation in the roof space is making no more than a tiny
difference
when set in the context of what is gained or lost through the
walls
and windows.

Figures and evidence please. Not rambling thoughts.

I already did this once for you and
not very long ago. Would you
like me to dig out the figures that
demonstrate once again that you
are talking nonsense?

You claim anything over 100mm of loft insulation is not worth it.
Please
convince me. Don't make it up.

It's pretty simple.

It is:

On a 3 year spread the initial cost of loft insulation to the money saved
in
heating using gas, levels out at 400mm. It starts to rise at around
500mm.
The bottom line: 400mm is the optimum thickness over 3 years. In the
longer
term, over 3 years, the thickness level rises. Source: The Whole House
Book, by The Centre of Alternative Technology. http://www.cat.org.uk

The thicker the better.

Note: A reputable source is given.

And again...

In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated
in
1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices.

As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole
payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels
on
energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The
conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure
to
hold as much insulation as possible.

Note: A reputable source is given.


That all assumes a house constructed on some sort of "eco-principle"
from scratch.

No. Any house.

You don't say who "they" are, so it is not possible to
determine the reputation of the material.

You obviously can't read. The sources were given.

I did not base my illustration on that, and did not say that I was
doing so.

I clearly stated that the illustration was on the basis of today's
requirements from the Building Regulations and used figures to
illustrate the point that in the overall context of a house built to
those standards, the effect of the amount of insulation in the roof
beyond 100mm becomes negligible.

I then illustrated what the case would be for less well insulated
walls, and that is even less.

These are real-world examples from the typical housing stock of today.

Your material from CAT and elsewhere is interesting I'm sure, but I
don't really think that the average person is going to insulate their
walls with 650mm of material or even their loft with 500mm, so it's
academic.

500mm for a loft? 300-400mm CAT say, as the payback falls right off after
that. If fuel rises dramatically in the next 3,4,5 years then 500mm is
feasible.

Let me see. In winter the bedrooms 20c and the loft 1C. Hot goes to cold
so a difference of 19C. the larger the difference the greater the heat
flow. In summer, a loft at 48c and the bedrooms below at 25C, a difference
of 23C. Appears better pack the loft with insulation in order to cool the
house.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...
I've only just caught up with this thread because on Friday we went off
and
only got back last night.

We had the best two night's sleep - and days working too - we've had for
weeks, despite sleeping on a hard earth floor.

We were at Bede's World, Jarrow (I can thoroughly recommend it) and living
in a Dark Age long house.

The floor, as I said, is beaten earth. There were two ill fitting doors on
the long walls, almost opposite each other.

Two unglazed and high windows could be shuttered but we didn't.

The roof was thickly thatched and overhanging, the ceiling high.

The building was timber framed, the infill was thick daub.

It was cool, delightfully cool. Even during the day when I was working
over
a charcoal firepot I was cooler than when I went into the sun. The hens
stayed in the building rather than go outside. Spouse worked outside but
under the shade of the eaves.

On Sunday morning we had very heavy rain and a long thunderstorm but I
reckon (didn't measure it) that the temperature indoors stayed more or
less
the same as the rest of the time. The butter didn't melt, the milk didn't
sour, the fruit and vegetables didn't wilt, we didn't sweat.

We were sorry to come home.

Mary,

Simple. Insulation and ventilation.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:28:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated
in
1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices.

As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole
payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels
on
energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The
conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure
to
hold as much insulation as possible.

Note: A reputable source is given.


That all assumes a house constructed on some sort of "eco-principle"
from scratch.

No. Any house.

With 650mm wall insulation? Sure...



You don't say who "they" are, so it is not possible to
determine the reputation of the material.

You obviously can't read. The sources were given.

The authors?



I did not base my illustration on that, and did not say that I was
doing so.

I clearly stated that the illustration was on the basis of today's
requirements from the Building Regulations and used figures to
illustrate the point that in the overall context of a house built to
those standards, the effect of the amount of insulation in the roof
beyond 100mm becomes negligible.

I then illustrated what the case would be for less well insulated
walls, and that is even less.

These are real-world examples from the typical housing stock of today.

Your material from CAT and elsewhere is interesting I'm sure, but I
don't really think that the average person is going to insulate their
walls with 650mm of material or even their loft with 500mm, so it's
academic.

500mm for a loft? 300-400mm CAT say, as the payback falls right off after
that. If fuel rises dramatically in the next 3,4,5 years then 500mm is
feasible.

Let me see. In winter the bedrooms 20c and the loft 1C. Hot goes to cold
so a difference of 19C. the larger the difference the greater the heat
flow. In summer, a loft at 48c and the bedrooms below at 25C, a difference
of 23C. Appears better pack the loft with insulation in order to cool the
house.


What kind of calculation is that? All you have mentioned is the
temperature difference. THe heat flow depends on the U value of the
material and the thickness as well. That's the whole point......

Good grief!

I really don't believe you can be any kind of HVAC professional (or
any kind of professional for that matter) when you seem incapable of
understanding two of the most fundamental formulae:

Heat loss = Area x dT x U

and the basic principle of transfer of

mass x specific heat x temperature rise or fall





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:28:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that
calculated
in
1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices.

As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the
whole
payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation
levels
on
energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The
conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the
structure
to
hold as much insulation as possible.

Note: A reputable source is given.


That all assumes a house constructed on some sort of "eco-principle"
from scratch.

No. Any house.

With 650mm wall insulation? Sure...



You don't say who "they" are, so it is not possible to
determine the reputation of the material.

You obviously can't read. The sources were given.

The authors?

Sue Roaf, and the rest can be seen on Amazon.

I did not base my illustration on that, and did not say that I was
doing so.

I clearly stated that the illustration was on the basis of today's
requirements from the Building Regulations and used figures to
illustrate the point that in the overall context of a house built to
those standards, the effect of the amount of insulation in the roof
beyond 100mm becomes negligible.

I then illustrated what the case would be for less well insulated
walls, and that is even less.

These are real-world examples from the typical housing stock of today.

Your material from CAT and elsewhere is interesting I'm sure, but I
don't really think that the average person is going to insulate their
walls with 650mm of material or even their loft with 500mm, so it's
academic.

500mm for a loft? 300-400mm CAT say, as the payback falls right off
after
that. If fuel rises dramatically in the next 3,4,5 years then 500mm is
feasible.

Let me see. In winter the bedrooms 20c and the loft 1C. Hot goes to
cold
so a difference of 19C. the larger the difference the greater the heat
flow. In summer, a loft at 48c and the bedrooms below at 25C, a
difference
of 23C. Appears better pack the loft with insulation in order to cool
the
house.


What kind of calculation is that? All you have mentioned is the
temperature difference. THe heat flow depends on the U value of the
material and the thickness as well. That's the whole point......

The pint was that insulation may be more beneficial in summer than winter.
That was obvious.

snip drivel


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

You sound like my kinda girl Mary ... short & to the point!! ;o)

Short, yes, wide, yes, Tyke, yes.

M


Short, wide & small!? Sounds intriguing ....!

You're also a yes/no gal it would seem ;o)



a

In article , Andy
Hall wrote:
However this misses the context completely. Far more heat
is going to be coming into the property through the windows
and walls than the roof anyway. The same argument applies,
only even more so because the solar gain through the windows
will have to be added in for the summer case.

I'm not 100% convinced: at the weekend I pointed my laser
thermometer up into my loft and it was 52C - there's a long
south facing slope acting like a giant solar panel. But of
course at night the reverse happens and the roof acts like a
big cooling radiator.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:08:37 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy
Hall wrote:
However this misses the context completely. Far more heat
is going to be coming into the property through the windows
and walls than the roof anyway. The same argument applies,
only even more so because the solar gain through the windows
will have to be added in for the summer case.

I'm not 100% convinced: at the weekend I pointed my laser
thermometer up into my loft and it was 52C - there's a long
south facing slope acting like a giant solar panel. But of
course at night the reverse happens and the roof acts like a
big cooling radiator.

OK.

If I use my example of the 8m x 8m house and the current Building Regs
U value of 0.16, and let's say the room temperature of the upstairs
rooms is 25 degrees.

Through the upstairs ceiling, the major heat gain would be
transmission through the insulation (and I suppose bridging through
the ceiling joists if they weren't covered.

Heat gain would then be

64 x 27 x 0.16 = 276W.

Also, due to convection, that heat would remain near the ceiling.
This doesn't suggest a major heating effect to the rooms and I can't
see any other mechanism for heat transmission through the ceiling.

I suppose one could do the solar gain calculations, but it would seem
to me that this and air changes are the major reasons for the house
growing warmer....

I found that by ventilating the loft with a fairly chunky fan using
air from outside, the temperature drops fairly quickly after late
afternoon. When it becomes less than the first floor average air
temperature, it's worth opening the loft hatch. In that scenario the
loft insulation doesn't help







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:08:37 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy
Hall wrote:

However this misses the context completely. Far more heat
is going to be coming into the property through the windows
and walls than the roof anyway. The same argument applies,
only even more so because the solar gain through the windows
will have to be added in for the summer case.

I'm not 100% convinced: at the weekend I pointed my laser
thermometer up into my loft and it was 52C - there's a long
south facing slope acting like a giant solar panel. But of
course at night the reverse happens and the roof acts like a
big cooling radiator.

OK.

If I use my example of the 8m x 8m house
and the current Building Regs
U value of 0.16, and let's say the room
temperature of the upstairs
rooms is 25 degrees.

Through the upstairs ceiling, the major
heat gain would be transmission through
the insulation (and I suppose bridging through
the ceiling joists if they weren't covered.

Heat gain would then be

64 x 27 x 0.16 = 276W.

Also, due to convection, that heat would
remain near the ceiling.
This doesn't suggest a major heating
effect to the rooms

Wrong!

A pool of heat (hot air) is trapped against the ceiling. This pool of heat
heats the thermal mass ceiling plaster and joists and in turn this acts as
large radiator radiating down haeting the people and room below. That is
why with windows not up to ceiling level it is best have a small ventilator
at ceiling height, or on the ceiling. The vent extracts this pool of
trapped hot air making the room far cooler and actually cooling the ceiling
plaster. This means not requiring an expensive needless a/c.

Victorian houses had high ceilings to take the fumes of gas lights. With
Georgian windows up to ceiling level you can pull down the top sash for
effective cooling.

Most people don't understand any of and go out and buy expensive a/c
equipment. Understand nature and go with it.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In article ,
"IMM" wrote:


Eves overhangs will help in keeping wet off the walls in winter which cool a
house and sun off the walls and windows in summer.

Verandahs that's what you need in a hot climate. Ask the Australians.
Build them to the right depth and the low sun will still come in the
windows in the winter.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"IMM" wrote:


Eves overhangs will help in keeping wet off the walls in winter which
cool a
house and sun off the walls and windows in summer.

Verandahs that's what you need in a hot climate. Ask the Australians.
Build them to the right depth and the low sun will still come in the
windows in the winter.

You are right, but the Aussies only have single floor houses.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"IMM" wrote:


Eves overhangs will help in keeping wet off the walls in winter which
cool a
house and sun off the walls and windows in summer.

Verandahs that's what you need in a hot climate. Ask the Australians.
Build them to the right depth and the low sun will still come in the
windows in the winter.

You are right, but the Aussies only have single floor houses.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003



What a sweeping generalisation. I currently live in Sydney and there are
more double (or more) floored houses than not.

However, I will grant that verandas are only effective for the ground floor.
We do have a two to three foot overhang on the first floor which is not as
effective as the larger one downstairs, and it would get very hot without
effective cooling (we tried it last summer and it was unbearable).

Good to hear about the weather in the UK at the moment - it's cold here.

Rob

In article ,
"IMM" wrote:

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"IMM" wrote:


Eves overhangs will help in keeping wet off the walls in winter which
cool a
house and sun off the walls and windows in summer.

Verandahs that's what you need in a hot climate. Ask the Australians.
Build them to the right depth and the low sun will still come in the
windows in the winter.

You are right, but the Aussies only have single floor houses.

? Must have been hallucinating whenever I've been there then. Same with
the two storey verandahed builidings In New Zealand where I grew up.
Sure, many houses are single storied but by no means all. House I spent
most of my teenage years in you entered at first floor level from the
road and descended to the recreation room, laundry and two bedrooms. On
the back of the house there were decks on both levels with cover on the
upper deck, guess that makes it a verandah. You could get under the
lower deck on one end as the slope was compound. So is this a single
story house, a two storey house or a one and a half storey house?

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

"al" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

You sound like my kinda girl Mary ... short & to the point!! ;o)

Short, yes, wide, yes, Tyke, yes.

M


Short, wide & small!? Sounds intriguing ....!

Did I say small?

You're also a yes/no gal it would seem ;o)

Yes. But not a gal.

And the answer's no.

:-)

Mary



a

"IMM" wrote in message ...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

We were at Bede's World, Jarrow (I can thoroughly recommend it) and living
in a Dark Age long house.

The floor, as I said, is beaten earth. There were two ill fitting doors on
the long walls, almost opposite each other.

Two unglazed and high windows could be shuttered but we didn't.

The roof was thickly thatched and overhanging, the ceiling high.

The building was timber framed, the infill was thick daub.

It was cool, delightfully cool. Even during the day when I was working
over
a charcoal firepot I was cooler than when I went into the sun. The hens
stayed in the building rather than go outside. Spouse worked outside but
under the shade of the eaves.

On Sunday morning we had very heavy rain and a long thunderstorm but I
reckon (didn't measure it) that the temperature indoors stayed more or
less
the same as the rest of the time. The butter didn't melt, the milk didn't
sour, the fruit and vegetables didn't wilt, we didn't sweat.

We were sorry to come home.

Mary,

Simple. Insulation and ventilation.

Au contraire, ventilation wont bring a house's temp below the outdoor
temp. The keys are insulated roof plus earth floor. The earth floor is
a constant source of damp, and as this damp evaporates it cools. Same
principle as an evaporative cooler, only big.

In the winter tho, it'll be damper and colder.

Overhanging roof will help as well, and a hgh ceiling with ventilation
at the top means the hottest stratum of air escapes. Be grim in winter
tho.

Regards, NT

Au contraire, ventilation wont bring a house's temp below the outdoor
temp.

No - but there was a slight draught which, as we slept between the doors,
was refreshing.

The keys are insulated roof plus earth floor. The earth floor is
a constant source of damp,

That's true ... but not so's you'd notice. In fact the hens made dust baths
in it. But we did notice a slight dew on the underside of the damp barrier
under our bed.

and as this damp evaporates it cools. Same
principle as an evaporative cooler, only big.

In the winter tho, it'll be damper and colder.

Not necessarily, there's a big firepit.

Overhanging roof will help as well, and a hgh ceiling with ventilation
at the top means the hottest stratum of air escapes. Be grim in winter
tho.

The windows can be closed with shutters. The ill fitting doors can be
stuffed with straw. The fire can be lit.

We've done it in similar buildings in very cold winters and have been cosy.

Mary

"N. Thornton" wrote in message
m...
"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

We were at Bede's World, Jarrow (I can thoroughly recommend it) and
living
in a Dark Age long house.

The floor, as I said, is beaten earth. There were two ill fitting
doors on
the long walls, almost opposite each other.

Two unglazed and high windows could be shuttered but we didn't.

The roof was thickly thatched and overhanging, the ceiling high.

The building was timber framed, the infill was thick daub.

It was cool, delightfully cool. Even during the day when I was working
over
a charcoal firepot I was cooler than when I went into the sun. The
hens
stayed in the building rather than go outside. Spouse worked outside
but
under the shade of the eaves.

On Sunday morning we had very heavy rain and a long thunderstorm but I
reckon (didn't measure it) that the temperature indoors stayed more or
less
the same as the rest of the time. The butter didn't melt, the milk
didn't
sour, the fruit and vegetables didn't wilt, we didn't sweat.

We were sorry to come home.

Mary,

Simple. Insulation and ventilation.

Au contraire, ventilation wont bring a house's temp below the outdoor
temp. The keys are insulated roof plus earth floor. The earth floor is
a constant source of damp, and as this damp evaporates it cools. Same
principle as an evaporative cooler, only big.

You may find that there is a lot of grass around outside. Any air entering
the house, especially from ground that is at a lower level on the north
side, will also do the same

In the winter tho, it'll be damper and colder.

Overhanging roof will help as well, and a hgh ceiling with ventilation
at the top means the hottest stratum of air escapes. Be grim in winter
tho.

Regards, NT


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Baxter Basics wrote:

he has got a point (!) Tiles will absorb radient energy from the sun and
re-radiate some of that down into the attic space. Lining the inside of the
roof with tinfoil would reflect some of this back, and reduce convection
currents.

Whether it would make a noticable difference to the rest of the house is
another matter!

Since I am sick of renovating my kitchen I might try an experiment this
weekend

During the day am running a fan temporarily mounted in place of
the vent in one eave end of the roof.
Temperatures have been what are considered, here, hot. That is
75+ Fahrenheit but we do find high humidity worse than the
temperature.

The fan keeps the attic roof space at the same temperature as the
air; without it the heat build up due to the sun shining on the
built up pitch and gravel over tongue and groove lumber on
trusses is very high, probably plus 20-25 deg. F. And our roof
has plenty of vents all round the soffits and at the two ends!

It's now dark the air temperature is lower and I'm still running
the fan to remove any residual heat in the roof structure, I'll
turn it off when we go to bed. Our ceilings are well insulated
but even so cooling the roof space/attic does seem to make the
house cooler.

Anyway the fan seems to help a lot.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

Wrong!

A pool of heat (hot air) is trapped against the ceiling. This pool of
heat
heats the thermal mass ceiling plaster and joists and in turn this acts as
large radiator radiating down haeting the people and room below. That is
why with windows not up to ceiling level it is best have a small
ventilator
at ceiling height, or on the ceiling. The vent extracts this pool of
trapped hot air making the room far cooler and actually cooling the
ceiling
plaster. This means not requiring an expensive needless a/c.

Victorian houses had high ceilings to take the fumes of gas lights. With
Georgian windows up to ceiling level you can pull down the top sash for
effective cooling.

Most people don't understand any of and go out and buy expensive a/c
equipment. Understand nature and go with it.



Guys, enough already!!! Everything that can be said has been. IMM - it's
apparent you're not any sort of technical professional as all the
engineering stuff just goes way over your head, so stop replying with such
silly postings. If you don't like a/c's, then fine - don't bloody use any!
For the rest of us, the temperatures recently have been way above what any
natural cooling will make comfortable. That's not to say some of what
you've been saying isn't correct - it is, just your arguments for how much
they are correct compared to Andy and other's calculations are pure
bull****!

Suggestions:

Trust Andy, he knows of what he speaks
Don't go buy an a/c and be a proud wee martyr
Use your good suggestions for ventilation to make you house vaguely bearable
in this heat (not the foil under roof one though, that was utter bo**ox!)
Get yourself a spell and grammar checker for when you post to NG's


Sigh .....



a

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
news:3f392487$0$189

Short, wide & small!? Sounds intriguing ....!

Did I say small?

You're also a yes/no gal it would seem ;o)

Yes. But not a gal.

And the answer's no.

:-)

Mary

And not at all confusing ;P

I took the tyke reference to infer small, but I guess it depends where you
come from ... doesn't it mean child in most cases? Is there some Black
Country meaning I've missed??

If not a gal ... a woman or a lady I wonder ....??


a

"al" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
news:3f392487$0$189

Short, wide & small!? Sounds intriguing ....!

Did I say small?

You're also a yes/no gal it would seem ;o)

Yes. But not a gal.

And the answer's no.

:-)

Mary

And not at all confusing ;P

I took the tyke reference to infer small, but I guess it depends where you
come from ...

Yes it does. I thought everyone knew a Yorkshireman (causing more confusion)
was a Tyke!

doesn't it mean child in most cases?

Some authorities suggest that "tyke" (lower case) is a naughty or scruffy
child. Not the same thing at all as a Tyke, fully capitalised.

Is there some Black
Country meaning I've missed??

I have nothing to do with the Black Country ... it's not personal, just a
matter of geography.


If not a gal ... a woman or a lady I wonder ....??

Well, "gal" suggests someone young. I'm not young. A woman definitely. I
have no title - except Mistress (normally shortened to Mrs but in the line
I'm in I'm usually known as Mistress.

"Miss" is also short for Mistress but I'm properly married and have the
fading monochrome photographs to prove it.

Mary


a

You work in Soho!?

Soho isn't in Yorkshire ...

And I'm a kept woman, don't work.

Much.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
news:3f3bf10a$0$189

Oh I know, and mine was a rather nonsensicle attempt at pomposity!


Just as well we understand each other so well ...


Well Much Mary, Mistress of the North, it's bedtime so I bid ye a warm,
well-kept sleep ;o)

I didn't - until 7.30 am :-(

Still too hot (bringing it back on topic)

Mary

Just because of the heat? I thought it was a lot more bearable last night.
Still have the ceiling fan on full in the bedroom and windows open wide mind
you. Actually pulled a sheet over me in the early hours for the first time
in a couple of weeks!




a