UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Mogweed
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loft insulation?

We're renovating a mid-terraced house that was built in 1874 and currently
the only access into the loft is through a skylight over the stairs and it's
quite dangerous. We need to get into the loft for the rewiring anyway so
I'll probably cut another access hatch in one of the bedrooms instead.

I've not been in the loft for about 30 years so I really can't remember what
it's like up there, but as all the ceilings in the rooms are 12ft high and
it would be such an effort to get in there, I can't see it ever being used
on a regular basis for storage, or anything else for that matter.

I know that there is no loft insulation up there but, given the fact that
the ceilings are 12ft high [1] is it worth putting loft insulation in or
will the 12ft high walls leach all the heat before it can escape through the
ceiling into the loft anyway? And, I *do* know that there is 131-years-worth
of soot, dust and muck up there. I suppose good practice would say to get
rid of it but how? Can you hire hoovers capable of that task?

[1] Because of the size and position of the windows we can't lower the
ceilings, or at least not without a lot of extra work and expense. The house
was my mam's until she died a few months ago and we're doing it up with a
view to renting it out. It needs to be rewired, replumbed, have central
heating installed etc., etc., and the only money we have is what she left in
the bank so whilst lowering the ceilings would reduce heating costs, it
would take too much of our money to do.

Cheers,

Mogweed.


  #2   Report Post  
tony sayer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Mogweed
writes
We're renovating a mid-terraced house that was built in 1874 and currently
the only access into the loft is through a skylight over the stairs and it's
quite dangerous. We need to get into the loft for the rewiring anyway so
I'll probably cut another access hatch in one of the bedrooms instead.

I've not been in the loft for about 30 years so I really can't remember what
it's like up there, but as all the ceilings in the rooms are 12ft high and
it would be such an effort to get in there, I can't see it ever being used
on a regular basis for storage, or anything else for that matter.

I know that there is no loft insulation up there but, given the fact that
the ceilings are 12ft high [1] is it worth putting loft insulation in or
will the 12ft high walls leach all the heat before it can escape through the
ceiling into the loft anyway? And, I *do* know that there is 131-years-worth
of soot, dust and muck up there. I suppose good practice would say to get
rid of it but how? Can you hire hoovers capable of that task?

[1] Because of the size and position of the windows we can't lower the
ceilings, or at least not without a lot of extra work and expense. The house
was my mam's until she died a few months ago and we're doing it up with a
view to renting it out. It needs to be rewired, replumbed, have central
heating installed etc., etc., and the only money we have is what she left in
the bank so whilst lowering the ceilings would reduce heating costs, it
would take too much of our money to do.

Cheers,

Mogweed.



If it were mine I'd leave the ceilings exactly as they are and just
insulate the roof space. After all if you're not intent on living there
then why go to all the bother of lowering the ceilings in case there is
a bit extra to be saved. I'd look towards making something of the
ceiling height!, seems fine to me.

While on the subject are there local authorities around who dish out
grants (or incentives) for loft insulation on private rented
accommodation?.....
--
Tony Sayer

  #3   Report Post  
Owain
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mogweed wrote:
I know that there is no loft insulation up there but, given the fact that
the ceilings are 12ft high [1] is it worth putting loft insulation in or
will the 12ft high walls leach all the heat before it can escape through the
ceiling into the loft anyway?


Any insulation will help, and loft insulation is cheap and effective. As
you are going up there anyway, it would be daft not to do it.

And, I *do* know that there is 131-years-worth
of soot, dust and muck up there. I suppose good practice would say to get
rid of it but how? Can you hire hoovers capable of that task?


You can, but if you're rewiring, replumbing etc etc there'll be a lot of
mess anyway. Putting loft insulation over the lath & plaster ceilings
will help to keep the dust down.

If you were doing this in a 'habitable' house and not rewiring etc -
just wanting for access to insulate - I would suggest a scaffold tower
and opening a hole in the slates for access.

[1] Because of the size and position of the windows we can't lower the
ceilings, or at least not without a lot of extra work and expense. The house
was my mam's until she died a few months ago and we're doing it up with a
view to renting it out. It needs to be rewired, replumbed, have central
heating installed etc., etc., and the only money we have is what she left in
the bank so whilst lowering the ceilings would reduce heating costs, it
would take too much of our money to do.


and probably not be cost-effective. Loft insulation, factory insulated
hot water cylinder, and general draught-proofing of doors and windows
will be most cost-effective. As you are putting in new CH anyway, worth
putting in a reasonably efficient boiler (rather difficult not to under
new Building Regs).

Owain's "property ladder" tip of the week - buy some nice seedlings now
in "plug plant" form, pot them in yogurt pots on a sunny windowsill, and
they will be ready to go into the garden later in the year when you
are ready to market the property, and a lot cheaper than buying grown
plants from the garden centre later.

Owain

  #4   Report Post  
Mogweed
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Mogweed
writes



If it were mine I'd leave the ceilings exactly as they are and just
insulate the roof space. After all if you're not intent on living there
then why go to all the bother of lowering the ceilings in case there is
a bit extra to be saved. I'd look towards making something of the
ceiling height!, seems fine to me.

While on the subject are there local authorities around who dish out
grants (or incentives) for loft insulation on private rented
accommodation?.....
--
Tony Sayer


Thanks for the reply Tony. I'm not sure about grants for loft insulation on
private rented property but it's something we'll be looking in to - I'll
repost when I find out.

Cheers,

Mogweed.


  #5   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mogweed" wrote in message
...
We're renovating a mid-terraced house that was built in 1874 and currently
the only access into the loft is through a skylight over the stairs and

it's
quite dangerous. We need to get into the loft for the rewiring anyway so
I'll probably cut another access hatch in one of the bedrooms instead.

I've not been in the loft for about 30 years so I really can't remember

what
it's like up there, but as all the ceilings in the rooms are 12ft high and
it would be such an effort to get in there, I can't see it ever being used
on a regular basis for storage, or anything else for that matter.

I know that there is no loft insulation up there but, given the fact that
the ceilings are 12ft high [1] is it worth putting loft insulation in or
will the 12ft high walls leach all the heat before it can escape through

the
ceiling into the loft anyway? And, I *do* know that there is

131-years-worth
of soot, dust and muck up there. I suppose good practice would say to get
rid of it but how? Can you hire hoovers capable of that task?

[1] Because of the size and position of the windows we can't lower the
ceilings, or at least not without a lot of extra work and expense. The

house
was my mam's until she died a few months ago and we're doing it up with a
view to renting it out. It needs to be rewired, replumbed, have central
heating installed etc., etc., and the only money we have is what she left

in
the bank so whilst lowering the ceilings would reduce heating costs, it
would take too much of our money to do.


Put in 12" of Rockwool insulation, which is not that expensive. Ceiling
height doesn't matter regarding insulation.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account


  #6   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:18:41 +0100, "Mogweed" wrote:

We're renovating a mid-terraced house that was built in 1874 and currently
the only access into the loft is through a skylight over the stairs and it's
quite dangerous. We need to get into the loft for the rewiring anyway so
I'll probably cut another access hatch in one of the bedrooms instead.

I've not been in the loft for about 30 years so I really can't remember what
it's like up there, but as all the ceilings in the rooms are 12ft high and
it would be such an effort to get in there, I can't see it ever being used
on a regular basis for storage, or anything else for that matter.

I know that there is no loft insulation up there but, given the fact that
the ceilings are 12ft high [1] is it worth putting loft insulation in or
will the 12ft high walls leach all the heat before it can escape through the
ceiling into the loft anyway? And, I *do* know that there is 131-years-worth
of soot, dust and muck up there. I suppose good practice would say to get
rid of it but how? Can you hire hoovers capable of that task?

[1] Because of the size and position of the windows we can't lower the
ceilings, or at least not without a lot of extra work and expense. The house
was my mam's until she died a few months ago and we're doing it up with a
view to renting it out. It needs to be rewired, replumbed, have central
heating installed etc., etc., and the only money we have is what she left in
the bank so whilst lowering the ceilings would reduce heating costs, it
would take too much of our money to do.

Cheers,

Mogweed.


Given the age of the house, it presumably has solid walls. WIth the
height involved, unless you lowered the ceilings and insulated
immediately above them to create a cold area above, a considerable
amount of heat will go through the walls.

It's certainly worth insulating the loft because that will be a
considerable heatloss in a mid terraced house, but it is not worth
using more than about 150-200mm of insulating material. The
difference you would make would pale into insignificance compared with
losses through the walls and through draughts.

Having high walls will tend to result in more temperature gradient
from floor to ceiling as well. The implication of this will be that
it will tend to take longer to warm the rooms from cold than with a
place with lower ceilings.

When you come to work out the heating requirements, you should
certainly use a proper heat loss calculation and not just guesstimate.
It's probably then worth over-provisioning the radiators so that the
place warms up quickly, but then to use thermostatic radiator valves
to control output and hence costs.

If you were planning to live in the place, then you might consider
some of the ideas that you suggested like lowering the ceilings, plus
insulating walls, doing something with windows and so on.
However, given the financial equation and renting out, there has to be
a limit, and obviously there is cost associated with wiring and
heating installation.

At least with this approach, the only tenant complaint might be
heating costs, but then if you have insulated the loft and done the
other things that you have suggested, I think that you will have done
what could be reasonably expected, whether you are renting it out or
eventually decide to sell it.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #7   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:18:41 +0100, "Mogweed" wrote:

We're renovating a mid-terraced house that was built in 1874 and

currently
the only access into the loft is through a skylight over the stairs and

it's
quite dangerous. We need to get into the loft for the rewiring anyway so
I'll probably cut another access hatch in one of the bedrooms instead.

I've not been in the loft for about 30 years so I really can't remember

what
it's like up there, but as all the ceilings in the rooms are 12ft high

and
it would be such an effort to get in there, I can't see it ever being

used
on a regular basis for storage, or anything else for that matter.

I know that there is no loft insulation up there but, given the fact that
the ceilings are 12ft high [1] is it worth putting loft insulation in or
will the 12ft high walls leach all the heat before it can escape through

the
ceiling into the loft anyway? And, I *do* know that there is

131-years-worth
of soot, dust and muck up there. I suppose good practice would say to get
rid of it but how? Can you hire hoovers capable of that task?

[1] Because of the size and position of the windows we can't lower the
ceilings, or at least not without a lot of extra work and expense. The

house
was my mam's until she died a few months ago and we're doing it up with a
view to renting it out. It needs to be rewired, replumbed, have central
heating installed etc., etc., and the only money we have is what she left

in
the bank so whilst lowering the ceilings would reduce heating costs, it
would take too much of our money to do.

Cheers,

Mogweed.


Given the age of the house, it presumably has solid walls. WIth the
height involved, unless you lowered the ceilings and insulated
immediately above them to create a cold area above, a considerable
amount of heat will go through the walls.

It's certainly worth insulating the loft because that will be a
considerable heatloss in a mid terraced house, but it is not worth
using more than about 150-200mm of insulating material. The
difference you would make would pale into insignificance compared with
losses through the walls and through draughts.


Two wrongs make a right then. It is mid terraced with a small area of
outside wall. Most wall area most probably will be party wall. It is best to
make the ceiling air-tight by using silicon to block any holes and have an
insulated and sealed trap door, and 12" of Rockwool. Irrespective of ceiling
height heat will be lost through the ceiling at a rapid rate with a thin
layer of Rockwool. Insulating a loft is easy and cheap.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #8   Report Post  
Mogweed
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:18:41 +0100, "Mogweed" wrote:

We're renovating a mid-terraced house that was built in 1874 and

currently
the only access into the loft is through a skylight over the stairs and

it's
quite dangerous. We need to get into the loft for the rewiring anyway so
I'll probably cut another access hatch in one of the bedrooms instead.

I've not been in the loft for about 30 years so I really can't remember

what
it's like up there, but as all the ceilings in the rooms are 12ft high

and
it would be such an effort to get in there, I can't see it ever being

used
on a regular basis for storage, or anything else for that matter.

I know that there is no loft insulation up there but, given the fact
that
the ceilings are 12ft high [1] is it worth putting loft insulation in or
will the 12ft high walls leach all the heat before it can escape through

the
ceiling into the loft anyway? And, I *do* know that there is

131-years-worth
of soot, dust and muck up there. I suppose good practice would say to
get
rid of it but how? Can you hire hoovers capable of that task?

[1] Because of the size and position of the windows we can't lower the
ceilings, or at least not without a lot of extra work and expense. The

house
was my mam's until she died a few months ago and we're doing it up with
a
view to renting it out. It needs to be rewired, replumbed, have central
heating installed etc., etc., and the only money we have is what she
left

in
the bank so whilst lowering the ceilings would reduce heating costs, it
would take too much of our money to do.

Cheers,

Mogweed.


Given the age of the house, it presumably has solid walls. WIth the
height involved, unless you lowered the ceilings and insulated
immediately above them to create a cold area above, a considerable
amount of heat will go through the walls.

It's certainly worth insulating the loft because that will be a
considerable heatloss in a mid terraced house, but it is not worth
using more than about 150-200mm of insulating material. The
difference you would make would pale into insignificance compared with
losses through the walls and through draughts.


Two wrongs make a right then. It is mid terraced with a small area of
outside wall. Most wall area most probably will be party wall. It is best
to
make the ceiling air-tight by using silicon to block any holes and have an
insulated and sealed trap door, and 12" of Rockwool. Irrespective of
ceiling
height heat will be lost through the ceiling at a rapid rate with a thin
layer of Rockwool. Insulating a loft is easy and cheap.



Many thanks to all who replied and have given us lots of good info - it's
much appreciated.

Cheers,

Mogweed.


  #9   Report Post  
Anna Kettle
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:39:34 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

While on the subject are there local authorities around who dish out
grants (or incentives) for loft insulation on private rented
accommodation?.....


They are now handing out grants to anyone who has no or minimal
insulation. No means test

www.est.org.uk

Anna


~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642
  #10   Report Post  
Lobster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anna Kettle wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:39:34 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:


While on the subject are there local authorities around who dish out
grants (or incentives) for loft insulation on private rented
accommodation?.....



They are now handing out grants to anyone who has no or minimal
insulation. No means test

www.est.org.uk


Don't know if this is the same as when I looked into it a few years ago,
but AFAIK grants are given towards the cost of a contractor installing
the stuff; even with a whopping discount on that, the outlay was still
so much more than diy'ing that I didn't bother pursuing it further.

David


  #11   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:09:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .




Given the age of the house, it presumably has solid walls. WIth the
height involved, unless you lowered the ceilings and insulated
immediately above them to create a cold area above, a considerable
amount of heat will go through the walls.

It's certainly worth insulating the loft because that will be a
considerable heatloss in a mid terraced house, but it is not worth
using more than about 150-200mm of insulating material. The
difference you would make would pale into insignificance compared with
losses through the walls and through draughts.


Two wrongs make a right then.


No, I am simply pointing out that there is no point in going to
extremes on loft insulation as opposed to a reasonable provisioning
when in comparison large amounts of heat are going out through the
walls.

We had this discussion before and I gave worked examples with numbers
to illustrate that there was no point in going above 150mm or so.
Yes there was a small amount to be gained, but it was a tiny fraction
of the heat loss through the walls. Perhaps you have a short memory
or like spending other people's money.


It is mid terraced with a small area of
outside wall.


You don't know that the area of outside wall is small. For one thing
the ceilings are very high in comparison to many properties so loss
through them is greater in proportion.


Most wall area most probably will be party wall.


It may or may not be. This doesn't alter the amount going out through
the front and back walls which is likely to be an order of magnitude
greater than that through the roof even if you were to only put 100mm
of insulation there.

It is best to
make the ceiling air-tight by using silicon to block any holes and have an
insulated and sealed trap door, and 12" of Rockwool.


It would be if it were a more modern house. This property is over
150 years old and unless one were to implement modern insulation
standards on it comprehensively, there is little or no value in going
mad as you are suggesting on one aspect.


Irrespective of ceiling
height heat will be lost through the ceiling at a rapid rate with a thin
layer of Rockwool. Insulating a loft is easy and cheap.


Nobody was suggesting using a thin layer. 150mm is a very adequate
level of insulation in the context of this property.
If we were talking about a modern house with cavity walls, cavity
insulation and double glazing, then there is a marginal case for going
to thicker insulation.

Insulation material is reasonably cheap but it isn't free. In this
case 300mm is overkill.


The case you are making is equivalent to arguing for a 40W bulb rather
than a 60W bulb when there is a 3kW fire in the room.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #12   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:09:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .




Given the age of the house, it presumably has solid walls. WIth the
height involved, unless you lowered the ceilings and insulated
immediately above them to create a cold area above, a considerable
amount of heat will go through the walls.

It's certainly worth insulating the loft because that will be a
considerable heatloss in a mid terraced house, but it is not worth
using more than about 150-200mm of insulating material. The
difference you would make would pale into insignificance compared with
losses through the walls and through draughts.


Two wrongs make a right then.


No, I am simply pointing out that
there is no point in going to
extremes on loft insulation


Lord Hall, 12" is not extreme. In fact, there is no such thing as extreme
in insulation. Put is as much as you can, with 12" being the minimum.

as opposed to a reasonable provisioning
when in comparison large amounts of heat
are going out through the
walls.


It is terraced. At least half the walls is not outside wall.

We had this discussion before


...and you got it wrong then too.

and I gave worked examples with numbers
to illustrate that there was no point in going
above 150mm or so.


With no idea of practical reality.

Yes there was a small amount to
be gained,


There was a lot to be gained in the bedrooms, as the ceiling forms a large
part of the room surfaces. It also works the other way around. The 12" of
loft insulation keeps the heat out of the bedrooms in summer.

In a bungalow the ceiling forms the largest surface area of the house.
Think of the upstairs as a bungalow.

but it was a tiny fraction
of the heat loss through the
walls. Perhaps you have a
short memory or like spending
other people's money.


See above.

It is mid terraced with a small area of
outside wall.


You don't know that the area of outside
wall is small.


It ios not a detached house, that is for certain.

For one thing
the ceilings are very high in comparison
to many properties so loss
through them is greater in proportion.


...in proportion to what?

Most wall area most probably
will be party wall.


It may or may not be.


You have an odd idea of how terraced houses are built.

This doesn't alter the amount going
out through the front and back walls
which is likely to be an order of magnitude
greater than that through the roof even
if you were to only put 100mm
of insulation there.


Because more is going out through the outside wall the roof should neglected
then. What logic.

It is best to
make the ceiling air-tight by using
silicon to block any holes and have an
insulated and sealed trap door, and
12" of Rockwool.


It would be if it were a more modern house.
This property is over 150 years old and
unless one were to implement modern insulation
standards on it comprehensively, there is little
or no value in going mad as you are suggesting
on one aspect.


Mad about what? Insulating the loft to 12" is hardly going mad. The house
will be reasonably air-tight as two sides are not outsides walls. When
replacing windows and doors obviously install sealed units to make the house
more air-tight. The walls will not be cavity, so pretty well air tight
there too. It is air leakages that cost in heating fuel. It is well worth
having sealed doors and windows and ensuring the ceiling is air-tight too.
Then the 12" of insulation will have a great effect.

So, in time new sealed windows would be installed. Having the sealed loft
ceiling and 12" of insulation would compliment that and already be in place.

Irrespective of ceiling
height heat will be lost through
the ceiling at a rapid rate with a thin
layer of Rockwool. Insulating a loft is
easy and cheap.


Nobody was suggesting using a thin layer.
150mm is a very adequate level of insulation
in the context of this property.


It isn't and thin in any property.

If we were talking about a modern
house with cavity walls, cavity
insulation and double glazing, then
there is a marginal case for going
to thicker insulation.


You really don't know do you.

Insulation material is reasonably
cheap but it isn't free. In this
case 300mm is overkill.


Highly cost effective and it will pay for iteself very quickly as oil (fuel)
prices rise in future. They NEVER go cdown.

The case you are making is equivalent
to arguing for a 40W bulb rather
than a 60W bulb when there is a 3kW
fire in the room.


What a mad analogy.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #13   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:24:15 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message



No, I am simply pointing out that
there is no point in going to
extremes on loft insulation


Lord Hall, 12" is not extreme. In fact, there is no such thing as extreme
in insulation. Put is as much as you can, with 12" being the minimum.


I think that you've just demonstrated my point exactly.



as opposed to a reasonable provisioning
when in comparison large amounts of heat
are going out through the
walls.


It is terraced. At least half the walls is not outside wall.


You don't know that. Some mid terraced houses are narrow and deep,
some are not. Some have substantial rear extensions which have large
areas of outside wall. I once owned a house which was exactly like
that.




For one thing
the ceilings are very high in comparison
to many properties so loss
through them is greater in proportion.


..in proportion to what?


Obviously in proportion to the losses from houses with lower ceilings
and walls...........



Most wall area most probably
will be party wall.


It may or may not be.


You have an odd idea of how terraced houses are built.


Not really. I have owned a practical example where there were
substantial areas of external wall due to a rear extension. This is
a very typical construction if the property is not a two up/two down.



This doesn't alter the amount going
out through the front and back walls
which is likely to be an order of magnitude
greater than that through the roof even
if you were to only put 100mm
of insulation there.


Because more is going out through the outside wall the roof should neglected
then. What logic.


I didn't say that at all but simply highlighted looking at things in
proportion. You have demonstrated that you are incapable of doing
that, so there's no real point in discussing it.



It is best to
make the ceiling air-tight by using
silicon to block any holes and have an
insulated and sealed trap door, and
12" of Rockwool.


It would be if it were a more modern house.
This property is over 150 years old and
unless one were to implement modern insulation
standards on it comprehensively, there is little
or no value in going mad as you are suggesting
on one aspect.


Mad about what? Insulating the loft to 12" is hardly going mad. The house
will be reasonably air-tight as two sides are not outsides walls.


Going over the top with one aspect while doing nothing about the rest.
This is what the OP has said that he will do for cost reasons.


When
replacing windows and doors obviously install sealed units to make the house
more air-tight.


Obvious to who? Not everybody want to replace the character sash
windows with plastic hermetically sealed ones.
Window replacement wasn't on the agenda anyway


The walls will not be cavity, so pretty well air tight
there too.


The losses through solid brick walls in comparison even with
uninsulated cavity are huge. Have you ever looked at a table of U
values? Do you know what they mean?



It is air leakages that cost in heating fuel. It is well worth
having sealed doors and windows and ensuring the ceiling is air-tight too.


It is one of the reasons. Heating designs are based around an
assumed number of air changes per hour. Not everybody wants to live
in a sealed box as you seem to advocate.


Then the 12" of insulation will have a great effect.


IN comparison to the heat loss through the walls, the difference
between 150 and 300mm of loft insulation is negligible.

Do I need to do the sums again to remind you?


So, in time new sealed windows would be installed. Having the sealed loft
ceiling and 12" of insulation would compliment that and already be in place.


Who said anything about even wanting to replace windows?




If we were talking about a modern
house with cavity walls, cavity
insulation and double glazing, then
there is a marginal case for going
to thicker insulation.


You really don't know do you.


The problem for you is that I do and can easily demonstrate it.




The case you are making is equivalent
to arguing for a 40W bulb rather
than a 60W bulb when there is a 3kW
fire in the room.


What a mad analogy.


On the contrary. It describes the situation that you are advocating
perfectly.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #14   Report Post  
Tony Bryer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Doctor Evil wrote:
Lord Hall, 12" is not extreme. In fact, there is no such thing
as extreme in insulation.


Beyond a certain thickness of insulation the energy used to make and
deliver it will exceed the amount of energy it ever saves.

--
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


  #15   Report Post  
Anna Kettle
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:29:41 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

Don't know if this is the same as when I looked into it a few years ago,
but AFAIK grants are given towards the cost of a contractor installing
the stuff; even with a whopping discount on that, the outlay was still
so much more than diy'ing that I didn't bother pursuing it further.


The grants have improved a lot cos the government is putting money
into energy saving now. Even got mentioned in the budget. The
insulation still has to be installed by a contractor

Anna


~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642


  #16   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:24:15 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

For one thing
the ceilings are very high in comparison
to many properties so loss
through them is greater in proportion.


..in proportion to what?


Obviously in proportion to the losses
from houses with lower ceilings
and walls...........


What tripe. Lord hall is saying that the heat loss is less because the
ceiling is higher. Shishhhhh

This doesn't alter the amount going
out through the front and back walls
which is likely to be an order of magnitude
greater than that through the roof even
if you were to only put 100mm
of insulation there.


Because more is going out through
the outside wall the roof should be neglected
then. What logic.


I didn't say that at all but simply
highlighted looking at things in
proportion.


Your proportion means that higher ceilings have less heat loss than lower
ceilings. Another Lord Hallism.

Mad about what? Insulating the loft to
12" is hardly going mad. The house
will be reasonably air-tight as two sides
are not outsides walls.


Going over the top with one aspect
while doing nothing about the rest.
This is what the OP has said that he
will do for cost reasons.


The bedrooms when taken into isolation will greatly benefit, as the ceiling
is a large cold surface.area.

When replacing windows and doors
obviously install sealed units to make the house
more air-tight.


Obvious to who?


Obvious to anyone who knows anything about housing.

Not everybody want to replace
the character sash windows
with plastic hermetically sealed ones.


Sealed character windows are available.

Window replacement wasn't on the agenda anyway


It is now.

The walls will not be cavity, so
pretty well air tight
there too.


The losses through solid brick walls
in comparison even with
uninsulated cavity are huge.


Another Lord Hallism. Solid brick walls are notede for their airtightness.
Cavity walls are noted for their air leakiness.

Have you ever looked at a table of U
values? Do you know what they mean?


The point was air tightness. Air leakages play a large part in heat losses.
Make a poor U value house air tight and the bills drop and comfort goes up.
Put insulation in and the benefits even greater.

It is air leakages that cost in
heating fuel. It is well worth
having sealed doors and windows
and ensuring the ceiling is air-tight too.


It is one of the reasons. Heating designs
are based around an assumed number of
air changes per hour.


Yep.

Not everybody wants to live
in a sealed box as you seem to advocate.


Another Lord Hall assumption. As the Canadians say "Built Tight, Ventilate
Right"

Then the 12" of insulation will
have a great effect.


IN comparison to the heat loss
through the walls, the difference
between 150 and 300mm of loft
insulation is negligible.


Nonsense, it will have great effect in those bedrooms.

Do I need to do the sums
again to remind you?


Yeh, get the skule physics book out. The coloured bumper edition from under
your pillow.

So, in time new sealed windows would
be installed. Having the sealed loft
ceiling and 12" of insulation would
compliment that and already be in place.


Who said anything about even wanting to
replace windows?


They will be replaced. Fact.

If we were talking about a modern
house with cavity walls, cavity
insulation and double glazing, then
there is a marginal case for going
to thicker insulation.


You really don't know do you.


The problem for you is that I do and
can easily demonstrate it.


Lord Hall, you just don't know.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #17   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Evil wrote:


Lord Hall, 12" is not extreme. In fact, there is no such thing
as extreme in insulation.


Beyond a certain thickness of insulation
the energy used to make and
deliver it will exceed the amount of energy
it ever saves.


Over what time period? In time as oil prices rise, that means higher cost
of insulation and home running costs, the payback time will be much shorter
than you think. So, getting it in now makes lots of sense.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #18   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:50:27 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:24:15 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

For one thing
the ceilings are very high in comparison
to many properties so loss
through them is greater in proportion.

..in proportion to what?


Obviously in proportion to the losses
from houses with lower ceilings
and walls...........


What tripe. Lord hall is saying that the heat loss is less because the
ceiling is higher. Shishhhhh


Once again you demonstrate your misunderstanding of simple concepts of
physics.

If a ceiling is higher, then the wall area is greater.
If the wall area is greater, then the heat loss is greater.
If the heat loss is greater, then more energy is needed to heat the
room.
If more energy is needed to heat the room, then more money has to come
out of your piggy bank to pay for it and there is less to spend on
sweets.

Is that clearer for you now?


This doesn't alter the amount going
out through the front and back walls
which is likely to be an order of magnitude
greater than that through the roof even
if you were to only put 100mm
of insulation there.

Because more is going out through
the outside wall the roof should be neglected
then. What logic.


I didn't say that at all but simply
highlighted looking at things in
proportion.


Your proportion means that higher ceilings have less heat loss than lower
ceilings. Another Lord Hallism.


It really isn't worth bothering to answer that. I am sure that
everybody else understood.



Mad about what? Insulating the loft to
12" is hardly going mad. The house
will be reasonably air-tight as two sides
are not outsides walls.


Going over the top with one aspect
while doing nothing about the rest.
This is what the OP has said that he
will do for cost reasons.


The bedrooms when taken into isolation will greatly benefit, as the ceiling
is a large cold surface.area.


As you know, or perhaps you don't, heat losses through surfaces are
calculated using U values, surface area and temperature difference.
Multiplication is involved in this.
If it causes you difficulty, then you can buy a device calld a
calculator to work it all out.
These days they even work from the sun.

In order to calculate heat losses and costs you have to look at all
the rooms and their expected temperatures, not take them in isolation.



When replacing windows and doors
obviously install sealed units to make the house
more air-tight.


Obvious to who?


Obvious to anyone who knows anything about housing.


That's what I thought.



Not everybody want to replace
the character sash windows
with plastic hermetically sealed ones.


Sealed character windows are available.

Window replacement wasn't on the agenda anyway


It is now.


It may be on your agenda. It wasn't for this thread.


The walls will not be cavity, so
pretty well air tight
there too.


The losses through solid brick walls
in comparison even with
uninsulated cavity are huge.


Another Lord Hallism. Solid brick walls are notede for their airtightness.
Cavity walls are noted for their air leakiness.


This is one of your best for a long time.

We are talking about heat loss *through* surfaces.

A solid brick wall of two courses (228mm) has a U value of 2 W/m^2.K

A cavity wall of brick/cavity/block/plaster with no insulation has a U
value of 0.75

THese are from official tables produced by the Building Research
Establishment and represent a difference of 2.7:1 in heat loss.



Have you ever looked at a table of U
values? Do you know what they mean?


The point was air tightness. Air leakages play a large part in heat losses.
Make a poor U value house air tight and the bills drop and comfort goes up.
Put insulation in and the benefits even greater.


The discussion was not about air tightness. It makes some difference
but not as much as you imagine when ventilation is at the recommended
rate.




Not everybody wants to live
in a sealed box as you seem to advocate.


Another Lord Hall assumption. As the Canadians say "Built Tight, Ventilate
Right"


We aren't in Canada and are not talking about anything close to their
form of house construction. Making these comparisons is ridiculous.




Then the 12" of insulation will
have a great effect.


IN comparison to the heat loss
through the walls, the difference
between 150 and 300mm of loft
insulation is negligible.


Nonsense, it will have great effect in those bedrooms.

Do I need to do the sums
again to remind you?


Yeh, get the skule physics book out. The coloured bumper edition from under
your pillow.


I think we need to find your Janet and John Book of Sums....





So, in time new sealed windows would
be installed. Having the sealed loft
ceiling and 12" of insulation would
compliment that and already be in place.


Who said anything about even wanting to
replace windows?


They will be replaced. Fact.


Not within the scope of the current project.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #19   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:50:27 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:24:15 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

For one thing
the ceilings are very high in comparison
to many properties so loss
through them is greater in proportion.

..in proportion to what?


Obviously in proportion to the losses
from houses with lower ceilings
and walls...........


What tripe. Lord hall is saying that
the heat loss is less because the
ceiling is higher. Shishhhhh


Once again you demonstrate your
misunderstanding of simple concepts of
physics.

If a ceiling is higher, then the wall area is greater.
If the wall area is greater, then the heat loss is greater.
If the heat loss is greater, then more energy is needed to heat the
room.
If more energy is needed to heat the room, then more money has to come
out of your piggy bank to pay for it and there is less to spend on
sweets.


Lord Hall you forgot that it is a nice thing to keep the heat in so more
money is available for sweeties.

Going over the top with one aspect
while doing nothing about the rest.
This is what the OP has said that he
will do for cost reasons.


The bedrooms when taken into isolation
will greatly benefit, as the ceiling
is a large cold surface.area.


As you know, or perhaps you don't,
heat losses through surfaces are
calculated using U values,


....you don't say...

In order to calculate heat losses
and costs you have to look at all
the rooms and their expected
temperatures, not take them in isolation.


The idea is to put insulation in not size a heating system. The bedrooms
would greatly benefit by having 12" of insulation in the loft. (see above)

When replacing windows and doors
obviously install sealed units to make the house
more air-tight.

Obvious to who?


Obvious to anyone who knows
anything about housing.


That's what I thought.


....you thought?

The walls will not be cavity, so
pretty well air tight
there too.

The losses through solid brick walls
in comparison even with
uninsulated cavity are huge.


Another Lord Hallism. Solid brick walls
are notede for their airtightness.
Cavity walls are noted for their air leakiness.


This is one of your best for a long time.

We are talking about heat loss *through* surfaces.


The point was air leakage. Please read back Lord Hall.

Have you ever looked at a table of U
values? Do you know what they mean?


The point was air tightness. Air
leakages play a large part in heat losses.
Make a poor U value house air tight and
the bills drop and comfort goes up.
Put insulation in and the benefits even greater.


The discussion was not about air tightness.
It makes some difference but not as much
as you imagine when ventilation is at the
recommended rate.


Air tightness is a part of it and you know nothing of it.

Not everybody wants to live
in a sealed box as you seem to advocate.


Another Lord Hall assumption. As
the Canadians say "Built Tight, Ventilate
Right"


We aren't in Canada


Do physics not apply over there?

and are not talking about anything
close to their form of house construction.
Making these comparisons is ridiculous.


More Lord Hallisms. Who said change this terraced house to a Canadian type
of house?

Then the 12" of insulation will
have a great effect.

IN comparison to the heat loss
through the walls, the difference
between 150 and 300mm of loft
insulation is negligible.


Nonsense, it will have great effect in those bedrooms.

Do I need to do the sums
again to remind you?


Yeh, get the skule physics book out.
The coloured bumper edition from under
your pillow.


I think we need to find your Janet
and John Book of Sums....


It's under your bumper book.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #20   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:56:59 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .



In order to calculate heat losses
and costs you have to look at all
the rooms and their expected
temperatures, not take them in isolation.


The idea is to put insulation in not size a heating system. The bedrooms
would greatly benefit by having 12" of insulation in the loft. (see above)


Never mind about the above. The original post was about putting in
some insulation and a heating system.

In order to do the second, the arithmetic on heat loss has to be done.
When it is, I would be willing to lay odds (and I never bet on
anything but 100% certainties) that the overall difference to the heat
loss will be negligible between using 150mm of insulation vs. 300mm
given the parameters of the house.




We are talking about heat loss *through* surfaces.


The point was air leakage. Please read back Lord Hall.


That was your point. Nobody else's.



The discussion was not about air tightness.
It makes some difference but not as much
as you imagine when ventilation is at the
recommended rate.


Air tightness is a part of it and you know nothing of it.


Air exchange is a normal part of living in a house and is accounted
for in normal heating calculations. There is no magic involved.




Not everybody wants to live
in a sealed box as you seem to advocate.

Another Lord Hall assumption. As
the Canadians say "Built Tight, Ventilate
Right"


We aren't in Canada


Do physics not apply over there?


Physics applies everywhere. The part that varies and what is
practicable and sensible depends highly on materials and method of
construction.

In this case we are talking about a house of over 150 years old with a
very restricted set of things that are going to be done to it. your
airtightness nonsense and superinsulation are completely irrelevent to
this.

The discussion is about house construction, not the bridge
construction with which you are more familiar.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl


  #21   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:56:59 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .



In order to calculate heat losses
and costs you have to look at all
the rooms and their expected
temperatures, not take them in isolation.


The idea is to put insulation in not size a heating system. The bedrooms
would greatly benefit by having 12" of insulation in the loft. (see

above)


Never mind about the above.
The original post was about putting in
some insulation and a heating system.


Lord Hall, the object of this "Loft Insulation" thread is
....er...er...insulation

In order to do the second, the
arithmetic on heat loss has to be done.
When it is, I would be willing to lay odds
(and I never bet on
anything but 100% certainties) that the
overall difference to the heat
loss will be negligible between using
150mm of insulation vs. 300mm
given the parameters of the house.


Lord Hall, you fail to realise the bedroom would greatly benefit in keeping
heat in and heat out.

We are talking about heat loss *through* surfaces.


The point was air leakage. Please read back Lord Hall.


That was your point. Nobody else's.


That was the point in question at that point..

Air tightness is a part of it
and you know nothing of it.


Air exchange is a normal part
of living in a house and is accounted
for in normal heating calculations.


Air leakage and ventilation are two different things. Lord Hall, you are on
about heating sizing calcs again. The insulation is the issue.

There is no magic involved.


There isn't and 12" is the minimum.

Not everybody wants to live
in a sealed box as you seem to advocate.

Another Lord Hall assumption. As
the Canadians say "Built Tight, Ventilate
Right"

We aren't in Canada


Do physics not apply over there?


Physics applies everywhere.


But you implied Canada was an exception.

In this case we are talking about
a house of over 150 years old with a
very restricted set of things that are

.. going to be done to it. your
airtightness nonsense and superinsulation
are completely irrelevent to
this.


Lord Hall, you haven't a clue. That is clear your highness.

The discussion is about house construction, not the bridge
construction with which you are more familiar.


I believe you bought Tower Bridge.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #22   Report Post  
basil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:24:39 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:



Put in 12" of Rockwool insulation, which is not that expensive. Ceiling
height doesn't matter regarding insulation.


Covering the joists in an old house will cause them to rot from
condensation. Assuming the OP isnt going to put a vapour seal on th e
ceiling then the joists must be left exposed.
  #23   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"basil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:24:39 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


Put in 12" of Rockwool insulation, which is not that expensive. Ceiling
height doesn't matter regarding insulation.


Covering the joists in an old house will cause them to rot from
condensation. Assuming the OP isnt going to put a vapour seal on th e
ceiling then the joists must be left exposed.


Old wives tales. It is normal practice to cover the joists to eliminate
cold bridging. The loft will be vented so that air movement will take away
water vapour.

Condensation only occurs when warm damp air meets a cold surface. The joists
will not be a cold surface.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #24   Report Post  
basil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:11:28 +0100, "Mogweed" wrote:



Thanks for the reply Tony. I'm not sure about grants for loft insulation on
private rented property but it's something we'll be looking in to - I'll
repost when I find out.

Cheers,

Mogweed.

Have you talked to the landlord about this? It might contravene your
lease etc. on the other hand sell it to him the right way he/she might
give you some rent discount.

PS leave the joists exposed to the air at their top!
  #25   Report Post  
basil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:14:45 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:



Old wives tales.


A surveyor advised me this having seen many rotten roofs apparently.

It is normal practice to cover the joists to eliminate
cold bridging.


In modern houses with foil backed plasterboard ceilings - no problem

The loft will be vented so that air movement will take away
water vapour.



But the rockwool prevents air circulating around where teh
condensation is. The condensation happens within the rockwool and
joists.



  #26   Report Post  
Doctor Evil
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"basil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:14:45 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:



Old wives tales.


A surveyor advised me this having
seen many rotten roofs apparently.


He is wrong. It is normal practice. His rotten roofs must have had
inadequate ventilation not traking away the moisture laden air. He should
have insisted on greater ventilation.

It is normal practice to cover
the joists to eliminate
cold bridging.


In modern houses with foil backed
plasterboard ceilings - no problem


It is better of course, as is any vapour barrier. Foil backed is not
standard.

The loft will be vented so that
air movement will take away
water vapour.


But the rockwool prevents air circulating
around where teh condensation is. The
condensation happens within the rockwool and
joists.


It doesn't. It occurs where warm moist air meets a cold surface. The joist
under Rockwool will not be cold. What is happening in his cases is most
likely, that the Rockwool is getting saturated from drips from the underside
of the roof, because of poor loft ventilation.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #27   Report Post  
al
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"basil" wrote in message
...
Covering the joists in an old house will cause them to rot from
condensation. Assuming the OP isnt going to put a vapour seal on th e
ceiling then the joists must be left exposed.


Exactly what I'm planning to do some time soon in a 1930's house. Hopefully
it won't cause any problems! Have about 10cm (if that) of crappy insulation
at the moment. Want to replace it with something better and deeper and ....
maybe ... re-joist at 90degrees with more to build it up to a more
satisfactory height (though not an IMM depth!) and then put some floorboards
over for storage space.




a


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
loft insulation DIY Novice UK diy 16 October 22nd 04 10:33 AM
Mains Halogen Lights - Loft Insulation Safety Question john UK diy 3 February 16th 04 01:47 PM
Fixing loft boarding *through* insulation and derating cable. Mike Hall UK diy 11 January 9th 04 04:45 PM
Loft Insulation - Best Type and Tips for Installation L Reid UK diy 22 October 19th 03 11:26 PM
Loft insulation Conrad Edwards UK diy 0 August 25th 03 10:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"