# Double or single glaze door?



## Doug71

A customer wants a new front door making, it's about 36" wide, 80" high and 1.75" thick.

Main house is a lovely big old farmhouse with single glazed sliding sash windows which have very fine glazing bars. They had a large extension on the back of house a few years ago which is all double glazed.

The old front door was a solid 6 panel but the new one wants glass in the top (9 small panes) to let more light into the entrance hall and 2 solid panels in the bottom, there is also a glazed light above the door to replace.

They are talking about wanting it double glazed but this will mean stuck on bars and think the thinnest units my supplier does with the multi spacer bars inside are 18mm which wont leave much for the mouldings front and back, also it will probably be aluminium spacers at that thickness.

Never used the slimlite type units and think the cost would put them out of the equation.

I would quite like them to keep it all traditional and have a single glazed door, think it would be more in keeping. The old part of the house is all single glazed (original thin old glass) and solid brick wall so not very thermally efficient anyway. 

Anybody got any good points/opinions/views either way to swing the decision?

Thanks in advance, Doug


----------



## Jacob

There would be zero cost benefit with such a small area. Less than zero in fact, double glazing does not pay for itself in any situation. 
It sounds like one of those "just say no" jobs. Do them a favour!
Remember rule 1; "The customer is always wrong"
More effective and much cheaper would be a heavy curtain - they also damp down drafts very well.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":35q7jss1 said:


> ......double glazing does not pay for itself in any situation........



Oh Jacob, please. That's pure nonsense.

-

To the OP.....is the building listed? If so, this isn't a decision for them or for you, but for the Listed Building's department at the council. Some councils are now allowing double glazing in new extensions to listed buildings, but no-one allows double glazing in the original building.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":1zsi4wwx said:


> Jacob":1zsi4wwx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......double glazing does not pay for itself in any situation........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Jacob, please. That's pure nonsense.
> ......
Click to expand...

Do a bit of googling "is DG cost effective?" etc and find out for yourself. 
Start here? https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/double- ... s-answered
DG is effective but not cost effective. A £100 p.a. saving on a £3 to 6k outlay is not cost effective, even less so when you look at obsolescence - most DG units fail in 20 years or less.
Thick curtains are much better value!


----------



## thomashenry

Sounds like DG would be a travesty in this scenario.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":14ccyd77 said:


> MikeG.":14ccyd77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":14ccyd77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......double glazing does not pay for itself in any situation........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Jacob, please. That's pure nonsense.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do a bit of googling "is DG cost effective?" etc and find out for yourself.
> Start here? https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/double- ... s-answered
> DG is effective but not cost effective. A £100 p.a. saving on a £3 to 6k outlay is not cost effective, even less so when you look at obsolescence - most DG units fail in 20 years or less.
> Thick curtains are much better value!
Click to expand...


Well of course if you calculate it in the most bizarre way possible, you'll come up with a bizarre result. Here's the sensible way: cost of new double glazed window minus the cost of new single glazed window divided by the cost of borrowing the difference on your mortgage, subtracted from the annual saving on your heating bill.

Please tell me my triple glazing isn't cost effective. I'm dying for that conversation. My £70 to £100 annual heating bill versus your prejudice. Could be a fun conversation.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":rvkkgg4w said:


> Jacob":rvkkgg4w said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeG.":rvkkgg4w said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> Oh Jacob, please. That's pure nonsense.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> Do a bit of googling "is DG cost effective?" etc and find out for yourself.
> Start here? https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/double- ... s-answered
> DG is effective but not cost effective. A £100 p.a. saving on a £3 to 6k outlay is not cost effective, even less so when you look at obsolescence - most DG units fail in 20 years or less.
> Thick curtains are much better value!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course if you calculate it in the most bizarre way possible, you'll come up with a bizarre result. Here's the sensible way: cost of new double glazed window minus the cost of new single glazed window divided by the cost of borrowing the difference on your mortgage, subtracted from the annual saving on your heating bill.
> 
> Please tell me my triple glazing isn't cost effective. I'm dying for that conversation. My £70 to £100 annual heating bill versus your prejudice. Could be a fun conversation.
Click to expand...

Do you really get a £70 to £100 annual heating bill? I'd imagine it wouldn't be obtainable without mega insulation throughout, plus heat exchangers, with DG as a small component.
Typical heat loss through single glazing is 18% (it says). DG halves this to 9%.
Typical heating bill say £600 x 9%= £54 saving per annum. Not a lot.
Mortgage rates about 5%. DG installation say £5k, cost £250 per annum interest only - doesn't include replacement at 25 years.
£5000 mortgage at 5% takes 36 years to pay off (on line calculator) at £25 per month!! Your windows wont last that long, even if you do!
£25 a month is £300 a year but only saves £54 p.a.
n.b. No dog in the fight I'm just going by the figures! Could be wrong?


----------



## doctor Bob

Mike I suspect you are not allowing for the Northern element, eggy thump and all that. Jacob just puts his hat on and a pair of wellies when it's chilly.







Bobble hat, tweed jacket and wellies bought from a charity shop once every 15 years is far more cost effective than triple glazing.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":232yi9sp said:


> .......Do you really get a £70 to £100 annual heating bill? I'd imagine it wouldn't be obtainable without mega insulation throughout, plus heat exchangers, with DG as a small component......



Not DG, but TG. But yes, that's what heating this big 300 year old house costs*, and yes, that's how it is achieved (plus judicious use of thermal mass, solar gain, and "airlocks" over the external doors), albeit there is only one heat exchanger. The windows have to come along with the rest of the thermal envelope otherwise there is no point doing the insulation etc.

*It costs approx 4 times as much to heat the hot water as it does to heat the house.


----------



## MikeG.

doctor Bob":1l8q3sxy said:


> Mike I suspect you are not allowing for the Northern element, eggy thump and all that. Jacob just puts his hat on and a pair of wellies when it's chilly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobble hat, tweed jacket and wellies bought from a charity shop once every 15 years is far more cost effective than triple glazing.



=D> =D> :lol: :lol: :lol: Precisely how I'll picture Jacob from now on.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":cynoxseh said:


> ....... DG installation say £5k......... Could be wrong?



Yep, you're wrong. You've failed to subtract the cost of single glazing from this. You are making the argument that replacing single glazing with double glazing isn't cost effective, but are failing to account for the fact that replacing the single glazing with single glazing would cost a pretty penny too. To do an honest comparison, you should be looking only at the price differential between double glazing and single glazing. The extra-over cost. If that comes in a a few hundred pounds, as it would at the worst case, then your argument doesn't hold quite so much water.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":11ygzmgk said:


> ..... The windows have to come along with the rest of the thermal envelope otherwise there is no point doing the insulation etc......


Actually not quite so simple. The heat loss through the windows and the reduction due to triple glazing remains the same whatever else is going on in the house, given the same temp differentials. i.e. the same saving, but a larger percentage of a smaller total. Still not a lot and almost certainly not cost effective, TG being much more expensive, unless you are up a mountain near the arctic circle! Do the calcs if you don't believe me! It's a common misunderstanding.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":85q078ev said:


> Jacob":85q078ev said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....... DG installation say £5k......... Could be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're wrong. You've failed to subtract the cost of single glazing from this. You are making the argument that replacing single glazing with double glazing isn't cost effective, but are failing to account for the fact that replacing the single glazing with single glazing would cost a pretty penny too. To do an honest comparison, you should be looking only at the price differential between double glazing and single glazing. The extra-over cost. If that comes in a a few hundred pounds, as it would at the worst case, then your argument doesn't hold quite so much water.
Click to expand...

Only true if you can be sure of low obsolescence and not having to replace them in 25 years or so. Single glazing can be kept going for ever, with routine maintenance.
Basically DG can only save a small amount. Probably more gained by efficient draught proofing.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":gxt29zl8 said:


> ...... Probably more gained by efficient draught proofing.



At last you've said something logical.

Oh, and I've done the calculations. I'm an architect. Designing low energy buildings is what I do. You are fundamentally failing to understand that all your errors stem from the nonsense of counting single glazed windows as free. You haven't yet addressed the necessity to cost in windows of any description, and then subtract that from the cost of double glazed windows. It is the price difference we should be talking about, not the total price.........unless of course you are advocating not having any windows at all.


----------



## Trevanion

I would definitely go for single glazed on the door if you haven't got the meat in the door to take a decent sized unit, especially if all the other windows already are single glazed. You will have to go for toughened panes in a door though because of building regs and general safety, just keep that in mind.

Been doing a job lately taking some 12ish-year-old single glazed sashes out of a building and taking the 4mm panes out and replacing them with 12mm Krypton DG units. It's costing about £50 a piece for about a 400mm x 600mm unit, with 4 units in one box and another couple of hours of work ripping out the old putty (Recent putty is a nightmare to remove, it's good stuff.) and cleaning the rebate and taking it a little deeper for the unit. Then the boxes have to have the old cast iron weights removed (I guess they had some lying around and decided to use them up) and replaced with lead ones to make up for the extra weight. All in all, it's costing about £350-400 per box to redo, which in my opinion is pointless and expensive but ye must do what ye told.



MikeG.":153a6vwj said:


> Some councils are now allowing double glazing in new extensions to listed buildings, but no-one allows double glazing in the original building.



This isn't technically correct anymore, or at least out this way it isn't. I've done a lot of new windows in the national park and in the local towns on listed buildings and they've been very lenient on double glazing as of late, so long as it isn't the 28mm stuff and the window doesn't look much different they don't seem to mind. Might be different in other counties though.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":1jcu01gm said:


> ...Only true if you can be sure of low obsolescence and not having to replace them in 25 years or so. Single glazing can be kept going for ever, with routine maintenance.......



You're confusing windows with glazing now. Come on Jacob, try to be clear thinking and precise. DG units fail......you don't then chuck out the entire window. You just replace the DG units. The triple glazed windows I fitted to a house I built in 1996, 23 years ago, are all 100%. It isn't inevitable that sealed units fail. Look out, too, for vacuum units, coming sometime soon.


----------



## MikeG.

Trevanion":2cvgt7py said:


> ........replacing them with 12mm Krypton DG units.........



These have a very poor reputation for failure, I'm afraid. I haven't specified any for ten years now, I reckon, because too many fail, and fail quickly.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":39tzdthi said:


> Jacob":39tzdthi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... Probably more gained by efficient draught proofing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At last you've said something logical.
> 
> Oh, and I've done the calculations. I'm an architect. Designing low energy buildings is what I do. You are fundamentally failing to understand that all your errors stem from the nonsense of counting single glazed windows as free. You haven't yet addressed the necessity to cost in windows of any description, and then subtract that from the cost of double glazed windows. It is the price difference we should be talking about, not the total price.........unless of course you are advocating not having any windows at all.
Click to expand...

I've done the calculations too, on several projects. I've also looked at the web and other comments. It seems to be widely agreed that almost every other energy use reducing measure is more cost effective than DG.
I take you do accept that replacing existing single glazed with DG is not cost effective? 
New DG as alternative to new SG is more difficult due to obsolescence of DG but I reckon the cost advantages are still marginal to negative.
If energy prices rise massively, as they should, given climate change, then all calcs are out of the window!


----------



## doctor Bob

MikeG.":3m3lpt9z said:


> Oh, and I've done the calculations. I'm an architect. Designing low energy buildings is what I do.



I'm afraid this counts for nothing with Jacob, he has googled it and read around a bit and knows better.
20 odd years designing low energy buildings, pah..........


----------



## Rorschach

Green building advisers in the US are predicting energy to get cheaper in the long term. There will still be rises for a while but once the shift to renewables takes hold and market forces kick in then the cost of energy will go down and insulation will be less important. People seem to forget there is a massive environmental impact in producing most forms of insulation.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Rorschach":c4xbhweu said:


> ... once the shift to renewables takes hold and market forces kick in then the cost of energy will go down ...



How many times have we been told in the past that once this that or the other happens (in any sphere) costs will go down? As soon as energy costs go down the government of the day will find a way of introducing yet another tax on them.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach":2rqwdk8g said:


> Green building advisers in the US are predicting energy to get cheaper in the long term. There will still be rises for a while but once the shift to renewables takes hold and market forces kick in then the cost of energy will go down and insulation will be less important.


Sounds improbable, but we shall see! I assume prices going ever upwards.


> People seem to forget there is a massive environmental impact in producing most forms of insulation.


The other issue is that heating costs aren't actually that high - say typically£1000 p.a. for a house, so there isn't much scope for cost effective saving. Draught proofing and Insulation the most effective, DG well down the list. Well documented, not just my personal google fantasy! TG no chance at all of ever being cost effective in our temperate climate.


----------



## Doug71

MikeG.":1r4hw0zc said:


> Look out, too, for vacuum units, coming sometime soon.



You mean like this? Only 6.5mm thick with a 0.2mm cavity!

https://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/pro ... ton-spacia


----------



## Jacob

The mass misinformation from suppliers is interesting. I just googled "is triple glazing cost effective". You soon hit 
"If your home is old and poorly insulated, triple glazed windows won't be as effective at cutting your energy bills." 
but what it doesn't say is 
"If your home is new and highly insulated, triple glazed windows still won't be  effective at cutting your energy bills." 
The saving is the same, for the same window and same temperature difference, however well fitted out the rest of the building


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":k5u1sote said:


> ......I just googled.........



Indeed.


----------



## MikeG.

Doug71":asz1k0bw said:


> MikeG.":asz1k0bw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look out, too, for vacuum units, coming sometime soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Only 6.5mm thick with a 0.2mm cavity!
> 
> https://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/pro ... ton-spacia
Click to expand...


Yep. It's not mass-market yet, but this is the future.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":3ji5q4vl said:


> Doug71":3ji5q4vl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeG.":3ji5q4vl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look out, too, for vacuum units, coming sometime soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this? Only 6.5mm thick with a 0.2mm cavity!
> 
> https://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/pro ... ton-spacia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. It's not mass-market yet, but this is the future.
Click to expand...

I doubt it! Nearly all other normal energy saving measures will still be more effective. 
The future is in renewable energy generation - if it's not too late of course - ice caps disappearing fast


----------



## OscarG

doctor Bob":l5xwlht7 said:


> MikeG.":l5xwlht7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and I've done the calculations. I'm an architect. Designing low energy buildings is what I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid this counts for nothing with Jacob, he has googled it and read around a bit and knows better.
> 20 odd years designing low energy buildings, pah..........
Click to expand...


haha =D>


----------



## Rorschach

phil.p":100bem91 said:


> Rorschach":100bem91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... once the shift to renewables takes hold and market forces kick in then the cost of energy will go down ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have we been told in the past that once this that or the other happens (in any sphere) costs will go down? As soon as energy costs go down the government of the day will find a way of introducing yet another tax on them.
Click to expand...


Food, cars, mobile phones, tv's, general household tech, white goods, clothes.

All the items listed above are cheaper than they have ever been in history so I am sorry that is just nonsense.
Energy will become cheaper to produce.


----------



## John Brown

Seems to me that you're talking about two different things here. The economics of ripping out existing single glazing, and replacing with DG/TG, and the economics of DG/TG versus SG when starting from scratch.
I am in total awe of Mike's abundant knowledge and his willingness to share it, but I don't believe that replacing all the single glazed windows in my 1854 non-cavity walled house with gas fired CH would make financial sense for me(unless I plan to live here for another 55 years). 

P.S., the picture posting in this thread is pathetic and puerile, in my opinion.


----------



## doctor Bob

John Brown":liu4d6h2 said:


> P.S., the picture posting in this thread is pathetic and puerile, in my opinion.



OK, I've removed them, although I really do think this virtue signalling of being purer than pure is just getting out of hand....................

P.S. I'm afraid I can edit peoples posts who quoted me, they will have to do that themselves.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach":3bc7jr2e said:


> phil.p":3bc7jr2e said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rorschach":3bc7jr2e said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... once the shift to renewables takes hold and market forces kick in then the cost of energy will go down ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have we been told in the past that once this that or the other happens (in any sphere) costs will go down? As soon as energy costs go down the government of the day will find a way of introducing yet another tax on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Food, cars, mobile phones, tv's, general household tech, white goods, clothes.
> 
> All the items listed above are cheaper than they have ever been in history so I am sorry that is just nonsense.
> Energy will become cheaper to produce.
Click to expand...

Certainly could be but it would take big state commitment to R&D. Yanks and ozzies (all that space and sunlight!) severely held back by the oil/coal lobby but the Chinese will do it - they've expanded massively on oil and coal to build an industrial base but are now going renewable big time.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob":35e53360 said:


> ....I really do think this virtue signalling of being purer than pure is just getting out of hand........................


What's virtuous or purer than pure about being opinionated about double glazing? It's not a moral issue is it?


----------



## RogerS

Excellent photo, doctor Bob and grateful to OscarG for re-quoting it. 

I was going to get the popcorn out but I see that Jacob has thrown in the towel. That or he's gone off for a bit more Googling.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob":3lbtr3hw said:


> doctor Bob":3lbtr3hw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....I really do think this virtue signalling of being purer than pure is just getting out of hand........................
> 
> 
> 
> What's virtuous or purer than pure about being opinionated about double glazing? It's not a moral issue is it?
Click to expand...


No I meant, not being allowed to take the mickey out of you Jacob, i.e. picture posting. I have to say you have never complained Jacob, I think you like it!!!


----------



## John Brown

Shame. I was really interested in this thread, but now I expect it'll all go to dung.


----------



## doctor Bob

John Brown":2q5del60 said:


> Shame. I was really interested in this thread, but now I expect it'll all go to dung.



Yes I understand how devastating this must be, I can only apologise once more if it's me, I'm off to self flaggellate myself right now.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob":3weknx3p said:


> Jacob":3weknx3p said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doctor Bob":3weknx3p said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....I really do think this virtue signalling of being purer than pure is just getting out of hand........................
> 
> 
> 
> What's virtuous or purer than pure about being opinionated about double glazing? It's not a moral issue is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I meant, not being allowed to take the mickey out of you Jacob, i.e. picture posting. I have to say you have never complained Jacob, I think you like it!!!
Click to expand...

I was out in my underpants yesterday in the garden - I'll take some selfies next time and post them if you are really interested. :shock:


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob":2lurjoea said:


> I was out in my underpants yesterday in the garden - I'll take some selfies next time and post them if you are really interested. :shock:



Hey Jacob, I think this was meant to be a PM, you little minx. Dark horses and all that.............


----------



## thomashenry

John Brown":2b6p1kp7 said:


> Seems to me that you're talking about two different things here. The economics of ripping out existing single glazing, and replacing with DG/TG, and the economics of DG/TG versus SG when starting from scratch.
> I am in total awe of Mike's abundant knowledge and his willingness to share it, but I don't believe that replacing all the single glazed windows in my 1854 non-cavity walled house with gas fired CH would make financial sense for me(unless I plan to live here for another 55 years).
> 
> P.S., the picture posting in this thread is pathetic and puerile, in my opinion.



This is the key thing isn't it. Removing functional single glazed windows and replacing with DG is a totally different thing to speccing DG when there is no existing window.


----------



## Peterm1000

So somehow a question about whether to single or double glaze has got way off topic and now pictures of Jacob in his underpants are being discussed...

I can't believe I am about to agree with Jacob, but I think he is right. Double glazing should be way down the list of energy saving things done in a house. However, I also think he is not answering the original question - should a new door be double glazed to increase energy efficiency or single glazed to improve the way it looks. I also think energy saving is not just about cost saving.

It sounds like the house is not very efficient anyway so the benefit of double glazing it would be very marginal. No one has mentioned the higher likelihood of condensation on a single glazed window but I think I would prefer double glazed for that reason alone.


----------



## RogerS

Doug71

Any chance of a photo showing the wall/windows where this door is to go ? Would I be right in saying that the wall has the single-glazed sash windows in? The ones with the slender glazing bars ?

If the answer is Yes then IMO single glazing with thin glazing bars to match into the existing sash windows is the way to go. Although I agree 100% with MikeG re the rationale for DG.

But, as has been mentioned already, are there external constraints such as Listed Building status, Conservation area issues and even Building Control (I'm not up-to-date re what is notifiable when it comes to replacing doors).

We were in a similar dilemma when it came to replacing the windows in our place. For aesthetic reasons, single glazing with thin glazing bars won out over those horrible Georgian bars stuck like an eyesore in between two panes of a DGU. Thick, too boot.


----------



## MikeG.

John Brown":1ncsqhwe said:


> ...... I don't believe that replacing all the single glazed windows in my 1854 non-cavity walled house with gas fired CH would make financial sense for me(unless I plan to live here for another 55 years)......



Absolutely (unless you factor in the reduced price you'd get for the house from having single glazing, potentially, when it comes to selling). But if all the windows frames were shot and required replacing, then the extra cost of double glazing as compared with single glazing (if indeed there was an extra cost), would be judged against the savings in fuel bills.

-

It's all a bit more subtle than the headline figures make out, too. For instance, south facing efficient windows can be a net contributor of heat to a house.


----------



## RogerS

MikeG.":34hy2714 said:


> ....
> It's all a bit more subtle than the headline figures make out, too. For instance, south facing efficient windows can be a net contributor of heat to a house.




Tell me about it ! I'm sitting here sweating away and thinking just how I can harness all that 'free' heat.


----------



## MikeG.

Peterm1000":30gi5si6 said:


> .....Double glazing should be way down the list of energy saving things done in a house........



No one has suggested otherwise. Jacob is right on this.


----------



## MikeG.

RogerS":2rxcbgnh said:


> MikeG.":2rxcbgnh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> It's all a bit more subtle than the headline figures make out, too. For instance, south facing efficient windows can be a net contributor of heat to a house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about it ! I'm sitting here sweating away and thinking just how I can harness all that 'free' heat.
Click to expand...


Build an inter-seasonal heat store....a super-insulated south facing rock-filled room (possibly a lean-to against an outbuilding/ garage etc) with south facing triple glazing and automated insulated shutters (which close at night). Size this correctly, and then draw your incoming fresh air for your ventilation system through this, and you may well provide enough heat to get through the winter without needing any additional heating in the house.

Or install a Trombe wall.

Or a well located "sun space" with twin thermostats controlling a high level fan drawing the heat into the house when needed.


----------



## Jacob

Peterm1000":1ubhx0zm said:


> .... No one has mentioned the higher likelihood of condensation on a single glazed window but I think I would prefer double glazed for that reason alone.


I put back restored single glazed windows in our chapel conversion using the old glass as far as possible. They had condensation channels and drainage (1/2" lead pipes) originally and I replaced them too with timber channels and copper pipe. Also heavily insulated the whole building. 
Once everything had dried out there was virtually no condensation at all - just on the coldest days a little pool in one or two of the channels and icicles on the drain pipe ends (10mm copper). 
I put this down to the "Passivent" passive ventilation - one in each of the two upstairs bathrooms which stay very dry and air is effectively drawn up there from the whole building. n.b. not draughty at all anywhere.
I'd heard high praise of Passivent before and was sceptical - but it works brilliantly. Not always possible to install it, it depends on the layout
PS Passivent not the only brand there are others similar


----------



## Lons

MikeG.":211ciue9 said:


> Peterm1000":211ciue9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Double glazing should be way down the list of energy saving things done in a house........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has suggested otherwise. Jacob is right on this.
Click to expand...

Except as you've already hinted Mike the difference in value when / if you sell your house can be considerable. Changes the figures a bit if it's factored into the long term cost calculations and if the market at the time is tight it can make it more difficult to find a buyer.

Right or wrong the general perception is that DG is a desirable feature and this is pushed hard by the TV Do it up and buy at auction progs. My house has a fair number of windows and is double glazed and an estate agent mate told me a few years ago that the difference in value was well in excess of £10 k.

I've been retired a few years but I thought if not a dwelling subject to listed building or conservation area if you replace a door with a completely new one it has to comply with building regs which includes the glazing element. Is that the case with out me going off to research?


----------



## OscarG

I've learned a lot from this thread, fascinating stuff, just been googling Trombe walls.

If I ever win the lottery I'm gonna buy a bit of land and hire Mike to design and build me a super duper house* full of Trombe walls and other cool stuff (hammer) 

*except the workshop, I wanna try doing that myself :wink:


----------



## RobinBHM

one of the big disadvantages of modern homes is the fact the insulation is mostly fitted on the warm side, so there is very little building material that acts as a thermal store.

Im not sure how that can affect the cost of energy, I suspect it largely depends on the way a house is used. A retired person will have vastly different heating needs to somebody that works all day and is absent form the home for 10 hours plus a day.

Certainly solar gain is a factor for windows and energy rating of windows has this factored in. However most heat is needed in the winter during the evening -not much solar gain happening then.

But, we build orangeries and customers say the solar gain for daytime use is most noticable, meaning heating is hardly required.


----------



## Rorschach

Jacob":3c57o8xo said:


> Certainly could be but it would take big state commitment to R&D. Yanks and ozzies (all that space and sunlight!) severely held back by the oil/coal lobby but the Chinese will do it - they've expanded massively on oil and coal to build an industrial base but are now going renewable big time.



They will have no choice. I hear this week that soon new houses will not be allowed to connect to the gas grid, something I have been expecting for several years now.

The Chinese uses cheap fossil fuels to build up their manufacturing ability and are now using that power to build cheap renewable technology for the home market and for export. With the efficieny increasing and costs falling it won't be long before it will make economic sense for people to put non-subsidised solar panels on their roof and generate their own electricity. 
The question then is how best to use that power if you are not on a feed back tariff? If you are not at home during the day then you need a way to store that energy, batteries are still too expensive and inefficient however you could store the energy in the form of heat, use electric immersion heaters to warm an insulated tank of water and then at night you can pump that around the existing radiator system. During the day if heat is needed you can use the solar power to run an air source heat pump, tripling the efficiency of the solar panels.


----------



## Lons

Hmm... The same Chinese who were blamed last year for the release of massive amounts of CFC-11 which they are secretly and illegally using in the production of insulation for the construction industry.
A process banned worldwide since 2010. :roll:


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM":1mtpogro said:


> one of the big disadvantages of modern homes is the fact the insulation is mostly fitted on the warm side, so there is very little building material that acts as a thermal store.
> 
> Im not sure how that can affect the cost of energy, I suspect it largely depends on the way a house is used. A retired person will have vastly different heating needs to somebody that works all day and is absent form the home for 10 hours plus a day.
> 
> Certainly solar gain is a factor for windows and energy rating of windows has this factored in. However most heat is needed in the winter during the evening -not much solar gain happening then.
> 
> But, we build orangeries and customers say the solar gain for daytime use is most noticable, meaning heating is hardly required.


Thermal store only makes sense if you have a substantial source of free surplus energy. (e.g. as per  Rorschach's post above re solar panels). If not then zero thermal store with internal surface high insulation is the cheapest way to go. Quickest warm up of air and surfaces, least wasted heating structure.


----------



## Jacob

Lons":1xzvbnhe said:


> Hmm... The same Chinese who were blamed last year for the release of massive amounts of CFC-11 which they are secretly and illegally using in the production of insulation for the construction industry.
> A process banned worldwide since 2010. :roll:


I think they feel they are entitled to catch up with the worst (USA and Europe) and they are likely to overtake us in renewables.


----------



## sammy.se

Another benefit of DG is sound proofing. That has to be worth some money to some people.

I live in a terraced house, on a road with a small amount of foot and car traffic. The noise, even with DG, annoys me. I wish I had Triple glazing or some sort of better sound proofing.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":2u150gms said:


> .........Thermal store only makes sense if you have a substantial source of free surplus energy. If not then zero thermal store with internal surface high insulation is the cheapest way to go. Quickest warm up of air and surfaces, least wasted heating structure.



Jesus H, Jacob. You don't know when to stop displaying your ignorance, do you.

OK, let me tell you about two houses I built side by side in the 1990s. One was of lightweight construction, double stud, 300mm insulation in the external walls, south facing glazed "sunspace", triple glazed, MVHR system, UFH, lobbies/ porches/ air-locks over all the external doors. It had a suspended timber first floor, and all internal walls were lightweight partitions. The other was built with extruded concrete internal blockwork with 200mm of insulation external to it, a concrete suspended first floor, concrete steps, and brick internal walls.....triple glazed, south facing sun space blah blah.....all the same as the previous house I described. They were in the same orientation, no overshading, and of virtually the same size, and they were monitored for their energy use by 2 different teams, one from a uni, and one by an energy consultancy.

Please tell me which one had the lower heating bills, and which one overheated in the summer. The one with more insulation, or the one with less?


----------



## MikeG.

More.....

Build yourself two boxes in the garden, each 1 metre cubed. Build one of plywood, 100mm Celotex, plywood....all round. Build the other of 100mm cast concrete, with 100mm Celotex externally, with ply cladding. Put a thermostatically controlled 100W incandescent light bulb inside both as a heat source, and monitor the energy use for a year. Report back.

Repeat the above exercise with a south facing window in each. Report back.

Jacob, I've a lot of time for you when you are talking about woodworking, but you are laying the law down here on something you know very little about. I've often thought that amateur woodworkers would do well to argue a bit less with you, and learn a bit more from you......and now I'm suggesting that this applies in reverse to you on this subject. At one stage I had 7 houses in the top ten most energy efficient above-ground buildings in Britain. This is stuff I know a little about, and if I don't know it, I don't google the answer, I refer to academic studies, and to, for instance, Design with Energy by Littler and Thomas, which despite being 30+ years old is still the bible of low energy design.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":2zmtxib8 said:


> Jacob":2zmtxib8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........Thermal store only makes sense if you have a substantial source of free surplus energy. If not then zero thermal store with internal surface high insulation is the cheapest way to go. Quickest warm up of air and surfaces, least wasted heating structure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus H, Jacob. You don't know when to stop displaying your ignorance, do you.
> 
> OK, let me tell you about two houses I built side by side in the 1990s. One was of lightweight construction, double stud, 300mm insulation in the external walls, south facing glazed "sunspace", triple glazed, MVHR system, UFH, lobbies/ porches/ air-locks over all the external doors. It had a suspended timber first floor, and all internal walls were lightweight partitions. The other was built with extruded concrete internal blockwork with 200mm of insulation externally, a concrete suspended first floor, concrete steps, and brick internal walls.....triple glazed, south facing sun space blah blah.....all the same as the previous house I described. They were in the same orientation, no overshading, and of virtually the same size, and they were monitored for their energy use by 2 different teams, one from a uni, and one by an energy consultancy.
> 
> Please tell me which one had the lower heating bills, and which one overheated in the summer.
Click to expand...

Obviously the expensive concrete building would have lower bills - but at what building cost compared to the other? Was it cost effective in terms of saved energy bills? I doubt it.
The overheating of the light weight sounds like design failure to me - inadequate ventilation (opening windows?), blinds, etc. Google 'desert house ventilation' or "passive cooling" :lol: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/mcmayhem33/ ... ntilation/
Re your garden experiment - the lightweight box would be a lot cheaper to make and on a house scale the same cost effective issues would apply.
Basically you can't save much if the heating bills are already low - £1000 p.a. for a typical house, so cost effectiveness is key.
PS I do know a bit about. We did a lot of research into alternatives such as bio mass boilers and thermal stores for our chapel conversion and it all came down to cost effectiveness in the end. Still intending to put solar panels up but haven't got around to it yet
PPS re overheating of your light-weight house; confirmation bias? It confirmed your preferences which distracted you from looking for a design solution?
PPPS Things have changed a lot since Littler & Thomas, concrete is on the non green list nowadays https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019 ... l-on-earth and the emphasis has shifted enormously to renewable energy generation rather than conservation, thanks to climate change urgency.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2xk2qopk said:


> ..... so cost effectiveness is key.
> ......



So you've got a house that's going to outlast your lifespan and so the long term energy saving is going to help fix global warming etc but because it's going to cost you money to make it even more energy saving, you're saying 'Sod the planet'. That's what it sounds like to me. Bit hypocritical seeing as how you keep banging on about climate change.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":1qck092n said:


> .......Obviously the expensive concrete building would have lower bills - but at what building cost compared to the other?........



And that, ladies and gentleman, is what moving goalposts look like. We've gone from "thermal mass requires spare energy" or something, to "thermal mass costs more.


----------



## OscarG

These 4 pages are pretty much a microcosm of that BBC thread.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":1zj4x3tr said:


> Jacob":1zj4x3tr said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......Obviously the expensive concrete building would have lower bills - but at what building cost compared to the other?........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that, ladies and gentleman, is what moving goalposts look like. We've gone from "thermal mass requires spare energy" or something, to "thermal mass costs more.
Click to expand...

Nope . Goal posts fixed. Both are true. 
Thermal mass doesn't help with heating except as a store of surplus energy - as a buffer. Otherwise it's easier to just turn it down or off rather than heating up a lump of concrete or a tonne of water. n.b. biomass boilers are efficient in a controlled energy cycle which need the buffer, they don't work on demand, but the buffer does. Similarly with sunlight - it's never there when you want it (cold dark night etc :shock: ) hence the thermal mass as a buffer.
Thermal mass costs more than no thermal mass.


----------



## scooby

OscarG":2ldlzs4m said:


> These 4 pages are pretty much a microcosm of that BBC thread.



...and look who is always at the centre.


----------



## Peterm1000

OscarG":tt7t7s9p said:


> These 4 pages are pretty much a microcosm of that BBC thread.



EXACTLY!!!! Even if the face of someone who is clearly an expert, Jacob thinks with a bit of googling he can outdo them!


----------



## RogerS

Peterm1000":2axct87w said:


> OscarG":2axct87w said:
> 
> 
> 
> These 4 pages are pretty much a microcosm of that BBC thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY!!!! Even if the face of someone who is clearly an expert, Jacob thinks with a bit of googling he can outdo them!
Click to expand...


It's called trolling, Peter. But then you probably knew that ! :lol:


----------



## OscarG

1. Make a wild statement on subject.
2. Have it comprehensively dismantled by someone infinitely more knowledgeable on that subject.
3. Dig heels in, double down on already disproven statement, come back with hastily googled content.

(Rinse and repeat ) x 99999999999999 = BBC thread

:wink:


----------



## Jacob

Haven't made a wild statement, haven't seen one dismantled.
So where have I got it wrong then?
n.b. It's a subject I'm particularly interested in and have been for years. Not just off the top of my head.
Also it's better if you point out where I'm wrong rather than just criticising me - it suggests you don't really know what you are talking about. Par for the course with Oscar and Roger - have you joined their merry little band? :lol: :lol:


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":300aagss said:


> Haven't made a wild statement, haven't seen one dismantled.
> So where have I got it wrong then?
> n.b. It's a subject I'm particularly interested in and have been for years. Not just off the top of my head.
> Also it's better if you point out where I'm wrong rather than just criticising me - it suggests you don't really know what you are talking about. Par for the course with Oscar and Roger - have you joined their merry little band? :lol: :lol:



Jacob, life is too short to waste any time even attempting to reason/discuss anything with you as history shows how you move the goalposts whenever you're getting boxed into a corner and your 'argument' has been ripped to shreds with facts.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob, I genuinely believe you are the brightest man I've ever known. You google stuff and your an expert, you seem to have the ability to do this with all sorts. You know all about everything which is truely amazing. 
I met a bloke down the boozer once, he was the same, funny everyone else thought he was a right tool, they likened him to a Monkey, which confused me. Apparently it was because to start with he was quite an amusing little chap, but as he got to know more and more and climb the tree of knowledge higher and higher, in the end all you could see was a tiny *******.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob":ej2eg2k3 said:


> Jacob, I genuinely believe you are the brightest man I've ever known. You google stuff and your an expert, you seem to have the ability to do this with all sorts. You know all about everything. I met a bloke down the boozer once, he was the same, funny everyone else thought he was a right tool.


Rightho. Any questions? :lol: :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob":3ochjjkr said:


> doctor Bob":3ochjjkr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, I genuinely believe you are the brightest man I've ever known. You google stuff and your an expert, you seem to have the ability to do this with all sorts. You know all about everything. I met a bloke down the boozer once, he was the same, funny everyone else thought he was a right tool.
> 
> 
> 
> Rightho. Any questions? :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...


Yes, what colour is black?


----------



## Rorschach

Lons":322pbz3o said:


> Hmm... The same Chinese who were blamed last year for the release of massive amounts of CFC-11 which they are secretly and illegally using in the production of insulation for the construction industry.
> A process banned worldwide since 2010. :roll:



Oh yes, causing lots of pollution in all sorts of areas, I wasn't praising them, they just have the right (sort of) idea in using fossil fuels to build factories that can build renewables.

Also they aren't doing this for fun or for the environment, they are doing it so they can sell the solar panels to us and make a load of money, as they always do.


----------



## Jacob

Rorschach":12jnbxji said:


> Lons":12jnbxji said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... The same Chinese who were blamed last year for the release of massive amounts of CFC-11 which they are secretly and illegally using in the production of insulation for the construction industry.
> A process banned worldwide since 2010. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, causing lots of pollution in all sorts of areas, I wasn't praising them, they just have the right (sort of) idea in using fossil fuels to build factories that can build renewables.
> 
> Also they aren't doing this for fun or for the environment, they are doing it so they can sell the solar panels to us and make a load of money, as they always do.
Click to expand...

I suspect they would be doing it for the environment too - they are scientifically and technically pretty competent and climate change will zap them too. 
They know about climate change and the only solutions; zero fossil fuel use and renewables.
I bet they are working on carbon capture too, but it looks like long shot to me.


----------



## Trevanion

OscarG":2g2sovkz said:


> These 4 pages are pretty much a microcosm of that BBC thread.



Perhaps this one will also get to 372 pages!


----------



## RogerS

Trevanion":2uxq51k7 said:


> OscarG":2uxq51k7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These 4 pages are pretty much a microcosm of that BBC thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this one will also get to 372 pages!
Click to expand...


I feel sorry for the OP.


----------



## MikeG.

Trevanion":353ug6ib said:


> ......Perhaps this one will also get to 372 pages!



If it does, 367 of them will be without me.


----------



## Doug71

RogerS":2bzqnaqj said:


> I feel sorry for the OP.



Wow, never had so much interest in one of my posts.

Don't worry about me, just had an email from customer saying they are happy to go with single glazing so all good.

As always thank you everybody for all the help and advice :roll:

Doug


----------



## Lons

doctor Bob":2hubhov9 said:


> Apparently it was because to start with he was quite an amusing little chap, but as he got to know more and more and climb the tree of knowledge higher and higher, in the end all you could see was a tiny *******.



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## RobinBHM

> Nope . Goal posts fixed. Both are true



No because one is arguing something different.........


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM":1ehndaqa said:


> Nope . Goal posts fixed. Both are true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because one is arguing something different.........
Click to expand...

Not at all.
Thermal mass stores surplus energy. Free surplus heat from the sun in MikeG's concrete house, or in our case heat from continuous firing bio mass boiler - surplus heat but not free. 
You need to store it because you can't switch it on and off like a gas boiler just when you need it.
But thermal mass itself is expensive - heavy concrete construction etc, or what we were looking at: an insulated 1 tonne tank of water.
We wondered about thermal mass with our project, mad ideas like insulating the outside, treating the masonry as thermal mass. But it has another inherent problem - it's a heat sink, until it you get it up to temp, by which time you may be out of the building or whatever. 
Basically a big investment in an inflexible system to save you not very much money at all.
Instead we have low thermal mass (all stud, plaster, insulation, wooden floors) and the place heats up very quickly on demand. Takes a day or so to cool down to ambient temperatures as it's fairly draught proof.
Does that help? I guess not. :roll: 
We have gas CH condensing boiler and also have a woodburner - "bio mass" heating on demand, space heating only; it doesn't do hot water.
Don't worry chaps if you don't get it!


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":2k1wjqeo said:


> .........Thermal mass stores surplus energy. Free surplus heat from the sun in MikeG's concrete house.......





Jacob":2k1wjqeo said:


> ..........Obviously the expensive concrete building would have lower bills..........



Both of these things can't be right. *Less* heat is put into the high thermal mass house than into the better-insulated but lightweight house, and the same amount of sunlight went into both. (Same with the concrete cube vs plywood cube). Therefore there is less "surplus" heat in the heavyweight house. Honest to god, Jacob, you spout this stuff as though you are some sort of expert, and virtually every claim you make is wrong.


----------



## scooby

Glad to see you've decided to continue posting Mike. Its been interesting reading your posts.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":woq1fz9v said:


> Jacob":woq1fz9v said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........Thermal mass stores surplus energy. Free surplus heat from the sun in MikeG's concrete house.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":woq1fz9v said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..........Obviously the expensive concrete building would have lower bills..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of these things can't be right. *Less* heat is put into the high thermal mass house than into the better-insulated but lightweight house. (Same with the concrete cube vs plywood cube). Therefore there is less "surplus" heat in the heavyweight house. Honest to god, Jacob, you spout this stuff as though you are some sort of expert, and virtually every claim you make is wrong.
Click to expand...

You have to heat the thermal mass before it is thermal, that's where the surplus heat goes. That's the whole idea. It's a buffer. From cold it will take longer to heat up than a low thermal mass house, but then will take longer to cool down. 
I'm surprised you don't understand it - I guess that is what the bad temper is all about.
PS


> Less heat is put into the high thermal mass house than into the better-insulated but lightweight house, and the same amount of sunlight went into both.


Can't be true - same amount of sunlight is same amount of heat.
The difference is that the thermal mass house will save more of it (act as a buffer) but then you have to pay for the building in of thermal mass, set off against the reduced heating bill.
But ultimately the economics depends on the pattern of use - if you are in and out erratically then quicker heating of a low thermal mass building may suit and the buffer effect be redundant and wasted.


----------



## scooby

Doug71":t0ejkztz said:


> RogerS":t0ejkztz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, never had so much interest in one of my posts.
> 
> Don't worry about me, just had an email from customer saying they are happy to go with single glazing so all good.
> 
> As always thank you everybody for all the help and advice :roll:
> 
> Doug
Click to expand...


Good to hear everything is sorted.


----------



## doctor Bob

I think this pie chart will help to clarify a few points?


----------



## OscarG

RogerS":2t7i21me said:


> Trevanion":2t7i21me said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OscarG":2t7i21me said:
> 
> 
> 
> These 4 pages are pretty much a microcosm of that BBC thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this one will also get to 372 pages!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for the OP.
Click to expand...


Agreed!

Hope his door turns out nice, whatever he decides.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":2d1e2edb said:


> .......Can't be true - same amount of sunlight is same amount of heat.........



Sunlight wasn't the only heat source. They got the same amount of sunlight, but required different amounts of heat from the central heating system. Your tosh about "spare heat" is just bizarre. The high thermal mass house required less heat than the low thermal mass house to maintain the same internal temperature. However much you twist and squirm, them's the facts.


----------



## Lons

Always reminds me of this. :lol:


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":p657r7ue said:


> Jacob":p657r7ue said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......Can't be true - same amount of sunlight is same amount of heat.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunlight wasn't the only heat source. They got the same amount of sunlight, but required different amounts of heat from the central heating system. Your tosh about "spare heat" is just bizarre. The high thermal mass house required less heat than the low thermal mass house to maintain the same internal temperature. However much you twist and squirm, them's the facts.
Click to expand...

OK yes - I thought you were talking about the amount of solar heat. 
But you have to pay for the material which makes up the thermal mass which brings up cost effectiveness as the decider. Or pay even more for a Trombe wall set up - which is why they are extremely rare and nobody does it. 
That's all I was saying, however much you rant and rave.
Preferred compromise option to a Trombe wall is a normal conservatory in a masonry building. You have the glazing and the thermal mass but you use the space between them and can see out of the windows!
By "spare" or "surplus" heat I was talking about sunlight when in excess, as on sunny days with large areas of glass when you have to ventilate etc, unless you have some sort of thermal mass effect going on to absorb it. Or similarly, bio mass boiler burning away efficiently but with heat you can't use at the same rate except to heat thermal store i.e. insulated water tank. The water tank can also be heated by solar panels on the roof which is going to be more effective and much cheaper than a Trombe wall set up.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":33u60tpi said:


> .........But you have to pay for the material which makes up the thermal mass which brings up cost effectiveness as the decider. Or pay even more for a Trombe wall set up - which is why they are extremely rare and nobody does it. That's all I was saying, however much you rant and rave............



No, that's a lie. That is not all you were saying. You said:



Jacob":33u60tpi said:


> ......Thermal store only makes sense if you have a substantial source of free surplus energy. ..........





Jacob":33u60tpi said:


> .......Thermal mass doesn't help with heating except as a store of surplus energy - as a buffer. Otherwise it's easier to just turn it down or off rather than heating up a lump of concrete.........





Jacob":33u60tpi said:


> .........Thermal mass stores surplus energy.





Jacob":33u60tpi said:


> ........But it has another inherent problem - it's a heat sink, until it you get it up to temp, by which time you may be out of the building or whatever.



All of which shows a complete lack of understanding of how thermal mass in a building works. 

Why is it, Jacob, that every single zero-energy house built in our climate is high thermal mass? There are now hundreds of them, and every last one that I know of uses heavyweight construction externally insulated. They're all wrong, obviously, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Despite the many side-by-side real-world experiments of lightweight vs heavyweight, such as my own which I described earlier, or the Nottingham University estate of low energy trial homes, you still think that they require extra energy to raise the thermal mass to temperature. 



Jacob":33u60tpi said:


> ........Takes a day or so to cool down to ambient temperatures as it's fairly draught proof.



Great. Our oil ran out unexpectedly in January. We had no heating for over ten days. The house lost half a degree a day. At that rate it would have taken some 3 weeks or more to get to ambient temperature.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":2zd9tb0p said:


> ...... Or pay even more for a Trombe wall set up - which is why they are extremely rare and nobody does it........



I'm not getting sucked into your financial red herring.

Trombe walls are actually quite common. Not here, because we have low levels of direct insolation. Basically, we're too cloudy, and so our sunlight is generally too diffuse for them to be effective. However, they are particularly common in areas of cool climate but high insolation, such as in mountainous regions, and in northern USA and Canada. It's nothing to do with cost, and everything to do with effectiveness in our climate.


----------



## Jacob

No you are still missing the point; COST EFFECTIVENESS. 
Which is why zero energy houses, trombe walls, are rare and why the preferred and more common method of solar heat capture is by roof panels and hot water storage, or photo voltaic. 
I forgot to add; basically, we're too cloudy, and so our sunlight is generally too diffuse for them to be effective. So we agree at last!


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":64sl2148 said:


> No you are still missing the point; COST EFFECTIVENESS.......



No, you are moving the goalposts, again. You made erroneous claims. Flat out wrong claims. Deal with those first, then I'll show you you're wrong on cost effectiveness. Before I discuss anything else with you on this subject, you need to acknowledge that you have mis-characterised the role of thermal mass in low energy design. It doesn't work the way you think it works.

I don't understand your attitude here, Jacob. You clearly have an interest in this subject, and you are interacting with someone who led the way in the UK. There were a only a couple of other guys working on low energy buildings here in the 90s. I've forgotten more about this subject than you've ever known. Why on earth don't you ask questions, try and have a conversation, explore some of the issues, rather than just continually telling me I'm wrong?


----------



## Jacob

> Why on earth don't you ask questions, try and have a conversation, explore some of the issues, rather than just continually telling me I'm wrong?


You kicked off the argumentative tone with your first post.

I didn't know they were called "Trombe" walls.
We had an end of terrace with a massive three story featureless gable end, of 18" stone. Very cold when the sun went off. I wondered about glazing all over it but thought it was problematic - maintenance of the internal surfaces mainly. But then thought why not position it away so you could get behind it. And, ta-da, you have a three story conservatory! Much more useful then the Trombe wall!
Didn't get around to that either.


----------



## RogerS

MikeG.":f0x8y0k6 said:


> .....Why on earth don't you ask questions, try and have a conversation, explore some of the issues, rather than just continually telling me I'm wrong?



He won't, Mike, because he is indulging in his favourite pastime - being a troll.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":33tpkkm3 said:


> Why on earth don't you ask questions, try and have a conversation, explore some of the issues, rather than just continually telling me I'm wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> You kicked off the argumentative tone with your first post.
Click to expand...


Because you made a claim that was completely and demonstrably wrong.



> We had an end of terrace with a massive three story featureless gable end, of 18" stone. Very cold when sun as the sun went off. I wondered about glazing all over it but thought it was problematic - maintenance of the internal surfaces mainly. But then thought why not position it away so you could get behind it. And, ta-da, you have a three story conservatory! Much more useful then the Trombe wall!
> Didn't get around to that either.



You don't mention the orientation, but of course this is standard stuff. Bedzed, in Sutton, London (another heavyweight-construction zero-energy place) uses three storey external sunspaces, for example. However, with your beloved cost-effectiveness in mind, it would be a lot cheaper to externally insulate that terrace gable wall than to create a 30 foot high glazed structure.


----------



## MikeG.

RogerS":1hdpy9tq said:


> MikeG.":1hdpy9tq said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Why on earth don't you ask questions, try and have a conversation, explore some of the issues, rather than just continually telling me I'm wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won't, Mike, because he is indulging in his favourite pastime - being a troll.
Click to expand...


I'm not getting involved any more. I'm going out to lay some bricks........

(Heavyweight thermal mass for a greenhouse).


----------



## OscarG

I hate to see energy wasted. 

Wonder if there's an efficient way to recycle Jacob's hot air? :wink:


----------



## thomashenry

Not sure what the controversy is here. Unless my understanding of thermodynmics is totally wrong, the only thermal energy in a thermal mass store is energy that has been put into it. So it's useful for storing excess energy that is not needed at a given time, but would otherwise be lost. Plus of course, a thermal store has cost.

What's Jacob so wrong about?


----------



## Lons

Here's a little scenario.

Fella goes to the pub and one of the lads says "what's up mate, you look really down?"

"Just found out my missus has cancer, they're going to operate but it doesn't look good the consultant says no hope", poor bloke is in tears.

"Don't listen to them there consultants" says his mate, " they talk utter boslocks, have no idea, I'm sure they just say things to put the wind up you" " I had the same thing with my missus a few years ago but I googled everything and found the answer. Turns out she had athletes foot so I ignored the so called experts and treated that". 
"Brilliant this Google lark - love it I'm always on the old ipad!"

"That's fantastic" said the first bloke, you can have my copy of The Guardian and I'll buy you a pint before I rush home to give the news to my missus".

As he's leaving he says " how long do you need to apply the athletes foot cream btw?"

"Dunno" says his mate "she died 'cos it had spread to her brain, the barstewards didn't tell me in time".


----------



## Jacob

Ooh Lons did you write all that yourself? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lons

Jacob":1gb5m0g5 said:


> Ooh Lons did you write all that yourself? :lol: :lol:


Google it


----------



## John Brown

thomashenry":2194ihzv said:


> Not sure what the controversy is here. Unless my understanding of thermodynmics is totally wrong, the only thermal energy in a thermal mass store is energy that has been put into it. So it's useful for storing excess energy that is not needed at a given time, but would otherwise be lost. Plus of course, a thermal store has cost.
> 
> What's Jacob so wrong about?



To be honest, I'm all at sea here.
We need to know where the goalpost are to start with, before we can talk about moving them.
Mike is obviously an expert in this stuff, but what he says is counter-intuitive to me.
I must be missing some information as to the conditions.
Am I to assume that the goal here is to achieve a constant temperature inside the box/house?
If so, then this does not mirror real life for many, who may be at work during the day, and are accustomed to lowering the temperature. And we all know that heat loss is proportional to temperature gradient.
If I assume no sun, and an outside temperature lower than the desired inside temperature, then my tiny brain cannot fathom how thermal mass can reduce heat input. This would be tantamount to free energy, would it not?
I'm not trying to start an argument here, I genuinely want to understand the principles involved, and/or the assumed conditions.


----------



## Rorschach

thomashenry":1p581z9v said:


> Not sure what the controversy is here. Unless my understanding of thermodynmics is totally wrong, the only thermal energy in a thermal mass store is energy that has been put into it. So it's useful for storing excess energy that is not needed at a given time, but would otherwise be lost. Plus of course, a thermal store has cost.
> 
> What's Jacob so wrong about?



I am not sure either. 
If I were building a house here (ignoring building regs) I wouldn't be going for thermal mass, it doesn't fit my lifestyle and low energy use. Might work for old folk who spend all day at home with the heating on 20C + but not for me.
I would be going for a cheap but well insulated structure with plenty of solar PV and some of the storage methods I mentioned before.


----------



## doctor Bob

I don't think everyone is saying Jacob is wrong, the issue is more and more are just sussing that he is a typical know it all. An expert on every subject, usually from google, some dubious anecdotal evidence but never ever backed up by pictures or experience. There is never any step down if the evidence is against him, he just continues to know it all, calling black white. 
He implies he has built/made/ constructed/been involved with most stuff, dismissed virtually all modern inventions, has anecdotal evidence coming out of his butt.
We all know this type of chap, my one is from the village pub. Harmless, we let him get away with it usually because it's quite entertaining that he genuinely thinks we all believe him. The other day he was explaining to my wife, an Air Traffic Controller, why it was an unnecessary industry, because road traffic can manage itself, air traffic could too, fantastic reasoning but total rubbish........
Quite happy to let him continue, it's an open forum and anyone can say anything, IMHO.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob":3gfcazgf said:


> ......
> He implies he has built/made/ constructed/been involved with most stuff,


No. I stick carefully with what I think I know something about, however little!


> dismissed virtually all modern inventions,


No. Just the over selling of gadgets and the under appreciation of trad skills/knowledge


> .......
> Quite happy to let him continue, it's an open forum and anyone can say anything, IMHO.


Well thanks very much. 
It does get tedious though - the endless attacks from the same very small group who never actually have anything interesting or useful to say, but just send threads off into the wilderness. Really really boring. Like being followed by a little team of miserable and utterly useless Gollums!


----------



## Sheffield Tony

OscarG":1uinp35n said:


> I hate to see energy wasted.
> 
> Wonder if there's an efficient way to recycle Jacob's hot air? :wink:



When I visited the Reichstag building in Berlin, the audio guide delicately explained that the dome design by Foster and partners allowed energy to be recovered from the hot air rising from the parliament chamber below. We could heat much of London if we had a similar parliament building, I should have thought.


----------



## RobinBHM

I think this concept of thermal mass -good or bad in terms of energy cost is very interesting.

I often get asked advice about underfloor heating, whether to use in screed wet or electric as opposed above screed. Or even, screed, then marmox type insulation then heat mat.

electric underfloor heating suppliers reckon cables above the screed is best -it can then heat the screed and at the same time warm up the tiles faster.

Ive visited jobs that have had in-screed wet systems and they really do heat an orangery very effectively.

But how they all compare in real world long terms energy usage, Im not sure.

One thing about wet underfloor systems is they use a mix of flow and return, so I think they add a small load to a boiler. Over a winter, probably a system on all the time does not need much heat to maintain the screed mass at its set temperature. And in an orangery, solar gain probably helps heat the floor if its tiled as well.

One other thing, underlfoor heating seems quite effective to me for orangeries because the heat is kept close to the floor, wheras radiators would create convection currents and the hot air would end up at high level in the lantern space.

I think an important aspect of thermal mass in a house is that once it is at temperature, it only requires small amount of heat in put to maintain its required set temperature. If the thermal mass is very insulated then any heat loss is going into the living space.

I have a feeling doing simulated models of the energy usage would be quite complicated.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob":126lknan said:


> Well thanks very much.
> It does get tedious though - the endless attacks from the same very small group who never actually have anything interesting or useful to say



I like to think my workshop open day in the past and the future will help people. The images of my kitchens and furniture, the techniques in doing round cabinets, the pictures of workshop techniques will have helped a great deal of persons. The free tools I sent to people when I had a workshop clearance, the van loads of offcuts people have taken from my workshop on a regular basis have always been appreciated, anyone want any off cuts, give me a call anytime, I'll fill your car. The guys on here who have set up businesses and maybe spent an hour on the phone with me or called in to seek advice. The chap (who drove from wales to east anglia, because it was incredible value)from the forum who bought my bandsaw for £250, real value probably £1200, but I'd rather see someone off the forum use and enjoy than some wally of ebay try and haggle or mess me around. To the chaps which have used my wide belt sander for table tops, to the forum members which use my wide thicknesser, to the forum members who have borrowed tools, you are welcome. The thanks I've received has been most welcomed.

To be honest Jacob the last picture you posted here of something you had made was about 12 years ago of a table, even then, for humour you substituted the picture for a picture of a bare bottomed woman riding a bike. Just saying. 
As tradition seems to enforce, I'll drop out of the thread now.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob":34w769cp said:


> ......
> As tradition seems to enforce, I'll drop out of the thread now.


Cheerio. You will be back, Gollums never give up!


----------



## John Brown

Why don't all the Jacob anti-groupies go and start a "We hate Jacob" thread, so that any useful information some of us are hoping to gain, doesn't get lost in the noise?

I think MikeG can probably make his case quite effectively without the help of a bunch of pitchfork wielding cheerleaders.


----------



## RogerS

John Brown":95ow07pw said:


> Why don't all the Jacob anti-groupies go and start a "We hate Jacob" thread, so that any useful information some of us are hoping to gain, doesn't get lost in the noise?
> 
> I think MikeG can probably make his case quite effectively without the help of a bunch of pitchfork wielding cheerleaders.



Clearly your definition of 'useful' when it applies to many of Jacob's posts does not concur with the definition of 'useful' in my copy of the OED.


----------



## OscarG

I'd argue the useful information would be more available if your pet troll was gently escorted back to the BBC thread, and close the gate next time so it can't get out.

Every thread he gets involved in turns into an argument with the conversation revolving around him, he's a troll, this is what he does, it's a repeating pattern. Yet the people who identify this pattern and sometimes gently make fun of it (guilty!) are the problem not the troll himself?

Interesting.

Wonder if anyone else suffers this problem of being picked on by "pitchfork wielding cheerleaders"? I'm gonna say no. :wink:


----------



## RobinBHM

I quite like Jacob really  , he often has opinions that differ from mine, but that is an opportunity to challenge my own opinions.....

Jacob has an unswerving ability to argue he can never be wrong, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Somehow that seems to really wind some people up. It doesn't bother me, after all, the forums more fun with the old pipper =D>


----------



## Jacob

OscarG":wn1gvb7u said:


> ...
> Every thread he gets involved in turns into an argument with the conversation revolving around him, he's a troll, this is what he does, it's a repeating pattern. Yet the people who identify this pattern and sometimes gently make fun of it (guilty!) are the problem not the troll himself?


No. the problem is with the gollums like yourself who have nothing interesting or useful to say on so many topics but instead turn their attention to attacking other posters. If you don't want to have a conversation revolving around me then don't keep f****g starting them and winding them up, you tedious boring twerps.
Set yourself a challenge - see if you can manage a few posts which would actually be interesting , welcome and not about me. A race between gollums - see who gets to five first!
PS I'd also point out that non of our gollums have attempted to make the slightest comment or contribution to anything else in this thread (and many others), presumably because you having nothing useful or interesting to say, as usual.


----------



## scooby

I'm sure theres a feature on most forums where you can add people to an ignore list so you dont have to read their posts...


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":383sivyh said:


> .....
> PS I'd also point out that non of our gollums have attempted to make the slightest comment or contribution to anything else in this thread (and many others), presumably because you having nothing useful or interesting to say, as usual.



That's not fair! It means I'm not being included in the Gollum Club.


----------



## Jacob

scooby":1bjqzl2f said:


> I'm sure theres a feature on most forums where you can add people to an ignore list so you don't have to read their posts...


Yes just done it - again! That's OscarG, RogerS, Lons, doctor Bob. 
I won't know if any of them will reach 5 consecutive interesting posts so please let me know if they manage it, though it's extremely unlikely. 
I've listed them so anybody else can copy paste if they want to do the same.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":2cz549jj said:


> scooby":2cz549jj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure theres a feature on most forums where you can add people to an ignore list so you dont have to read their posts...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes just done it - again! That's OscarG, RogerS, Lons, DrBob.
> I won't know if any of them will reach 5 consecutive interesting posts so please let me know if they manage it, though it's extremely unlikely.
> I've listed them so anybody else can copy paste if they want to do the same.
Click to expand...


You've gone and hurt my feelings, Jacob. Now I'll never get to join The Gollum Club.


----------



## OscarG

RogerS":2dk7r10x said:


> Jacob":2dk7r10x said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scooby":2dk7r10x said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure theres a feature on most forums where you can add people to an ignore list so you dont have to read their posts...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes just done it - again! That's OscarG, RogerS, Lons, DrBob.
> I won't know if any of them will reach 5 consecutive interesting posts so please let me know if they manage it, though it's extremely unlikely.
> I've listed them so anybody else can copy paste if they want to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've gone and hurt my feelings, Jacob. Now I'll never get to join The Gollum Club.
Click to expand...


It's ok, you can join me in my cosy safe space.

It's made of a cardboard box, heated by a candle and fitted with single glazed windows, none of that fancy trombe wall, doubled glazed, money wasting thermal nuclear low energy nonsense. :wink:


----------



## ColeyS1

This constant bickering/arguing reminds me of my childhood. 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Lons

> Jacob said:
> the problem is with the gollums like yourself who have nothing interesting or useful to say on so many topics but instead turn their attention to attacking other posters.


Could easily and accurately throw that comment right back at you! What you think you said is interesting others see as utter opinionated tosh. :lol: 


> non of our gollums have attempted to make the slightest comment or contribution to anything else in this thread (and many others), presumably because you having nothing useful or interesting to say, as usual.


Don't need to, Mike has effectively ripped you to shreds, and done it in a much more polite way than others would have, some of us who've been in the building trade and have a little experience of that subject could have contributed but have the good grace to accept that the expert knows what he's talking about rather than pontificate and contradict the guy at every turn - I wonder who did that? Oh yes it was* you * - *AGAIN!*


> If you don't want to have a conversation revolving around me then don't keep f****g starting them and winding them up, you tedious boring twerps.


Oh dear, has little diddums spat his dummy out again, poor little chap. :wink:


----------



## thomashenry

I don't think Jacob was 'ripped to shreds' at all. I'm still unsure what he's meant to have been wrong about.


----------



## Jacob

thomashenry":132taegu said:


> I don't think Jacob was 'ripped to shreds' at all. I'm still unsure what he's meant to have been wrong about.


Nor me. :lol:


----------



## Jacob

John Brown":hcnl1ozd said:


> ......
> If I assume no sun, and an outside temperature lower than the desired inside temperature, then my tiny brain cannot fathom how thermal mass can reduce heat input. This would be tantamount to free energy, would it not?......


Reduces heat input required by conserving heat from when the sun _was _out, or other source such as ground heat pump, and releasing it slowly, or on demand in controlled systems. Or in the case of bio mass boiler it conserves the heat from the boiler working efficiently at full blast but producing more heat than can be used immediately. A buffer, in other words. It's simple in principle, but not necessarily in practice.
We looked at combining bio mass boiler, thermal store (water tank), solar roof panels (i.e. water circulating) which looks good but not cheap.
A big step in climate change measures will be when we are no longer have gas, which has to happen very soon*, then all the alternatives start looking viable.
PS * long overdue more like.


----------



## Lons

Jacob":2i64t2t3 said:


> thomashenry":2i64t2t3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Jacob was 'ripped to shreds' at all. I'm still unsure what he's meant to have been wrong about.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor me. :lol:
Click to expand...


No surprise there then :wink: :lol:


----------



## John Brown

Those points, Jacob, are irelevant to the conditions I proposed. i.e. no sun.
And MikeG's thermostatically controlled lightbulb in a box thought-experiment has nowt to do with biomass, ground source or any other surplus heat scenario. 
My questions were really aimed at MikeG, but I guess he's abandoned this thread now, which doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Jacob

John Brown":m5kd1xtn said:


> Those points, Jacob, are irelevant to the conditions I proposed. i.e. no sun.
> And MikeG's thermostatically controlled lightbulb in a box thought-experiment has nowt to do with biomass, ground source or any other surplus heat scenario.
> My questions were really aimed at MikeG, but I guess he's abandoned this thread now, which doesn't surprise me.


Right I see what you mean. Presumably the heavy solid construction would conserve heat and buffer the rate of heating up and cooling down. The light weight would heat up quickly and cool down quickly. Not sure what this shows as in the real world you'd simply adjust the source - full blast in a cold room, which would have to stay on longer to heat up a thermal store build, which would then take longer to cool down. Not net gain or loss. Nor would there be with thermostatically controlled bulbs - just automatic adjustment instead.
I'm sure Mike will be along if I've misunderstood.
Just looked back to Mikes post:


> Build yourself two boxes in the garden, each 1 metre cubed. Build one of plywood, 100mm Celotex, plywood....all round. Build the other of 100mm cast concrete, with 100mm Celotex externally, with ply cladding. Put a thermostatically controlled 100W incandescent light bulb inside both as a heat source, and monitor the energy use for a year. .....


Still seems to me a zero sum game. The concrete box will take longer to heat up (take up more energy to reach the thermostat setting) but longer to cool down.
PS Oh no it isn't! All other things being equal the _total_ energy consumption of the concrete box would always be higher than the other, by the amount needed at start up to bring it up to temp. :shock:


----------



## thomashenry

Lons":19j6x7c1 said:


> Jacob":19j6x7c1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thomashenry":19j6x7c1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Jacob was 'ripped to shreds' at all. I'm still unsure what he's meant to have been wrong about.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor me. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No surprise there then :wink: :lol:
Click to expand...

Do you?


----------



## scooby

I have to admit I've enjoyed reading this thread, apart from the childish rubbish. 
Started out with a single or double glazed door which then went onto trombe walls and thermal mass. 
I'd never even heard of trombe wall before this and knew very little about thermal mass. I still know about nothing about them, and I'll never be in a situation where I will need to know more, but its been interesting.


----------



## OscarG

scooby":21hxuuhw said:


> I'd never even heard of trombe wall before this...



Same here. It's such a clever idea.


----------



## RogerS

thomashenry":3vpg49ta said:


> ... I'm still unsure what he's meant to have been wrong about.



On the first page, Jacob said "...double glazing does not pay for itself in any situation. " which, as was pointed out to him by a leading expert with several architectural awards under his belt for energy-efficient houses, was nonsense.

But rather than gracefully admit that he was wrong and perhaps should have said "in a lot of situations I don't think that double glazing pays for itself" and then gone on to quantify why he was making that statement, as per usual Jacob did what Jacob always does which was dig his heels in and argue that black equals white, move the goalposts etc.


----------



## Lons

thomashenry":1do6iib8 said:


> Lons":1do6iib8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise there then :wink: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
Click to expand...


Yep!

Do you actually have experience of those topics or just interested and trying to expand your knowledge? Not a criticism, just curious.

My knowledge of double glazing and thermal efficiency gained over 18 years in the construction industry, especially with a grade 2 listed stable and a barn conversion as well as my own property, is no greater than Jacobs' though probably not less either but Mike, politely countered the rubbishing of his experienced, expert opinion which was followed by the regular sideways shuffle that's been seen so often across the forum.

I bow to Mikes' vast expertise, agree with him based on my limited experience and can't add anything to the contrary ...so I don't while Jacob clearly considers himself, as usual vastly more qualified to argue the toss and move the posts to suit.

I refer you to my " little scenario" posted earlier. :lol:


----------



## Benchwayze

Hope it's OK to 'resurrect' this thread:

I hadn't a clue about 'Trombe walls', so I Googled.

https://builditsolar.com/Projects/Space ... arWall.htm

I don't know much more than I read there , but I think I have a kind of Trombe wall servicing my work shop. I call it an up and over, metal garage door. 

The door faces due South, and in the hottest weather you can't touch it with your hand. Only in the coldest weather is it really cold. 

One thing I did notice was the fact that my tools, even those I don't use often, just don't rust; unless I am careless enough to leave them near gaps around the door. So I don't! 

The garage is half-integral with the house, but mainly, because the door faces due South, it must act as a convector, all year round, keeping the shop humidity low. My only gripes are waste space in the rafters, when the door is fully up; and the fact I have to allow for its travel when fixing shelving or placing machinery. I could solve those probs with a metal, roller shutter door, but at my time of life it's a bit late? 

Okay then; I Googled Trombe Walls and now I probably know as much about them as does Jacob. No offence Jacob; hope your SOH is still intact old man! 

Regards 

John


----------



## Benchwayze

I also agree with Mike on cost effectiveness, and I paraphrase Oscar Wilde, from his 'Lady Windermere's Fan'. 

Price as compared to Value. 

I just leave my heating on low, all through winter. (More or less) It costs I guess, but it's value to me, as keeps me cosy in my old age. 

Cheers 

John


----------



## Jacob

Benchwayze":16mb4nqa said:


> ......
> Okay then; I Googled Trombe Walls and now I probably know as much about them as does Jacob. ...


No you haven't quite got it. A "Trombe" wall is a substantial structure with a high specific heat (capacity) sited behind glass to slowly absorb heat from the sun and release it slowly even after the sun has gone in.
Your garage door will gain and lose heat very quickly - little storage capacity and not under glass so will also lose heat very quickly to the outside


----------



## Benchwayze

Still can't take a little joke then Jacob?

I am aware of the heat absorption and transference properties of metal. That's why all my saucepans have plastic or wooden handles.

I still thank my garage door for keeping my shop drier than most amateur shops. As I said, were I to change it, I would go for a metal, roller shutter. That would save me space, and I'd still get the benefits of the heat exchange, as it were. 

Take care Jacob. Don't do what I did the other day and take a tumble!

Best wishes 

John (hammer)


----------



## Rorschach

Your door is acting like a big radiant heater. My metal garage door used to do the same, it is also south facing and gets plenty of sun. For a long time it was painted dark green. In the summer it would be too hot to touch and unbearable to stand near it. In the winter of course it provided some welcome warmth on fine days.

A change of decor to the front of the house meant it was to be painted white. It is now always cold, summer or winter. While I do miss the winter heat I prefer having the white, aside from the house looking much smarter, the summer heat was a massive problem and fine winter days are rare.


----------



## Jacob

Benchwayze":2qmnz6sp said:


> Still can't take a little joke then Jacob?....


Er, what joke? Must have missed it!


----------



## Benchwayze

Too subtle obviously! 

John

Cut & Pasted from my post: 

Okay then; I Googled Trombe Walls and now I probably know as much about them as does Jacob. No offence Jacob; hope your SOH is still intact old man!


----------



## Benchwayze

Hi Rorschach

Mine is powder-coated white, as it came from the manufacturer.For heat, I can't say I notice much difference between it, and the original door which was always painted Navy blue or Brown (Spice was the official title!) If I had a few more years I would fit a roller shutter though. 

My timber storage rafters (4x2s) are starting to sag, so I must rotate them in their hangers, or the door will be clouting them when opening! Turning them over is going to be fun, wot I am not looking forward to! I'll use props and wedges to lift up the load! :mrgreen: 

John


----------



## sawdust1

Jacob, your biomass boiler is it pellet or log, we are looking into going down this road. 
Had a quote from a renewable Co £25,000 so no thanks! Luckily just picked up a log boiler, only up the road for £50 as the bloke was fed up with feeding it logs all day and changed it for a pellet boiler.
It will feed an underfloor system once all the rest has been installed. No brainer as i have 23 acres of
woodland on my doorstep.
Our fuel bill this year is going to be ZERO, although we have a combi oil boiler, after we had our lecy
meter fitted the missus is on a big lecy saving drive and decided that our 2 woodburners would
just take to chill of the air enough and extra jumpers would be cheaper!
I was interested in this thread as we have single glazing on all our windows but as many now need remaking, i will be using DG units not just for heat saving but to save the missus from having to every morning use the window vac mopping up all the condensation.


----------



## Jacob

sawdust1":17lk4da0 said:


> Jacob, your biomass boiler is it pellet or log, we are looking into going down this road.
> Had a quote from a renewable Co £25,000 so no thanks! Luckily just picked up a log boiler, only up the road for £50 as the bloke was fed up with feeding it logs all day and changed it for a pellet boiler.


No we didn't bother in the end. Spent a vast amount of money on insulation instead - 4" Kingspan around all the walls and 12" or so in the roof, plus more in partitions between rooms so parts of the building can be warm whilst room next door is out of use etc. 
Cost of double glazing not worth it and would spoil some very nice old windows. All single glazed using the old glass. Anticipated condensation so put in collection channels in the old fashioned way but in the event they are hardly needed: have "Passivent" passive ventilation in two bathrooms which works for the whole building amazingly well, condensation not an issue
Have gas CH, electric induction hob (no extraction needed) and large "Dowling Sumo" woodburner which will do sawdust and all scrap wood - heats the whole place very quickly if necessary, but not water.
Total energy bill about £1000 p.a. but this is a big building (3000 sq ft) and it is warm. Half of that is gas heating and hot water so little scope for big economy - DG would save perhaps £100 p.a. so not cost effective on 16 very large chapel windows and bio-mass even less cost effective. 
Insulation and careful ventilation is the big issue.


----------



## RogerS

sawdust1":1i3i0k2p said:


> Jacob, your biomass boiler is it pellet or log, we are looking into going down this road.
> Had a quote from a renewable Co £25,000 so no thanks! Luckily just picked up a log boiler, only up the road for £50 as the bloke was fed up with feeding it logs all day and changed it for a pellet boiler.



He saw you coming Get rid of it sharpish. When we bought our place a couple of years ago, it came with this Vigas wood boiler



 

I spent over £500 in one month in very dry logs and never managed to get it going properly despite help (admittedly minimal) from Dunster's who installed it. Every morning, I'd wake up and ask myself...is the b****rd thing going to still be alight or do I have to fight it all over again to get it relit.



sawdust1":1i3i0k2p said:


> .... No brainer as i have 23 acres of woodland on my doorstep.



I've got even more woodland than that that I own but, as I soon found out, it takes a LONG time for the wood to dry properly...think two years. And the amount of time spent logging, cutting, chopping, splitting. It all sounded very romantic when we bought the place. In the cold light of reality, it is a right old PITA.

If you do go down that route then it only really works if you have a massive heat store to take the surplus heat. Like one of these monsters.



 

Wood boilers are NOT as controllable without one as a pellet boiler.

Did I mention that wood boilers are a PITA ?


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":ax8jm5s5 said:


> ....
> Did I mention that wood boilers are a PITA ?


And expensive to buy and maintain. Basically a semi industrial process suitable for a big establishment with own supply of dry wood and a full time employee to keep it going.
Direct wood stove completely the opposite, technically very simple, near instant heat from any old rubbish as long as it is dry, and fires up like blast furnace. I burn sawdust, cardboard and some paper (not glossy mags - too much ash), scrap wood, skip finds, old pallets, garden trimmings, mdf, chipboard. Not plastic - too hot and smelly, and try to avoid painted wood - just a bit at a time. Burns best with nice dry hardwood logs but they aren't cheap.
Re: _Insulation and careful ventilation is the big issue._ plus roller blinds at windows, heavy curtains at external doors, door closer mechs to retain heat in rooms, all attractive, very cheap and cost effective compared to DG etc.
PS had to fit fire doors throughout but these also have relatively high insulation value which is another plus.


----------



## Benchwayze

All I know is that if I leave my heating on all the time my house is always warm and the winter bill is manageable.
If I employ the timer there are times when I shiver. I think the climate is always changing, has always changed and will always change. Co2 is a naturally occurring gas and the planet needs it; and is going through a drought of Co2. Time for more googling methinks!

John


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":1kkjd0hy said:


> RogerS":1kkjd0hy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Did I mention that wood boilers are a PITA ?
> 
> 
> 
> And expensive to buy and maintain. Basically a semi industrial process suitable for a big establishment with own supply of dry wood and a full time employee to keep it going......
Click to expand...


Absolute rubbish. There is virtually nothing to maintain.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":3ikphdpt said:


> ..... cost effective compared to DG etc.
> ....



Like a lot of things, Jacob, it depends on a number of factors. 

If you already have a set of perfectly serviceable single glazed windows then I agree. It makes no sense to replace them with DG. But if you are having to replace them then the incremental cost of putting in DG as opposed to SG is relatively minimal compared to the overall cost of having them made and installed. Then the cost-benefit analysis is much much more favourable. Unless ....

Unless it depends on the style of the windows. If they are for a relatively modern house with large single panes then it makes sense. But if it is for, say, a more period property then IMO aesthetics come into play because the windows start to look ugly with thick glazing bars to hide the spacers around each DG unit. You also have to factor in the relatively higher cost for small paned DG units as there is usually a minimum charge. So a multi-paned window with small DG units in does not become very cost-effective.

For some, the way round this is to have one large DG unit with 'Georgian bars' stuck in the middle between the two panes. Personally I loathe them but other views may differ. It will certainly be cheaper than a window made from a lot of smaller DG units and so once more DG does become cost-effective.


----------



## Trevanion

RogerS":24kjl5tx said:


> For some, the way round this is to have one large DG unit with 'Georgian bars' stuck in the middle between the two panes. Personally I loathe them but other views may differ. It will certainly be cheaper than a window made from a lot of smaller DG units and so once more DG does become cost-effective.



There's barely anything in it price wise as you're paying for square meterage anyway(Or at least I am), where you make the money back is not having to mortice loads of bars in the sash but instead just sticking bars onto the pane itself.

If the current double glazing wasn't a failing technology and the units would last longer than anywhere from 5 - 10 years (Sometimes I have to replace units after a year or two or even months due to bad manufacturing), It would make total sense to replace panes or whole windows with double glazed ones or even triple glazed ones as you would benefit from the savings eventually. But if you're having to replace the units every 10 years pretty much all savings made on the heating bill is nil because as Jacob says, it's such a small percentage of the whole building. You're not really going to save anything at all if the rest of the building isn't up to scratch first.

It does work well however if you don't like condensation and noise pollution, that can make it all worthwhile for some


----------



## Rorschach

From personal experience we are just having to replace units that are 25ish years old, that's not too bad really. No idea how long the replacements will last of course.


----------



## RogerS

Trevanion":1n4fvreq said:


> RogerS":1n4fvreq said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some, the way round this is to have one large DG unit with 'Georgian bars' stuck in the middle between the two panes. Personally I loathe them but other views may differ. It will certainly be cheaper than a window made from a lot of smaller DG units and so once more DG does become cost-effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's barely anything in it price wise as you're paying for square meterage anyway(Or at least I am), where you make the money back is not having to mortice loads of bars in the sash but instead just sticking bars onto the pane itself....
Click to expand...


You're lucky as I always had to pay a minimum price.

With regards to failure, bad installation in my experience and/or bad workmanship when they were made by the DG company


----------



## Doug71

Trevanion":2jb8cbqm said:


> There's barely anything in it price wise as you're paying for square meterage anyway(Or at least I am)



My supplier has a minimum charge per unit of 0.3 square metre so small panes can soon add up.

I personally don't mind the stuck on bar look but dreading the day a unit breaks down and needs replacing.


----------



## Jacob

Trevanion":3e85tkf6 said:


> ........
> It does work well however if you don't like condensation and noise pollution, that can make it all worthwhile for some


Condensation no prob in our place. The two bathrooms have Passivent passive ventilation (humidity sensitive) which works brilliantly and effectively draws air from the rest of the building. There has been an occasional morning cold enough for a bit of condensation but not at a problem level. We've got roller or roman blinds at every window so that helps - better than DG.
I went to a lot of trouble to make and fit condensation channels but once the building had dried out and we'd been living in it for a bit condensation stopped almost entirely.
PS we replaced 1874 windows with replicas, using all the old glass. Normal maintenance and trad linseed oil paint should make them last another 145 years, by which time the glass will be 290 years old i.e. about ten to twenty times the life of a typical DG unit.


----------



## doctor Bob

It's really quite simple, some buildings are best kept as single glaze, some are better with DG. 
OK.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":rgoas81c said:


> .....We've got roller or roman blinds at every window so that helps - better than DG.
> ....



Sorry, Jacob. Wrong again. #-o







Taken from this real-world study


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":2bmj02y7 said:


> Jacob":2bmj02y7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....We've got roller or roman blinds at every window so that helps - better than DG.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Jacob. Wrong again. #-o
> 
> 
> 
> Taken from this real-world study
Click to expand...

Not wrong in terms of cost effectiveness. Blinds/curtains cost very little compared to the alternatives. Am planning on well fitting shutters on the basement/workshop part of the building and they score highest; won't be cheap but not obsolescent like DG. Will last as long as anybody maintains them (low cost), plus 50 years or so.


----------



## sawdust1

Roger s, Vigas thats the one , same as yours. It would be attached to a tank, i thought you could not run the system with out one. I sell logs so not a problem on this side.
Will put our oil combi in the system as back up.


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":3rbt0hp5 said:


> RogerS":3rbt0hp5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":3rbt0hp5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....We've got roller or roman blinds at every window so that helps - better than DG.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Jacob. Wrong again. #-o
> 
> 
> 
> Taken from this real-world study
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wrong in terms of cost effectiveness.
Click to expand...


Shifting the goalposts again. That is not what you wrote or meant. You clearly made one of your usual 'definitive pronouncements'.



Jacob":3rbt0hp5 said:


> Blinds/curtains cost very little compared to the alternatives.



Maybe you get your blinds from a charity shop as they are a damn sight more expensive than the negligible incremental cost of adding an extra pane of glass.



I thought I was on Ignore. Please put me back.


----------



## RogerS

sawdust1":1wh63pv3 said:


> Roger s, Vigas thats the one , same as yours. It would be attached to a tank, i thought you could not run the system with out one. I sell logs so not a problem on this side.
> Will put our oil combi in the system as back up.



Good luck then in that case! What size tank are you getting ? I had to put in £300 worth of inhibitor when mine was redone. You do know that they are very inefficient and leak heat. If you can site it in your hall then that would be a plus !

Make sure that if you put the combi as backup that it does NOT heat up the tank because ......

Potted history.

Inherited the damn Vigas and tank. Gave up on it, as you know, and sold it for £500. Decided to replace with an oil combi and my plumber mentioned a guy who had used a combi in conjunction with a tank because 

(a) condensing boilers are a 'con' and are only condensing around 50 degrees or below. Most people run theirs much higher ie not as efficient as the manufacturers blurb would have you believe.

(b) oil boilers have a pre and post purge that wastes fuel

(c) so the on/off/on cycle that most people drive their oil boiler is inefficient.

(d) so put in a large thermal store, give the oil boiler one long blast of heat until the tank is up to temperature and then draw off the hot water for an underfloor heating system from the tank. When the tank drops below a certain temperature, repeat the cycle.

So, as I already had the tank, I decided to try it out. I don't have UFH so that defeated (a). I also discovered that come early spring and I thought...Ha...I can switch off the CH...the tank gradually ran down its heat. Then the weather changed and it got cold, just needed a little top up of heat in the house to take the chill off. Trouble was before I could do that I had to heat up 2500 litres of cold water.  

So, disconnected the tank from my oil combi completely. It is still there...kind of 'future-proof' if oil goes TU.


----------



## Jacob

RogerS":1gek74ib said:


> Jacob":1gek74ib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RogerS":1gek74ib said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Sorry, Jacob. Wrong again. #-o
> 
> 
> 
> Taken from this real-world study
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wrong in terms of cost effectiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shifting the goalposts again. That is not what you wrote or meant. You clearly made one of your usual 'definitive pronouncements'.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":1gek74ib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blinds/curtains cost very little compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you get your blinds from a charity shop as they are a damn sight more expensive than the negligible incremental cost of adding an extra pane of glass.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was on Ignore. Please put me back.
Click to expand...

Yes put you back on ignore. You don't seem to be able to understand some quite simple things and it sets you off into your childish little fits of bad temper.


----------



## doctor Bob

I have curtains / blinds as well, but I quite like to look out of my windows during the day and not look like a hermit.

Anyone else starting to think this thread looks like this............. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk3ds-VFKBs.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob":chanqsvv said:


> I have curtains / blinds as well, but I quite like to look out of my windows during the day and not look like a hermit.
> 
> Anyone else starting to think this thread looks like this............. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk3ds-VFKBs.


What you do is open them during the day. Didn't they come with instructions?


----------



## doctor Bob

I knew you didn't have me on ignore.................. 

Be careful drawing those big curtains............https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYjHhUPoC_Y


----------



## RogerS

Jacob":rokjs49r said:


> RogerS":rokjs49r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shifting the goalposts again. That is not what you wrote or meant. You clearly made one of your usual 'definitive pronouncements'.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":rokjs49r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blinds/curtains cost very little compared to the alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you get your blinds from a charity shop as they are a damn sight more expensive than the negligible incremental cost of adding an extra pane of glass.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was on Ignore. Please put me back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes put you back on ignore.
Click to expand...


Excellent.


Jacob":rokjs49r said:


> You don't seem to be able to understand some quite simple things and it sets you off into your childish little fits of bad temper.



Grow up . You've been caught out again but, as per usual, still argue that 'black' = 'white'.


----------



## Benchwayze

I am having vertical blinds fitted for Easter! But I still want to retain the nets, for privacy, and the curtains for warmth. 
Am I just shy, or do I have something to hide? 

Dr Bob.... Your links to the 'tube =D> =D> =D> 

John

PS... It's a bit late for me, but for the younger element on the Forum
some further reading:
'The Richest Man in Babylon'
by George S. Clason.


----------



## Jacob

Benchwayze":mynlpz6j said:


> I am having vertical blinds fitted for Easter! But I still want to retain the nets, for privacy, and the curtains for warmth.
> Am I just shy, or do I have something to hide?
> ......


Don't lose the instructions or you will be going around in the dark all day like Dr Bob. :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob":2oqg12pz said:


> Benchwayze":2oqg12pz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am having vertical blinds fitted for Easter! But I still want to retain the nets, for privacy, and the curtains for warmth.
> Am I just shy, or do I have something to hide?
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lose the instructions or you will be going around in the dark all day like Dr Bob. :lol:
Click to expand...


Hudson the butler closes the curtains at 7pm sharp, just after he supervises the staff at supper. Do you mean to tell me that up North you draw your own curtains, how quaint.


----------



## John Brown

I understand about drawing water(or treacle), drawing a bath, drawing a gun, drawing a raffle ticket, drawing a bow, drawing a conclusion, drawing to an end, drawing a picture, but drawing the curtains seems to mean either opening, or closing them. Toggling the state of the curtains.


----------



## Lons

doctor Bob":3ix19seo said:


> Anyone else starting to think this thread looks like this............. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk3ds-VFKBs.


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Benchwayze

doctor Bob":32a06f8k said:


> Jacob":32a06f8k said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benchwayze":32a06f8k said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am having vertical blinds fitted for Easter! But I still want to retain the nets, for privacy, and the curtains for warmth.
> Am I just shy, or do I have something to hide?
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lose the instructions or you will be going around in the dark all day like Dr Bob. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


At least I don't stumble around in full daylight! 8)


----------

