Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
At 07:17 PM 9/25/2002 +0200, you wrote: >You are right and that is also one of the reasons why I mentioned paint. If >you mix it in paint, it can be compared with a very thick layer of dust. >Apart from that the reflective paint is very interesting, it is the only >technical data I know at the moment that could give an indication. In this >case we should not see a degeneration with time. > >If you paint a roof white, it would from the beginning have an >effectiveness that is lesser than very dirty aluminium on the attic. A >white roof will also lose its effectiveness very fast by being dirty. > >What is half of effectiveness? Emission factor going from <0.09 to 0.18 or >going from <0.09 to 5.4, Typo error should be 0.54 >I do not know. Even if I assume the worst case, >the efficiency is large, compared with the majority of materials used in >buildings. > >If you find any numbers, please tell me and in the mean time I will look >for it also. The problem with loose statements is that they often can make >a virtue out of a deficiency, depending of the situation. They are made >without qualification and for competitive reasons. > >In the acoustic field I have often seen "the sound pressure is half" or >"the amplifier has 100W output instead of 50W". The only problem is that >the hearing is logarithmic and a halving or doubling is the smallest change >a human can detect. For the perception of half or double, it has to be a >change of 10 times. Argumentation is sometimes more physiological than >real, as you also could see from the earlier parts of this discussion. > >Hakan > >At 11:48 AM 9/25/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >At 09:13 PM 9/24/2002 +0200, you wrote: > > >This as many things are relative, of course it will be less effective > > >with dirt or oxidation on it. This because the surface is no longer > > >the surface, it is the dirt. Mixed with a material aluminium could > > >go from its potential emission factor of less than 0.1 to 0.4+, but > > >it is still very much more efficient that most materials that have 0.9 > > >as emission factor. One example is the reflective paint, > > > >This excerpt is taken from the following source: > >http://www.ornl.gov/roofs+walls/radiant/rb_02.html > > > >Most of the field tests have been done with clean radiant barriers. > >Laboratory measurements have shown that dust on the surface of aluminum > >foil increases the emissivity and decreases the reflectivity. This means > >that dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a radiant barrier > >will reduce its effectiveness. Radiant barriers installed in locations that > >collect dust or other surface contaminants will have a decreasing benefit > >to the homeowner over time. > >The attic floor application is most susceptible to accumulation of dust, > >while downward facing reflective surfaces used with many roof applications > >are not likely to become dusty. When radiant barriers are newly installed, > >some testing shows that the attic floor application will work better than > >the roof applications. As dust accumulates on the attic floor application, > >its effectiveness will gradually decrease. After a long enough period of > >time, a dusty attic floor application will lose much of its effectiveness. > >Predictive modeling results, based on testing, suggest that a dusty attic > >floor application will lose about half of its effectiveness after about one > >to ten years. > > > >As I previously stated, this is an older source- 1991 I believe, if there > >is newer studies to indicate that these predictions are incorrect, I would > >be interested in reading them. One problem is determining this would be > >the possibility that the HVAC equipment (and door seals, window seals, > >etc.) installed had also deteriorated in effectiveness over time too, thus > >raising heating/cooling cost which has nothing to do with the dusty radiant > >barrier. Additionally, if the actual effects of the radiant barrier are > >relatively minimal compared to the R-value of the cellulose installed > >underneath, that too would diminish the ability to compare a measurable > >difference. > > > >Caroline G > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > >Biofuels list archives: > >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > >To unsubscribe, send an email to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Sell a Hom
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
You are right and that is also one of the reasons why I mentioned paint. If you mix it in paint, it can be compared with a very thick layer of dust. Apart from that the reflective paint is very interesting, it is the only technical data I know at the moment that could give an indication. In this case we should not see a degeneration with time. If you paint a roof white, it would from the beginning have an effectiveness that is lesser than very dirty aluminium on the attic. A white roof will also lose its effectiveness very fast by being dirty. What is half of effectiveness? Emission factor going from <0.09 to 0.18 or going from <0.09 to 5.4, I do not know. Even if I assume the worst case, the efficiency is large, compared with the majority of materials used in buildings. If you find any numbers, please tell me and in the mean time I will look for it also. The problem with loose statements is that they often can make a virtue out of a deficiency, depending of the situation. They are made without qualification and for competitive reasons. In the acoustic field I have often seen "the sound pressure is half" or "the amplifier has 100W output instead of 50W". The only problem is that the hearing is logarithmic and a halving or doubling is the smallest change a human can detect. For the perception of half or double, it has to be a change of 10 times. Argumentation is sometimes more physiological than real, as you also could see from the earlier parts of this discussion. Hakan At 11:48 AM 9/25/2002 -0400, you wrote: >At 09:13 PM 9/24/2002 +0200, you wrote: > >This as many things are relative, of course it will be less effective > >with dirt or oxidation on it. This because the surface is no longer > >the surface, it is the dirt. Mixed with a material aluminium could > >go from its potential emission factor of less than 0.1 to 0.4+, but > >it is still very much more efficient that most materials that have 0.9 > >as emission factor. One example is the reflective paint, > >This excerpt is taken from the following source: >http://www.ornl.gov/roofs+walls/radiant/rb_02.html > >Most of the field tests have been done with clean radiant barriers. >Laboratory measurements have shown that dust on the surface of aluminum >foil increases the emissivity and decreases the reflectivity. This means >that dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a radiant barrier >will reduce its effectiveness. Radiant barriers installed in locations that >collect dust or other surface contaminants will have a decreasing benefit >to the homeowner over time. >The attic floor application is most susceptible to accumulation of dust, >while downward facing reflective surfaces used with many roof applications >are not likely to become dusty. When radiant barriers are newly installed, >some testing shows that the attic floor application will work better than >the roof applications. As dust accumulates on the attic floor application, >its effectiveness will gradually decrease. After a long enough period of >time, a dusty attic floor application will lose much of its effectiveness. >Predictive modeling results, based on testing, suggest that a dusty attic >floor application will lose about half of its effectiveness after about one >to ten years. > >As I previously stated, this is an older source- 1991 I believe, if there >is newer studies to indicate that these predictions are incorrect, I would >be interested in reading them. One problem is determining this would be >the possibility that the HVAC equipment (and door seals, window seals, >etc.) installed had also deteriorated in effectiveness over time too, thus >raising heating/cooling cost which has nothing to do with the dusty radiant >barrier. Additionally, if the actual effects of the radiant barrier are >relatively minimal compared to the R-value of the cellulose installed >underneath, that too would diminish the ability to compare a measurable >difference. > >Caroline G > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
At 09:13 PM 9/24/2002 +0200, you wrote: >This as many things are relative, of course it will be less effective >with dirt or oxidation on it. This because the surface is no longer >the surface, it is the dirt. Mixed with a material aluminium could >go from its potential emission factor of less than 0.1 to 0.4+, but >it is still very much more efficient that most materials that have 0.9 >as emission factor. One example is the reflective paint, This excerpt is taken from the following source: http://www.ornl.gov/roofs+walls/radiant/rb_02.html Most of the field tests have been done with clean radiant barriers. Laboratory measurements have shown that dust on the surface of aluminum foil increases the emissivity and decreases the reflectivity. This means that dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a radiant barrier will reduce its effectiveness. Radiant barriers installed in locations that collect dust or other surface contaminants will have a decreasing benefit to the homeowner over time. The attic floor application is most susceptible to accumulation of dust, while downward facing reflective surfaces used with many roof applications are not likely to become dusty. When radiant barriers are newly installed, some testing shows that the attic floor application will work better than the roof applications. As dust accumulates on the attic floor application, its effectiveness will gradually decrease. After a long enough period of time, a dusty attic floor application will lose much of its effectiveness. Predictive modeling results, based on testing, suggest that a dusty attic floor application will lose about half of its effectiveness after about one to ten years. As I previously stated, this is an older source- 1991 I believe, if there is newer studies to indicate that these predictions are incorrect, I would be interested in reading them. One problem is determining this would be the possibility that the HVAC equipment (and door seals, window seals, etc.) installed had also deteriorated in effectiveness over time too, thus raising heating/cooling cost which has nothing to do with the dusty radiant barrier. Additionally, if the actual effects of the radiant barrier are relatively minimal compared to the R-value of the cellulose installed underneath, that too would diminish the ability to compare a measurable difference. Caroline G [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
I checked it and if you read the following link first, you will understand my comments later. http://floorcontrol.energy.saving.nu/ I like it, but the advantages and disadvantages that they are referring to can be argued and depends on other circumstances, like What is the heating system? What is the control system? It is not necessarily an advantage that it is fast, it depends on if you need or want to use the structure as energy storage. The advantages described in comparison with concrete, can equally be disadvantages. Depending of what you want to do. I do like the philosophy and the possibility to easy install it in existing constructions. I tried to find out how much height it needs, but could not see this. The choice of which floor heating system to use in a new house, would be more dependent on economical circumstances and what floor surface you want. Aluminium is used in heated wooden floor for distribution of the heat over the surface. It works like a reversed solar panel. Since the floor is the radiator, the aluminium will not really be used in the way I talk about earlier. In heated concrete floors, you do not need the aluminium. My opinion is that heated floors are energy efficient and energy flexible, since it is radiant with low temperature over large surface. Flexible, because it can be combined with many energy sources and systems that in them self are energy efficient. For use with heat pumps or solar, which are low temperature energy system, it is ideal. Hakan At 06:34 AM 9/25/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Please respond to biofuel@yahoogroups.com > >To:biofuel@yahoogroups.com >cc: >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general > >Check out this link for the subflooring that I plan to use in my new home. >http://www.warmboard.com/ >Joe. > >This as many things are relative, of course it will be less effective >with dirt or oxidation on it. This because the surface is no longer >the surface, it is the dirt. Mixed with a material aluminium could >go from its potential emission factor of less than 0.1 to 0.4+, but >it is still very much more efficient that most materials that have 0.9 >as emission factor. One example is the reflective paint, > >http://www.ips-innovations.com/Low-e_Paints/low-e_paints.html >(the patent holders site) >http://www.radiancecomfort.com/ >(licensee in US) > >This paint inside will give you a 15 to 20% energy saving, dependent >on if you use warm air or radiators as heating system. It works in >two ways, one is that it blocks losses from the heating system and >the other is that it reduces the body's ability to use radiation as >cooling method with following possible lowering of room temperature. > > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Please respond to biofuel@yahoogroups.com To:biofuel@yahoogroups.com cc: Subject:Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general Check out this link for the subflooring that I plan to use in my new home. http://www.warmboard.com/ Joe. This as many things are relative, of course it will be less effective with dirt or oxidation on it. This because the surface is no longer the surface, it is the dirt. Mixed with a material aluminium could go from its potential emission factor of less than 0.1 to 0.4+, but it is still very much more efficient that most materials that have 0.9 as emission factor. One example is the reflective paint, http://www.ips-innovations.com/Low-e_Paints/low-e_paints.html (the patent holders site) http://www.radiancecomfort.com/ (licensee in US) This paint inside will give you a 15 to 20% energy saving, dependent on if you use warm air or radiators as heating system. It works in two ways, one is that it blocks losses from the heating system and the other is that it reduces the body's ability to use radiation as cooling method with following possible lowering of room temperature. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
This as many things are relative, of course it will be less effective with dirt or oxidation on it. This because the surface is no longer the surface, it is the dirt. Mixed with a material aluminium could go from its potential emission factor of less than 0.1 to 0.4+, but it is still very much more efficient that most materials that have 0.9 as emission factor. One example is the reflective paint, http://www.ips-innovations.com/Low-e_Paints/low-e_paints.html (the patent holders site) http://www.radiancecomfort.com/ (licensee in US) This paint inside will give you a 15 to 20% energy saving, dependent on if you use warm air or radiators as heating system. It works in two ways, one is that it blocks losses from the heating system and the other is that it reduces the body's ability to use radiation as cooling method with following possible lowering of room temperature. If the color of the paint would be black it would probably rise the emission factor to around 0.6 and be less effective. But it would still be very much more effective than a traditional paint. So aluminium loses some of its effectiveness if mixed and if the surface is not polished or dirty. It would however still be effective. Regarding air space, you could look at this as a medium also, like any material that you would put in front or behind the aluminium. What happens is that they have different conductivity and emission and this is what determines the effectiveness. I.e. aluminium behind a gypsum board. The gypsum board will in this case have a higher surface temperature than without aluminium and reduce the body's ability to use radiation as cooling method with following possible lowering of room temperature. If you on the other side have air or insulation, you will have a good result. It is however almost always beneficial. Coming to rescue blankets that, where the reflective ones are more effective than insulating ones. The reason is that the body's use of radiation is two times larger than convection. So a reflective folio is more effective than a thick insulating blanket. Adding to this is also that the folio is a humidity barrier and will also a degree reduce the ability for the body to use evaporation for cooling. Since it is of extreme importance to block the fall of body temperature in a victim of an accident, as a result of external or internal bleedings, the reflective rescue blanket is proven to be a real life saver. The principles is also used in modern winter and antarctic clothing. Many applications of the principles have been developed as a result of space research. This philosophies of controlling the body system are valid for all human environments. Hakan At 01:10 PM 9/24/2002 -0400, you wrote: >At 12:10 AM 9/24/2002 +, you wrote: > >If we want to make something better, we have to look for a material > >or mixing with a material that give a significant reduction of the > >emission factor for the wall (like aluminium). Maybe straw with > >aluminium mixed in the glue (clay traditionally). I think that > >research should be a little more advanced than only attempt with non- > >traditional materials." > >I am going to ignore the argument portion of this exchange. According to >the research I could find on reflective insulation, which I will admit, >was a couple of years ago, Reflective insulation is only effective as long >as it is still "shiny" (not dirty) and has a space to reflect back >toward. Thus it seemed to me that putting reflective insulation in a >concrete floor, as is recommended by some companies is a waste. Also, if >the reflective insulation is installed in a place it can accumulate dust >or dirt (attic floor) it will eventually become useless unless it is >cleaned. Installing it under the attic roof, over the joist is better, but >still will possibly need to be cleaned eventually. >After all this, I determined a reflective roof to be the best choice for >reflective insulation properties. I could not see that the cost/benefit >ratio of reflective insulation installed in walls was better than using >additional traditional type (cellulose) insulation. >I attended a DOE conference and one presenter stated that if California >had all white or reflective roofs, there would be 100 less smog days a >year. I thought that rather significant and asked why there was not more >reflective roofing available or used. He said that it is an esthetic >problem- people just prefer the look of dark or black roofs. Personally, I >think if people were informed of the potential energy savings, that would >not be the case. >Caroline > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
At 12:10 AM 9/24/2002 +, you wrote: >If we want to make something better, we have to look for a material >or mixing with a material that give a significant reduction of the >emission factor for the wall (like aluminium). Maybe straw with >aluminium mixed in the glue (clay traditionally). I think that >research should be a little more advanced than only attempt with non- >traditional materials." I am going to ignore the argument portion of this exchange. According to the research I could find on reflective insulation, which I will admit, was a couple of years ago, Reflective insulation is only effective as long as it is still "shiny" (not dirty) and has a space to reflect back toward. Thus it seemed to me that putting reflective insulation in a concrete floor, as is recommended by some companies is a waste. Also, if the reflective insulation is installed in a place it can accumulate dust or dirt (attic floor) it will eventually become useless unless it is cleaned. Installing it under the attic roof, over the joist is better, but still will possibly need to be cleaned eventually. After all this, I determined a reflective roof to be the best choice for reflective insulation properties. I could not see that the cost/benefit ratio of reflective insulation installed in walls was better than using additional traditional type (cellulose) insulation. I attended a DOE conference and one presenter stated that if California had all white or reflective roofs, there would be 100 less smog days a year. I thought that rather significant and asked why there was not more reflective roofing available or used. He said that it is an esthetic problem- people just prefer the look of dark or black roofs. Personally, I think if people were informed of the potential energy savings, that would not be the case. Caroline Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan, I never claimed to be an engineer. I never claimed to be a constrution or materials specialist of any professional type. But that most certainly didn't stop me from taking two years of architectural drafting in the past, nor becoming familiar with run of the mill and energy efficient systems. Nor has it kept me from renovating several dilapidated 100-150 year old homes and several contemporary energy sinks over the years. And it certainly won't stop me from firing up a seed drill and planting enough barley next year to build a couple of 1,500 square foot post and beam/straw bale insert houses. Who knows...throw in a couple of cisterns, a composting commode, a Uni-Solar roof, a dog and a couple of goats and it might be a right nice place for a bonified "un-professional" to rock back and forth in his middlin to adled years. (I sure hope I can get that rockin' motion to meet code though. Might be kinda' tough without a doctorate in motion mechanics.) Oh, and no, I don't, or at least have not considered emission factor as a material's abilitity to behave as a radiant barrier. What I would consider emission factor to be is something akin to U-value, a number which reflects the Btu's that are emitted through a 1" thick strata over "x" time. And I was quite serious with what was exchanged. However, it gets a bit old getting slammed without warrant by the supposedly "professional upper crust" every other paragraph, much less being baited with every new thought. I am quite curious though. Are you now saying that I had no reason or rationale for my arguements? That the points made were not valid? Do I also gather that you are saying a "professional" would have the right to be perturbed, but someone "less than" a "professional" shouldn't be bothered by some of your comments? Beats the bejeebers out of me how Sweden has stayed "neutral" for so long if such a pattern of arrogance is predominant in its public personnas. Don't get me entirely wrong Hakan. I'm quite pleased that you and yours have achieved so many notable successes. I am equally as happy that you and yours choose to work on energy issues in a manner that can help reduce fossil fuel consumption. But don't expect me to jump for joy the next time you start casually swinging your "professional" 2 x 4 in a room full of undergrads. As you say, I have neither the time or patience for it, as there are far more important matters that need attentionsome of them world shattering. Holler when you're ready to drop the lumber. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general > > Todd, > > I accept your apology and have no hard feelings. I was afraid that I > overreacted and that you maybe did not realized the that emission factor > was the description of a materials capacity as radiant barrier. If your > paraphrasing mean that you are working with building construction, I am > also sorry that you did not take the opportunity to a more serious > exchange. But I think that you in this case own the whole list an apology, > who falsely identified with you and thought that you had a reason for your > arguments. As a "professional", you really have a reason to feel either > offended or have an urge to learn more, it is your choice. > > About 27 years ago, in an evaluation, our simulation program was sharing > the top position with NASA's program for simulation of climate in space > vehicles. We are now working on an English version, to give away to the > international community. Sweden recognized our impact on energy saving by > giving it the Swedish energy award 1990, with the motivation that it saved > Sweden hundreds of millions annually. We also did the background for the > new Swedish Build Building Code 1978. > > Maybe it could have been of some interest for you, instead you made the > discussion to a "conversacion de Besugos". It is a Spanish proverb for a > non important conversation and Besugos is a very common fish in the > Mediterranean. > > I am not that sensitive, but I am in an age where time becomes very > important and wasting it on useless discussions is less attractive. If you > want to continue off line and on an other footing, you are welcome. > > Hakan > > > At 10:26 PM 9/23/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >Hakan, > > > >Sorry your sensibilities were so taken aback. > > > >But to paraphrase Alfred E. Newman, "Whatever." > > > >The sun's still going to rise tomorrow, with or without humans to > >watch it. > > > >NowIf
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Todd, I accept your apology and have no hard feelings. I was afraid that I overreacted and that you maybe did not realized the that emission factor was the description of a materials capacity as radiant barrier. If your paraphrasing mean that you are working with building construction, I am also sorry that you did not take the opportunity to a more serious exchange. But I think that you in this case own the whole list an apology, who falsely identified with you and thought that you had a reason for your arguments. As a "professional", you really have a reason to feel either offended or have an urge to learn more, it is your choice. About 27 years ago, in an evaluation, our simulation program was sharing the top position with NASA's program for simulation of climate in space vehicles. We are now working on an English version, to give away to the international community. Sweden recognized our impact on energy saving by giving it the Swedish energy award 1990, with the motivation that it saved Sweden hundreds of millions annually. We also did the background for the new Swedish Build Building Code 1978. Maybe it could have been of some interest for you, instead you made the discussion to a "conversacion de Besugos". It is a Spanish proverb for a non important conversation and Besugos is a very common fish in the Mediterranean. I am not that sensitive, but I am in an age where time becomes very important and wasting it on useless discussions is less attractive. If you want to continue off line and on an other footing, you are welcome. Hakan At 10:26 PM 9/23/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hakan, > >Sorry your sensibilities were so taken aback. > >But to paraphrase Alfred E. Newman, "Whatever." > >The sun's still going to rise tomorrow, with or without humans to >watch it. > >NowIf you will please excuse me while I go back to doing >those things I couldn't possibly understand. > >Todd Swearingen > >- Original Message - >From: hakan_falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 8:10 PM >Subject: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hakan, > > > > > > Could you stop circle dancing for a moment? > > > > > > To refresh your memory, you first mentioned aluminum as a > > > possible component of insulative construction. When stated >that > > > aluminum's best use was as a radiant barrier, not an >insulator, > > > you come back requesting something in the way of "scientific > > > background" to differentiate whether or not the conclusion >was > > > founded upon opinion or something substantial. The R- and > > > U-values of aluminum (0.00061 and 1642.0 respectively) > > > substantiate the conclusion. > > > > This is exacly what I orignially wrote about aluminium: > > > > "If we want to make something better, we have to look for a >material > > or mixing with a material that give a significant reduction of >the > > emission factor for the wall (like aluminium). Maybe straw with > > aluminium mixed in the glue (clay traditionally). I think that > > research should be a little more advanced than only attempt >with non- > > traditional materials." > > > > I think it cannot be clearer that my intent was to reduce the > > emission factor, in other words, use it as radiant barrier. > > > > I am not prepared to continue a discussion with somebody that > > deliberately distort and insult me. I take this issues >seriously, > > because they are important and improvements in our enegy use, >any > > alternative fuels, change of habits and designs to save energy, >are > > outmost importance for all of us. > > > > As long as a discussion can give something, it has a value. But >when > > the part you talk with, have to resort to lies and distortions >it is > > no longer a value. > > > > End of discussion with Todd Swearingen for my part, let us go > > further. If someone else is seriously interested in the >subject, I am > > always willing to discuss it. > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > [EMAIL
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan, Sorry your sensibilities were so taken aback. But to paraphrase Alfred E. Newman, "Whatever." The sun's still going to rise tomorrow, with or without humans to watch it. NowIf you will please excuse me while I go back to doing those things I couldn't possibly understand. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: hakan_falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 8:10 PM Subject: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hakan, > > > > Could you stop circle dancing for a moment? > > > > To refresh your memory, you first mentioned aluminum as a > > possible component of insulative construction. When stated that > > aluminum's best use was as a radiant barrier, not an insulator, > > you come back requesting something in the way of "scientific > > background" to differentiate whether or not the conclusion was > > founded upon opinion or something substantial. The R- and > > U-values of aluminum (0.00061 and 1642.0 respectively) > > substantiate the conclusion. > > This is exacly what I orignially wrote about aluminium: > > "If we want to make something better, we have to look for a material > or mixing with a material that give a significant reduction of the > emission factor for the wall (like aluminium). Maybe straw with > aluminium mixed in the glue (clay traditionally). I think that > research should be a little more advanced than only attempt with non- > traditional materials." > > I think it cannot be clearer that my intent was to reduce the > emission factor, in other words, use it as radiant barrier. > > I am not prepared to continue a discussion with somebody that > deliberately distort and insult me. I take this issues seriously, > because they are important and improvements in our enegy use, any > alternative fuels, change of habits and designs to save energy, are > outmost importance for all of us. > > As long as a discussion can give something, it has a value. But when > the part you talk with, have to resort to lies and distortions it is > no longer a value. > > End of discussion with Todd Swearingen for my part, let us go > further. If someone else is seriously interested in the subject, I am > always willing to discuss it. > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hakan, > > Could you stop circle dancing for a moment? > > To refresh your memory, you first mentioned aluminum as a > possible component of insulative construction. When stated that > aluminum's best use was as a radiant barrier, not an insulator, > you come back requesting something in the way of "scientific > background" to differentiate whether or not the conclusion was > founded upon opinion or something substantial. The R- and > U-values of aluminum (0.00061 and 1642.0 respectively) > substantiate the conclusion. This is exacly what I orignially wrote about aluminium: "If we want to make something better, we have to look for a material or mixing with a material that give a significant reduction of the emission factor for the wall (like aluminium). Maybe straw with aluminium mixed in the glue (clay traditionally). I think that research should be a little more advanced than only attempt with non- traditional materials." I think it cannot be clearer that my intent was to reduce the emission factor, in other words, use it as radiant barrier. I am not prepared to continue a discussion with somebody that deliberately distort and insult me. I take this issues seriously, because they are important and improvements in our enegy use, any alternative fuels, change of habits and designs to save energy, are outmost importance for all of us. As long as a discussion can give something, it has a value. But when the part you talk with, have to resort to lies and distortions it is no longer a value. End of discussion with Todd Swearingen for my part, let us go further. If someone else is seriously interested in the subject, I am always willing to discuss it. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan, Could you stop circle dancing for a moment? To refresh your memory, you first mentioned aluminum as a possible component of insulative construction. When stated that aluminum's best use was as a radiant barrier, not an insulator, you come back requesting something in the way of "scientific background" to differentiate whether or not the conclusion was founded upon opinion or something substantial. The R- and U-values of aluminum (0.00061 and 1642.0 respectively) substantiate the conclusion. And now this (below)? Taking "radiant barrier" completely out of the "appropriately/inappropriately installed" insulative construction context, such as in an attic? Conveniently forgetting the fact that solar "mirror" facilities use parabolic concentrators to obtain their heat gains? And what about the heat source and design of the non-descript "party heaters" that you would like to inject? > >A radiant barrier serves virtually no purpose if it has > >equivalent temperature air flow on both sides as a result of > >improper instalation and a loose fit. The back side radiates > >inwardly the very energy that it is expected to repel, completely > >defeating its purpose. > How does out door party heaters reflector work? > How does solar driven power plants with mirrors work? > According to this, they don't. [snip] > >Hakan, there is nothing on your website that explains or gives > >you or anyone the right to automatically presume that anyone > >falling short of an engineering professional doesn't understand > >energy, construction and/or materials issues. Rather, your site > >reflects quite the opposite, pointing out in numerous instances > >where the so called "professionals" fall dismally short of > >understanding the components and variables of the industry in > >which they work. > > That is right, many times non engineers understands the relationships > better. Since they are not hampered by an education that in most cases give > an inadequate picture. Taking your way of looking at it, it is easy to > belive that you are in fact a construction engineer. I do not really > understand how you misunderstood this from the beginning, maybe a language > problem from my side or me trying to be too cynical. I have however tried > several times to explain and you simply do not want to accept it. 1) No. I'm not an engineer of any type in the "professional" sense that you would apply. There is no fluorescent lit 8' x 8' cubicle and shiny new 2002 series Dietzgen in my future...and never will be. 2) What is it that I misunderstood or don't care to accept? That you on the first hand say ( or said) that blue collars (laity, "commoners," whatever) can't be expected to understand "engineering" matters because they are not "professionals," then on the second hand say that professionals can't see the forest for the trees due to their inadequate education or self inflicted myopias, then on the third hand say that non-professionals are oft capable of greater clarity than "professionals" because of their non-professional encumbrances? Hell! I've understood this for decades. Some people know. Some people think they know. Some people would like everyone to believe that they know. None of these are limitted to any particular field, educational level, social standing, religious or political persuasion. > >So how do you account for all the "professionals" that are so > >dismally ignorant on the very counts that they should be so much > >more knowledgable than the "laity?" Crib sheets when they took > >their engineering exams? > > When I say this, I am always talking about assumed or expected. I thought > that it means the perception and expectation on the professional. Reality > is a wholly different case and the professionals have more reasons to be > upset with me than you. I am of course assuming that you are not a > construction engineer, if you are, I understand your reactions and > technical reasoning better. It would also explain your fixation on air and > air temperature. No Hakan. Anyone would have reason to take exception to some of what you have said. For example your misrepresentation of what was stated about a properly installed radiant barrier and the need to reduce un-impeded interchange of air between its two sides. Tell you what Hakan, when your industry elite perfect the art of levitation, try this little experiment Crawl up into your attic space, spread out your radiant barrier, hit your levitation button so that the barrier is suspended in mid-air, and then watch as the volumes of air above and below freely intermingle, rendering the radiant barrier virtually useless. > > > Each country has its own > > > ways of defining Thermal Building Codes. All except Sweden have > > > very poor > > > scientific background. > > > >Uhhh...Excuse me? This is the exact same type of > >statement that gave cause for such great exception with your > >earlier appraisal of non-professionals versus "professiona
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Todd, To keep it straight, responses are interjected between your comments. At 06:11 PM 9/22/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hakan, > >Oh, it's a little bit of both, one predicated upon the other. >With an R-value of 0.00061 and a U-value of 1642.0 (No.the >numbers did not get transposed.) aluminum is a rather poor >insulator. A great conductor and a great reflector, but not at >the top of its class as an insulator. Who said that you should use it as insulator? > > Why should it have a value for its U- or R-value, it is a >radiant barrier? > >I don't know. Why would any material be assigned an R- or >U-value? It might have something to do with knowing what its >properties are? Emission factor might be of more importance in this case? > > > > What has this to do with air flow? > >A radiant barrier serves virtually no purpose if it has >equivalent temperature air flow on both sides as a result of >improper instalation and a loose fit. The back side radiates >inwardly the very energy that it is expected to repel, completely >defeating its purpose. How does out door party heaters reflector work? How does solar driven power plants with mirrors work? According to this, they don't. > > Why does it not have a large value for its emission factor >alone? > >An aluminum wall 1" thick will emit or gain a considerable amount >of energy, giving it a very low R-value and an extremely high >U-value. It has the ability to reflect radiant heat rather well, >but of and by itself it is a poor insulator and is generally used >as a component of a sytem, not as a stand alone material. I have never suggested that you should use it as stand alone wall, this is your idea. I have never suggested that you should use it as insulator, rather as reflector. Why are thermos bottles effective? Why and how does the modern rescue blankets works better than the old insulating ones? >Hakan, there is nothing on your website that explains or gives >you or anyone the right to automatically presume that anyone >falling short of an engineering professional doesn't understand >energy, construction and/or materials issues. Rather, your site >reflects quite the opposite, pointing out in numerous instances >where the so called "professionals" fall dismally short of >understanding the components and variables of the industry in >which they work. That is right, many times non engineers understands the relationships better. Since they are not hampered by an education that in most cases give an inadequate picture. Taking your way of looking at it, it is easy to belive that you are in fact a construction engineer. I do not really understand how you misunderstood this from the beginning, maybe a language problem from my side or me trying to be too cynical. I have however tried several times to explain and you simply do not want to accept it. >No one is saying that when you walk into a reception celebrating >the recent completion of the most energy efficient building in >Amsterdam an University building in UK. >that everyone in the room will have a doctorate in the >materials, energy and engineering fields. Nor is anyone saying >that simply because one or more of the patrons doesn't have such >a degree that they are ignorant of such matters.wellthat >is no one except you, when you stated that a non-professional >couldn't be expected to understand such matters. Again, a non professional is not assumed to understand it, a professional is. The reality is, once explained, that the non professional are more open to learn and understand easier. The professionals are in many cases stuck in his inadequate education and develop a reasoning like the one you have shown. >So how do you account for all the "professionals" that are so >dismally ignorant on the very counts that they should be so much >more knowledgable than the "laity?" Crib sheets when they took >their engineering exams? When I say this, I am always talking about assumed or expected. I thought that it means the perception and expectation on the professional. Reality is a wholly different case and the professionals have more reasons to be upset with me than you. I am of course assuming that you are not a construction engineer, if you are, I understand your reactions and technical reasoning better. It would also explain your fixation on air and air temperature. >Hakan, ask one of your construction friends to pick up a 2 x 4 of >reasonable length (2" x 4" piece of lumber) and then to >"broadside" you with it. I believe you will understand the >literal meaning rather quickly and hence forward possess a firm >grasp of the literay meaning as well. Thank you. I have not assigned this meaning to lumber, for me this is quite far fetched and English natives must be well acquainted with construction industry to do this association. Maybe you are a construction engineer after all. > > Each country has its own > > ways of defining Thermal Building Codes. All except Swed
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan, > > >I do not think it opens up many materials, since more than 90% > > >of our building materials have an emission factor around 0.9. In > > >this context, I mentioned adding aluminium. > > > >Aluminum's greatest use is as a radiant barrier, and only if air > >flow is eliminated or almost entirely so on one side. Of and by > >itself it has largely no U- or R-value. > > Is this your conclusion or do you have a scientific background for this? Oh, it's a little bit of both, one predicated upon the other. With an R-value of 0.00061 and a U-value of 1642.0 (No.the numbers did not get transposed.) aluminum is a rather poor insulator. A great conductor and a great reflector, but not at the top of its class as an insulator. > Why should it have a value for its U- or R-value, it is a radiant barrier? I don't know. Why would any material be assigned an R- or U-value? It might have something to do with knowing what its properties are? > > What has this to do with air flow? A radiant barrier serves virtually no purpose if it has equivalent temperature air flow on both sides as a result of improper instalation and a loose fit. The back side radiates inwardly the very energy that it is expected to repel, completely defeating its purpose. > Why does it not have a large value for its emission factor alone? An aluminum wall 1" thick will emit or gain a considerable amount of energy, giving it a very low R-value and an extremely high U-value. It has the ability to reflect radiant heat rather well, but of and by itself it is a poor insulator and is generally used as a component of a sytem, not as a stand alone material. > > >Perhaps the entire website is one giant public service > >message. You should be commended. > > Thank you, and one day it might be as complete and interesting as Journey > to Forever, if I can continue to work on it. > > > >>> http://intro.energy.saving.nu/ > > >> > > >>Sorry. But a simple hot link doesn't explain any automatic > > >>presumption of the inability of others to understand. > > > > >You are right, especially if they do not take time to click on > >it. > > > >That's a bit of a disjointed response. You wrongly implied that > >only trained professionals can understand energy/construction > >issues well, then offered up only a hot link as a response, then > >further implied that the content at that site can somehow explain > >away what came across as a pre-fabbed bias? Again, neither your > >hot link nor the content therein explains away such a sweeping > >dispostion, no matter how many times its clicked upon. > > No, it was done in hope that you might read it, before we continued a > discussion. Hakan, there is nothing on your website that explains or gives you or anyone the right to automatically presume that anyone falling short of an engineering professional doesn't understand energy, construction and/or materials issues. Rather, your site reflects quite the opposite, pointing out in numerous instances where the so called "professionals" fall dismally short of understanding the components and variables of the industry in which they work. No one is saying that when you walk into a reception celebrating the recent completion of the most energy efficient building in Amsterdam that everyone in the room will have a doctorate in the materials, energy and engineering fields. Nor is anyone saying that simply because one or more of the patrons doesn't have such a degree that they are ignorant of such matters.wellthat is no one except you, when you stated that a non-professional couldn't be expected to understand such matters. So how do you account for all the "professionals" that are so dismally ignorant on the very counts that they should be so much more knowledgable than the "laity?" Crib sheets when they took their engineering exams? > > > >>> broad side with a 2 x 4 = ? > > >>To smack upside the head. To torpedo. To assault violently with > > >>words or other. > > > > >Thanks for explaining the meaning, can you also tell me the > >origin of the > > >analog. > > > >You have to empathize with the recipient to understand, or else > >experience it, either figuratively or literally. > > This is not an answer, what does 2 x 4 relate to? Hakan, ask one of your construction friends to pick up a 2 x 4 of reasonable length (2" x 4" piece of lumber) and then to "broadside" you with it. I believe you will understand the literal meaning rather quickly and hence forward possess a firm grasp of the literay meaning as well. > >R-13 is a fair insulator. U-13 is quite the opposite. > > This does not consolidate with what you said before, if this are not a part > a classification system that need to be defined. Of course it does. The higher the R-number the better the insulator. The lower the U-number the better the insulator. R/1 = 1/U > Each country has its own > ways of defining Thermal Building Codes. All except Sweden have very poor > scientific background. Uhhh.
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Todd, To keep it straight, responses are interjected between your comments. > >I do not think it opens up many materials, since more than 90% > >of our building materials have an emission factor around 0.9. In > >this context, I mentioned adding aluminium. > >Aluminum's greatest use is as a radiant barrier, and only if air >flow is eliminated or almost entirely so on one side. Of and by >itself it has largely no U- or R-value. Is this your conclusion or do you have a scientific background for this? Why should it have a value for its U- or R-value, it is a radiant barrier? What has this to do with air flow? Why does it not have a large value for its emission factor alone? >Perhaps the entire website is one giant public service >message. You should be commended. Thank you, and one day it might be as complete and interesting as Journey to Forever, if I can continue to work on it. > >>> http://intro.energy.saving.nu/ > >> > >>Sorry. But a simple hot link doesn't explain any automatic > >>presumption of the inability of others to understand. > > >You are right, especially if they do not take time to click on >it. > >That's a bit of a disjointed response. You wrongly implied that >only trained professionals can understand energy/construction >issues well, then offered up only a hot link as a response, then >further implied that the content at that site can somehow explain >away what came across as a pre-fabbed bias? Again, neither your >hot link nor the content therein explains away such a sweeping >dispostion, no matter how many times its clicked upon. No, it was done in hope that you might read it, before we continued a discussion. > >>> broad side with a 2 x 4 = ? > >>To smack upside the head. To torpedo. To assault violently with > >>words or other. > > >Thanks for explaining the meaning, can you also tell me the >origin of the > >analog. > >You have to empathize with the recipient to understand, or else >experience it, either figuratively or literally. This is not an answer, what does 2 x 4 relate to? >Vernacular - "Commonly spoken by a people of a particular country >or place." (Websters New World) Thank you. > >> > (half in jest) = ? > >>Half serious. Half not. > > >Thanks for explaining the meaning, > >what is jest? > >Joke. Witticism. Thank you. > >>> wee tad = ? > >>A little bit. > > >Thanks for explaining the meaning, > >what is wee and what is tad coming from. > >Wee = small. Tad is a little child or a small portion. Wee >"adjectively" inforces the conveyance of a small amount. A wee >tad. Thank you. > >> > Luther = ? > >>Martin Luther. Father of religious reformation. His >"Ninety-Five > >>Theses," so called due to its 95 points of contention, was >tacked > >>to the Wittenburg church door (October 31st ?) 1517. It refuted > >>the pope's and church's authority to supplant God's. 1483-1546. > > >Did you now that Sweden was a major force in the 30 year war and > >defended his learning. Guess that I could be called protestant, >if you > >need to classify me religiously. You are well educated in >history. I did > >not really know, since Martin Luther King also stood up against >a more > >recent discriminating and equally violent racist society. He was >pursued > >and shoot, not tacked. > >Point of reference: It was Martin Luther's thesis that was tacked >to the door, not the good doctor himself. Yes, both a priest and >a doctor. No wonder everyone was after his head. I meant the message also, but it is not always easy with referencing in a foreign language. You are dependent of the good will of the person who read or listen to you. If he/she tries, it is normally no problems. If not, the message can totally lose its importance. >R-13 is a fair insulator. U-13 is quite the opposite. This does not consolidate with what you said before, if this are not a part a classification system that need to be defined. Each country has its own ways of defining Thermal Building Codes. All except Sweden have very poor scientific background. The total effect of the weather is often not correctly covered, the effect of the buildings emission/storage capacity is mostly ignored and the interaction with the human body forgotten >Todd Swearingen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan,
>I do not think it opens up many materials, since more than 90%
>of our building materials have an emission factor around 0.9. In
>this context, I mentioned adding aluminium.
Aluminum's greatest use is as a radiant barrier, and only if air
flow is eliminated or almost entirely so on one side. Of and by
itself it has largely no U- or R-value.
>We have not opened any business revolving around energy saving,
as far as I
>know. Where did you get that from? You deleted a major part of
my life that
>spent in the IT field. How would you feel if someone deleted a
part of
>your life. For business and earning money, IT is far better.
Okay Hakan. Maybe it's not a business. But your entire website
revolves around reduction of energy consumption, in one way shape
or form. Perhaps the entire website is one giant public service
message. You should be commended. And not to worry. I didn't
dismiss any part of your resume. The IT portion simply was not
relevant to the theme at the time.
>> Nice guy you may be, but we both know
>>that there is a pervasive "diety syndrome" amongst engineers,
>>doctors, lawyers and entire barge loads of other
"professionals."
>>("Forgive them father, for they know not as much as I.")
>I think that you must have a problem here, education is a well
established
>activity in all societies. I do not have this experiences and I
see
>everybody as equals and persons. I like to learn and I also like
to share
>what I learned with others. I know many who, without tiles, have
been
>authorities in their field and respected for that.
Yes Hakan. Education is a part of most societal fabrics, as is
the aristocratic air of many who perceive themselves as
educated...sometimes intentional...sometimes not. It's a bit
difficult to comprehend how you can parlay a "problem" onto (a)
recipient(s) of what could easily have been and was construed to
be a "professional" (upper crust?) air, rather than the point
source. Diagnose and treat the symptom, not the problem? Sorry.
It was not I who penned your original words that carried the
appearance of condescension towards "[un-]professionals."
Perhaps it is best left as "a difference in linguistics," rather
than either of us poking each other's eyes out?
>>> http://intro.energy.saving.nu/
>>
>>Sorry. But a simple hot link doesn't explain any automatic
>>presumption of the inability of others to understand.
>You are right, especially if they do not take time to click on
it.
That's a bit of a disjointed response. You wrongly implied that
only trained professionals can understand energy/construction
issues well, then offered up only a hot link as a response, then
further implied that the content at that site can somehow explain
away what came across as a pre-fabbed bias? Again, neither your
hot link nor the content therein explains away such a sweeping
dispostion, no matter how many times its clicked upon.
>>> broad side with a 2 x 4 = ?
>>To smack upside the head. To torpedo. To assault violently with
>>words or other.
>Thanks for explaining the meaning, can you also tell me the
origin of the
>analog.
You have to empathize with the recipient to understand, or else
experience it, either figuratively or literally.
>>> polite Swedish vernacular = ?
>>Gentile (that's "gentle") Swedish mannerisms in speech or in
>>print.
>Thanks for explaining the meaning, can you also tell me the
meaning of
>vernacular.
>I cannot find it in my limited dictionary.
Vernacular - "Commonly spoken by a people of a particular country
or place." (Websters New World)
>> > (half in jest) = ?
>>Half serious. Half not.
>Thanks for explaining the meaning,
>what is jest?
Joke. Witticism.
>>> wee tad = ?
>>A little bit.
>Thanks for explaining the meaning,
>what is wee and what is tad coming from.
Wee = small. Tad is a little child or a small portion. Wee
"adjectively" inforces the conveyance of a small amount. A wee
tad.
>> > Luther = ?
>>Martin Luther. Father of religious reformation. His
"Ninety-Five
>>Theses," so called due to its 95 points of contention, was
tacked
>>to the Wittenburg church door (October 31st ?) 1517. It refuted
>>the pope's and church's authority to supplant God's. 1483-1546.
>Did you now that Sweden was a major force in the 30 year war and
>defended his learning. Guess that I could be called protestant,
if you
>need to classify me religiously. You are well educated in
history. I did
>not really know, since Martin Luther King also stood up against
a more
>recent discriminating and equally violent racist society. He was
pursued
>and shoot, not tacked.
Point of reference: It was Martin Luther's thesis that was tacked
to the door, not the good doctor himself. Yes, both a priest and
a doctor. No wonder everyone was after his head.
>> > R-13 = ? (I have no reason to know US building codes
>>
>>R-"x" (R-value) is the reciprocal of U-"x" (U-value). R-value
is
>>the measure of resistance to heat flow. A higher R-value means
>>better ability to resist heat fl
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Todd,
To keep it straight, responses are interjected between your
comments.
>There was, of course, your mention of "we have to look for a
>material or mixing with a material that give[s] a significant
>reduction of
>the emission factor..." I believe that it was the mention of a
>non-descript material that opened the topic up to the broad
>spectrum of building materials beyond hemp, straw and earth.
I do not think it opens up many materials, since more than 90%
of our building materials have an emission factor around 0.9. In
this context, I mentioned adding aluminium.
>And I wasn't too far off the beaten path, as you list a few of
>your qualifications as
>"education in business and engineering with experiences in fields
>like Building Acoustics, Energy Simulations in Buildings...", and
>then incorporate your knowledge with two other professionals well
>rooted in the construction and materials fields to form a
>business revolving around largely just that.
We have not opened any business revolving around energy saving, as far as I
know. Where did you get that from? You deleted a major part of my life that
spent in the IT field. How would you feel if someone deleted a part of
your life. For business and earning money, IT is far better.
> Nice guy you may be, but we both know
>that there is a pervasive "diety syndrome" amongst engineers,
>doctors, lawyers and entire barge loads of other "professionals."
>("Forgive them father, for they know not as much as I.")
I think that you must have a problem here, education is a well established
activity in all societies. I do not have this experiences and I see
everybody as equals and persons. I like to learn and I also like to share
what I learned with others. I know many who, without tiles, have been
authorities in their field and respected for that.
>Well...I can sure give you credit for your understanding of
>"expletive deleated" ... :-)
Not by purpose, it is only that during the 20 years I used it, I never
spent time on learning or using Internet pseudo language.
>"Tongue in cheek" - half-throttle, half-humorous, not with full
>intensity.
>(Analogy? Try speaking while keeping your "tongue in cheek." That
>should give you a chuckle.)
Thank you, that was a hard one for me.
> http://intro.energy.saving.nu/
>
>Sorry. But a simple hot link doesn't explain any automatic
>presumption of the inability of others to understand.
You are right, especially if they do not take time to click on it.
> > Don't you think that it is something missing in the
>construction industry?
>
>Virtually no arguement there. Personally? Were I in your field of
>endeavor, I would muster up all the like minded professionals I
>could and make as loud and large a stink as possible, skipping
>right over all the political and industry soothsayers
>("channels"), so that the public was directly and unmistakably
>informed as to how politics and initial construction cost
>avoidance almost always sway the day and leave the end use
>consumers and the environment in a lurch. Consumers need accurate
>answers, not compromised products of butt smooching (ass
>kissing).
Nice that you like what we are trying to do.
>You've taken offense where none is necessary or intended. Until
>your explanation above, I had never differentiated between "hits"
>and "unique visitors."
No you understand how easy it is to misunderstand. I hope that you benefited
from the explanation.
>"Ignorant foreigner" with an engineering degree? Although a
>degree is not a completely adequate yardstick of intelligence or
>its implementation, I don't gather that your self-depracating
>assessment is any more accurate than my own of being a "hick" and
>a "hayseed."
I have never cared much about degrees either, other than Celsius or Kelvin.
Always had problems with Farenheit.
> > broad side with a 2 x 4 = ?
>To smack upside the head. To torpedo. To assault violently with
>words or other.
Thanks for explaining the meaning, can you also tell me the origin of the
analog.
> > polite Swedish vernacular = ?
>Gentile (that's "gentle") Swedish mannerisms in speech or in
>print.
Thanks for explaining the meaning, can you also tell me the meaning of
vernacular.
I cannot find it in my limited dictionary.
> > "tongue in cheek," = ?
>Please see description above, or simply place tongue in cheek and
>attempt to converse.
>
> > (half in jest) = ?
>Half serious. Half not.
Thanks for explaining the meaning,
what is jest?
> > wee tad = ?
>A little bit.
Thanks for explaining the meaning,
what is wee and what is tad coming from.
> > Luther = ?
>Martin Luther. Father of religious reformation. His "Ninety-Five
>Theses," so called due to its 95 points of contention, was tacked
>to the Wittenburg church door (October 31st ?) 1517. It refuted
>the pope's and church's authority to supplant God's. 1483-1546.
Did you now that Sweden was a major force in the 30 year war and
defended his learning. Guess that I could be calle
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan,
To keep it straight, responses are interjected between your
comments.
> Ok, since this is the only material, except straw and earth,
that we have
> mentioned in this discussion, can we leave this about materials
and look at
> realities.
There was, of course, your mention of "we have to look for a
material or mixing with a material that give[s] a significant
reduction of
the emission factor..." I believe that it was the mention of a
non-descript material that opened the topic up to the broad
spectrum of building materials beyond hemp, straw and earth.
> >What I did take acceptance to was your implication in general
> >that "professionals" in your field, which I presumed to be
> >somewhere in the realm of construction, construction
materials,
> >materials engineering and or engineering in general,
>
> http://about.energy.saving.nu/ is a background
And I wasn't too far off the beaten path, as you list a few of
your qualifications as
"education in business and engineering with experiences in fields
like Building Acoustics, Energy Simulations in Buildings...", and
then incorporate your knowledge with two other professionals well
rooted in the construction and materials fields to form a
business revolving around largely just that.
> >are best
> >suited to make decisions relative to energy efficiency
measures
> >in buildings (construction) - that somehow persons who are not
> >professionals in such a field or fields are less than
competant
> >to make some of the most simple and basic decisions that can
> >reduce their energy waste - that somehow they don't know what
> >they are doing, or at least don't know what they are doing as
> >well as "professionals" in these fields - that it takes
> >complicated mathematics to calculate the comfort zones of heat
> >engines (humans) within dwellings or other buildings, with
> >laborious formulae dependant upon their mass, caloric intakes,
> >transpiration rates, etc, plus all the specifications of the
> >building mass, heat outlets and air flow within the building -
> >that since Joe and Jane Bread Maker are more in tune with how
> >much yeast and banana to put in their muffins than with
calculus
> >and physics that they should leave all the decision making up
to
> >the "professionals."
>
> I have already clarified that (see my previous answer)
Do you mean the one where you forgive my ignorance and presumably
the ignorance of others who have not pursued full blown and
accredited engineer status? Nice guy you may be, but we both know
that there is a pervasive "diety syndrome" amongst engineers,
doctors, lawyers and entire barge loads of other "professionals."
("Forgive them father, for they know not as much as I.")
>
> >While you might think that this is all rather an
embellishment,
> >there most certainly was an underlying whiff of "professional"
> >versus "non-professional" arrogance in your postings, whether
> >intentional or not. If expression of what was inferred is
> >interpreted as abuse, even after being announced as "tongue in
> >cheek," well..?
>
> You are not always communicating with native English speaking
and I might
> not have the same understanding of the finer details in your
> wordings. What the ... does "tongue in cheek," means?
Well...I can sure give you credit for your understanding of
"expletive deleated" ... :-)
"Tongue in cheek" - half-throttle, half-humorous, not with full
intensity.
(Analogy? Try speaking while keeping your "tongue in cheek." That
should give you a chuckle.)
> >Why would you think that a person who doesn't enter a room
with
> >prolific announcement of credentials and degrees would not
> >understand something as simple as habitual oversizing of HVAC
> >equipment (to be read "site-specific inefficient")? Sure,
someone
> >should take greater pains in identifying specific construction
> >materials, their heat absorption and retention rates and other
> >criteria at the end use site before the unit is (mis-)matched
to
> >it.
>
> http://intro.energy.saving.nu/
Sorry. But a simple hot link doesn't explain any automatic
presumption of the inability of others to understand.
> >But all that is a bit too late and generally not applicable to
> >someone who finally wakes up ("energy wise") in the middle of
a
> >situation where the compressor is running full time, with only
> >R-13 in the attic, single pane windows, black tile roof,
direct
> >solar gain through southern exposed windows, uninsulated crawl
> >space and 20 or so small space heaters plugged into every
> >lightbulb socket throughout the household. This is exactly
where
> >the enormous majority of consumers find themselves when they
do
> >wake up, give or take a few variables.
>
> Is it not awful to wake up in this situation and it says
something about
> the kind of professional engineering that went into building
this house.
> Don't you think that it is something missing in the
construction industry?
Virtually no arguement there. Personally? Were I in
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
. It is methods to go over to a sort of on line mode and keep sessions open, like during payments etc. but this is a very small part of activities. Visitors can only be defined from the log file, where you can se a sequence of hit from the same Internet address (IP). The log analyzer will therefore look for consecutive hits and the time between them. The default definition is that if it is more than 30 minutes between two hits, it will be a new visitor. This because that most IP addresses are allocated dynamically and can represent several visitors. It is many people that know the difference, so when you change my unique visitors to hits, it is easy to belive that you are trying to ridicule instead of serious discussions. Especially since your discussion technique on the subject clearly follows the same lines and it is careless and far from straight forward. >Anyway...all this is simply being straight forward as to how it >struck me. It was not an intentional broad side with a 2 x 4. >Just honesty. > >Now about those cereal-straw bale houseswith hemp pressboard >covered interior walls.. Since you are spending so much time on this anyway, why do you not read through http://energysaving.com/ so you at least understand where I come from. Then we can have an interesting discussion about the subject, that everybody can participate in. You said that this was interesting for this list. I agree with you that it can be very interesting for all alternative fuels, mainly because how efficient the energy uses are, defines the production needs and pollution. And when you write, do remember that I am a ignorant foreigner and do not understand the finer details in many of your expressions. Please write in a simple and clear way and if you use an expression, attach an explanation for educational purpose. i.e. what is, broad side with a 2 x 4 = ? polite Swedish vernacular = ? "tongue in cheek," = ? (half in jest) = ? wee tad = ? Luther = ? R-13 = ? (I have no reason to know US building codes) >Todd Swearingen > >- Original Message - >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:11 PM >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in >general > > > > > > Todd, > > > > You do not give up do you, I like that, but are afraid of being >told to stop. > > > > At 12:15 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > >Hakan, > > > > > >I say this largely with tongue in cheek (half in jest), as you > > >don't seem to think too terribly highly of the levels of > > >understanding (relative to building construction, energy > > >equations in that field and applied building materials) of >anyone > > >who doesn't have construction materials engineering >credentials > > >to support themor at least so I have now inferred > > >(perhaps wrongly?) from several of your correspondences. > > > > I have not discussed building materials, in other sense then >that hemp is > > not rocket science for building constructions. Please try to >keep to some > > sort of truth. If you find this offensive, I cannot really do >anything for > > you. Why are you so disappointed about my comments on hemp? I >am sure that > > it is easier to find other supporters, than trying to convince >me with this > > amount of abusive attacks. > > > > I have said that the current common design and sizing methods, >used by an > > overwhelming majority in the construction industry, are faulty. >I also said > > that I did not have the expectation that you would understand >that, since > > you are not a professional in this industry, but I do expect >that the > > professionals should understand that or learn more. So in >reality, I make > > no difference, but are finding excuses for you. > > > > > > >So that 50,000 hits on your website? You probably need to >squelch > > >that number by at least three to account for my >"non-profession > > >status," and surely by a few more for all those with no > > >post-secondary education, much less masters or doctoral > > >credentials propping them up. In other words, people who "are > > >not...professional[s] in the industry." (In more undignified > > >words, "hicks and laypersons who have a vested interest in and > > >more than a passing understanding of energy isssues.") > > > > I have never even mentioned hits and I do not understand why >you put words > > in my mouth, that assumes that I have no knowledge or >understanding of > > Internet and computers. I have said 50,000 unique visi
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan,
I took and take no offense to your acceptance or not of
industrial hemp as a building material.
What I did take acceptance to was your implication in general
that "professionals" in your field, which I presumed to be
somewhere in the realm of construction, construction materials,
materials engineering and or engineering in general, are best
suited to make decisions relative to energy efficiency measures
in buildings (construction) - that somehow persons who are not
professionals in such a field or fields are less than competant
to make some of the most simple and basic decisions that can
reduce their energy waste - that somehow they don't know what
they are doing, or at least don't know what they are doing as
well as "professionals" in these fields - that it takes
complicated mathematics to calculate the comfort zones of heat
engines (humans) within dwellings or other buildings, with
laborious formulae dependant upon their mass, caloric intakes,
transpiration rates, etc, plus all the specifications of the
building mass, heat outlets and air flow within the building -
that since Joe and Jane Bread Maker are more in tune with how
much yeast and banana to put in their muffins than with calculus
and physics that they should leave all the decision making up to
the "professionals."
While you might think that this is all rather an embellishment,
there most certainly was an underlying whiff of "professional"
versus "non-professional" arrogance in your postings, whether
intentional or not. If expression of what was inferred is
interpreted as abuse, even after being announced as "tongue in
cheek," well..?
Why would you think that a person who doesn't enter a room with
prolific announcement of credentials and degrees would not
understand something as simple as habitual oversizing of HVAC
equipment (to be read "site-specific inefficient")? Sure, someone
should take greater pains in identifying specific construction
materials, their heat absorption and retention rates and other
criteria at the end use site before the unit is (mis-)matched to
it.
But all that is a bit too late and generally not applicable to
someone who finally wakes up ("energy wise") in the middle of a
situation where the compressor is running full time, with only
R-13 in the attic, single pane windows, black tile roof, direct
solar gain through southern exposed windows, uninsulated crawl
space and 20 or so small space heaters plugged into every
lightbulb socket throughout the household. This is exactly where
the enormous majority of consumers find themselves when they do
wake up, give or take a few variables.
The resolve for such problems is not to drop $400 for a
"professional" consultant to come in and recommend common sense
and basic retrofits.
As for "unique visitors" versus "hits" at a web sitePlease
accept my humble apologies. I have always operated under the
premise that all persons are unique, therefore all visitors are
unique. Apparently what I simply thought was a polite Swedish
vernacular was a more specific categorization based upon interest
or dwell time or some other such criteria.
Anyway...all this is simply being straight forward as to how it
struck me. It was not an intentional broad side with a 2 x 4.
Just honesty.
Now about those cereal-straw bale houseswith hemp pressboard
covered interior walls..
Todd Swearingen
- Original Message -
From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in
general
>
> Todd,
>
> You do not give up do you, I like that, but are afraid of being
told to stop.
>
> At 12:15 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Hakan,
> >
> >I say this largely with tongue in cheek (half in jest), as you
> >don't seem to think too terribly highly of the levels of
> >understanding (relative to building construction, energy
> >equations in that field and applied building materials) of
anyone
> >who doesn't have construction materials engineering
credentials
> >to support themor at least so I have now inferred
> >(perhaps wrongly?) from several of your correspondences.
>
> I have not discussed building materials, in other sense then
that hemp is
> not rocket science for building constructions. Please try to
keep to some
> sort of truth. If you find this offensive, I cannot really do
anything for
> you. Why are you so disappointed about my comments on hemp? I
am sure that
> it is easier to find other supporters, than trying to convince
me with this
> amount of abusive attacks.
>
> I have said that the current common design and sizing methods,
used by an
> overwhelming majority in the construction industry, are faulty.
I also
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Dear Joe, I suggest that you visit our site http://energysavingnow.com/ and that you read my answer to Todd. Among this I said, "I have not discussed building materials, in other sense then that hemp is not rocket science for building constructions. Please try to keep to some sort of truth. If you find this offensive, I cannot really do anything for you. Why are you so disappointed about my comments on hemp? I am sure that it is easier to find other supporters, than trying to convince me with this amount of abusive attacks. I have said that the current common design and sizing methods, used by an overwhelming majority in the construction industry, are faulty. I also said that I did not have the expectation that you would understand that, since you are not a professional in this industry, but I do expect that the professionals should understand that or learn more. So in reality, I make no difference, but are finding excuses for you." Seems to be a nice house, but I can not judge with so little information. I hope that you have a large heat storage between the boiler and the heated floor. With an oil or gas fired burner it is easier to start and stop. With wood or biomass, you will need a large storage, since you are combining a high temperature system (the boiler) with a low temperature system (the floor). Key for this to work well, will be a large accumulator, the large the better, and a good control system. But I guess that your advisors are well aware of this. On our site we have some interesting information about heated floors and control of them. With a very large accumulate, you are well prepared to use any kind of heating source like the sun or heat pump on reduced tariff (probably the cheapest after sun). I am always preferring radiant solutions, before heating air, they are better adopted to the function of the body and with the lower air temperature needed, they save a lot of energy. Hakan At 02:05 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Please respond to biofuel@yahoogroups.com > >To: >cc: >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general > >Todd, >I, too was a bit put off by Hakan's overzealous dismissal of lay persons in >the building industry. >I do not have a degree in building engineering or design, but I am >currently in the process of designing and building my own home. It will be >an extremely energy efficient design built with ICF's (insulated concrete >forms). Hydronically heated with a radiant floor system, fired by an >outdoor wood (or other biomass) boiler. (www.Centralboiler.com) I will >build it myself with help from relatives and friends, two of which are >builders and one a building inspector. A strong, healthy, energy efficient >home can be built with ICFs, and I won't be using the acres of timber >normally used in building a residence. BTW the floor and ceiling joists >will be steel. Regards, Joe > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
se! The food irradiation >industry, the petrochemical industry, the incineration industry, >the concrete kiln industry, the offshore oil drilling industry, >the logging industry, various mining industries, the coal >industry, livestock industries, the genetic engineering industry, >the fishing industry, the nuclear power industry, the insurance >industry, the medical industry, the military, military >industries, the legal and judicial industries, politicians, the >industry of bureaucracy and no doubt hundreds of other industries >and their incumbent "professionals" all know so much more about >what is best for the masses than those exterior to them.) This is not and have never been not my opinions nor attitude. It is rather the opposite, because I am a minority in my opinions. I do not know what problems you have, but please do not identify me with them. All this because I sad that Hemp in building constructions is not a rocket science. >I wonder where the world would be today if Luther and numerous >others since had succombed to such incessant and self-serving >"industry" pressures? After all they weren't and aren't exactly >dwellers of the hierarchies of their chosen professions, or >necessarily members of the professions they cho(o)se to counter. Talking about Pressures!! I have already said several times that if you want, you can use Hemp in building constructions. I will not try to stop you in any way. >All that having been said, no doubt, you also are a bit dismayed >at how ineffectual your industry has been at curbing today's >energy dilemma, despite its numerous successes. And please be >aware that I am not attempting to take pot shots at you >personally. But the casual dismissal of all those who haven't >been involved in the construction materials industry for 30+ >years? Isn't that just as foolish as "laypersons" casually >dismissing the valuable role of the materials engineering >profession simply because of their role in past abject failures? > >Please keep in mind that large numbers of "laypersons" in this >era are a bit more aware, educated and involved in the world >around them and all its nuances than the "layperson" of Luther's >era. Which Luther do you mean, we have quite a few famous Luthers, that took a stance against the establishment. Like we have done for 30+ years now. Maybe we got so used to it, that we had to go international, since resistance at home have diminished. Or maybe we really feel that it is important for all nationalities and are prepared to take this kind of sh-t, to achieve something valuable for everybody. >As for "off topic?" I wouldn't go so far as to say that. >Everyone on this list resides in a building and or works in one >that is a candidate for energy efficiency measures. A number of >us are no doubt continually in the market for retrofit energy >saving processes or new systems for whatever new construction we >are involved in or about to embark. So every btu of fossil fuel >consumption reduced in construction or retrofit is one step >better than a btu of biofuel produced. A well-in-hand >understanding of building materials, construction methods and >energy consuming systems is healthy for all levels of consumers, >no matter if they put up thresholds of straw bale or heat with a >pellet or masonry stove. Ok, ok ok. Once more, you can use Hemp!!! I have nothing against that you are using Hemp in your house, but do not try to force me to do it. I might use it as a pain killer, because I have some problems in that field. I might dress in it and many other things that it is very useful for. But it is not my first choice of wall material in my house. I will always say that masonry stoves are among the best. They do not need unfounded statements of 90% efficiency, probably invented by a sales guy. >Which rather brings matters to your suggestion that perhaps a >separate list should be set up to deal strictly with >construction/energy issues. At the moment, the topic already has >some attention, all-be-it perhaps not the entire 1,000+ >membership of Biofuels. Yet these are the very same people who >could stand to benefit handsomely from such information. Many are >laypersons. Many are professionals in their own right. And most >certainly the topic is pertenant to biofuels. Ok, if you believe so, lets continue, at least until Keith tells us to stop. The problem I have is that it is less and less substance and more of a shooting match. But some times that is fun too. >I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the interest in R-values of >concrete, glass and granite by those who also express interest in >fuels of biologic origin. It's all part of the same net. I have no intention at all to d
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Please respond to biofuel@yahoogroups.com To: cc: Subject:Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general >snip< >As for "off topic?" I wouldn't go so far as to say that. >Everyone on this list resides in a building and or works in one >that is a candidate for energy efficiency measures. A number of >us are no doubt continually in the market for retrofit energy >saving processes or new systems for whatever new construction we >are involved in or about to embark. So every btu of fossil fuel >consumption reduced in construction or retrofit is one step >better than a btu of biofuel produced. A well-in-hand >understanding of building materials, construction methods and >energy consuming systems is healthy for all levels of consumers, >no matter if they put up thresholds of straw bale or heat with a >pellet or masonry stove. >Which rather brings matters to your suggestion that perhaps a >separate list should be set up to deal strictly with >construction/energy issues. At the moment, the topic already has >some attention, all-be-it perhaps not the entire 1,000+ >membership of Biofuels. Yet these are the very same people who >could stand to benefit handsomely from such information. Many are >laypersons. Many are professionals in their own right. And most >certainly the topic is pertenant to biofuels. >I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the interest in R-values of >concrete, glass and granite by those who also express interest in >fuels of biologic origin. It's all part of the same net. >Todd Swearingen Todd, I, too was a bit put off by Hakan's overzealous dismissal of lay persons in the building industry. I do not have a degree in building engineering or design, but I am currently in the process of designing and building my own home. It will be an extremely energy efficient design built with ICF's (insulated concrete forms). Hydronically heated with a radiant floor system, fired by an outdoor wood (or other biomass) boiler. (www.Centralboiler.com) I will build it myself with help from relatives and friends, two of which are builders and one a building inspector. A strong, healthy, energy efficient home can be built with ICFs, and I won't be using the acres of timber normally used in building a residence. BTW the floor and ceiling joists will be steel. Regards, Joe Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
embark. So every btu of fossil fuel consumption reduced in construction or retrofit is one step better than a btu of biofuel produced. A well-in-hand understanding of building materials, construction methods and energy consuming systems is healthy for all levels of consumers, no matter if they put up thresholds of straw bale or heat with a pellet or masonry stove. Which rather brings matters to your suggestion that perhaps a separate list should be set up to deal strictly with construction/energy issues. At the moment, the topic already has some attention, all-be-it perhaps not the entire 1,000+ membership of Biofuels. Yet these are the very same people who could stand to benefit handsomely from such information. Many are laypersons. Many are professionals in their own right. And most certainly the topic is pertenant to biofuels. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the interest in R-values of concrete, glass and granite by those who also express interest in fuels of biologic origin. It's all part of the same net. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general > > Todd, > > So we made a full circle to my first posting on this, "Amory Lovins > statement on the level of import reductions that could be achieved if all > US buildings were adequately insulatedyes...it was and remains a > serious statement", and I understood it correctly. I was worried, but since > I already agreed with it, it is not much more to say about this. Your use > of it, for support of for what you think is adequately was maybe a bit of > the edge. I think that he knows more about what I am talking about, with > his background he should do. I do not expect that he is a supporter of > linear relationship for energy transmission or assuming steady state > conditions for our environment. I also assume that he favors cures for the > sickness, instead for the symptoms. > > Regarding your latest argumentation, I have difficulties to get the thread > and we are getting further off topic. I do find our exchange useful in the > sense that the right auditorium can learn a lot, but I am afraid that the > ones bio fuel interest are getting a bit bored. > > We started our web site one and a half year ago. Until now, we have > addressed the educational and professional resources in the construction > industry. Considering the small targeted group, 50,000 unique visitors is > quite good. We got a lot of acknowledgement and interest, with many > invitations for presentations and cooperation. One of the problem is that > it is too many that agree with us and to few that are prepared to challenge > us like you do. > > If I set up a Yahoo list for "Energy Saving Now", can we continue this > thread there? I would have more value in front of members that have an > interest in construction industry and encourage participation of more > people. I will tell you when it is done and we got enough members to make > it worth while. It would help me a lot to have lively and engaged > discussions already from the beginning. > > Hakan > > > At 12:03 AM 9/20/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >Hakan, > > > >We types who opted out of second year calc tend to focus more on > >the three dimensions that we live, eat and breathe, rather than > >the abstracts, finites and theoreticals of mathematics and > >physics. For us, it's a simple matter of energy in = dollars out, > >which is quite often > available capital or at minimum greatly > >diminishes financial liquidity, creating the fiduciary > >responsibility to make energy consumption reductions, erego inact > >conservation measures and improvements in efficiency. > > > >And, in some respects thankfully, most of us don't have the > >requisite patience nor the capital resources to comission top > >heavy (bureaucratic) university or industry studies on whether or > >not the HVAC ducts need to be resealed, insulation improved or if > >the corner petrol distributor should turn off during daylight and > >cloudless hours all 42 of the 500 watt metal halide bulbs that > >their corporate office decries should be left lit 24/7/365. > > > >Rather, many of the blue collar and ethically contemplative > >persuasions opted into the combined worlds of the environmental > >sciences and studies, the dismal science (economics), philosophy > >and politics. Which is just as well, as they are all > >intrinsically entwined, rather diverse and every bit as important > >individually and in their marriages as calculating turnover rates > >and prefab stress factors. (I guess
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Todd, So we made a full circle to my first posting on this, "Amory Lovins statement on the level of import reductions that could be achieved if all US buildings were adequately insulatedyes...it was and remains a serious statement", and I understood it correctly. I was worried, but since I already agreed with it, it is not much more to say about this. Your use of it, for support of for what you think is adequately was maybe a bit of the edge. I think that he knows more about what I am talking about, with his background he should do. I do not expect that he is a supporter of linear relationship for energy transmission or assuming steady state conditions for our environment. I also assume that he favors cures for the sickness, instead for the symptoms. Regarding your latest argumentation, I have difficulties to get the thread and we are getting further off topic. I do find our exchange useful in the sense that the right auditorium can learn a lot, but I am afraid that the ones bio fuel interest are getting a bit bored. We started our web site one and a half year ago. Until now, we have addressed the educational and professional resources in the construction industry. Considering the small targeted group, 50,000 unique visitors is quite good. We got a lot of acknowledgement and interest, with many invitations for presentations and cooperation. One of the problem is that it is too many that agree with us and to few that are prepared to challenge us like you do. If I set up a Yahoo list for "Energy Saving Now", can we continue this thread there? I would have more value in front of members that have an interest in construction industry and encourage participation of more people. I will tell you when it is done and we got enough members to make it worth while. It would help me a lot to have lively and engaged discussions already from the beginning. Hakan At 12:03 AM 9/20/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hakan, > >We types who opted out of second year calc tend to focus more on >the three dimensions that we live, eat and breathe, rather than >the abstracts, finites and theoreticals of mathematics and >physics. For us, it's a simple matter of energy in = dollars out, >which is quite often > available capital or at minimum greatly >diminishes financial liquidity, creating the fiduciary >responsibility to make energy consumption reductions, erego inact >conservation measures and improvements in efficiency. > >And, in some respects thankfully, most of us don't have the >requisite patience nor the capital resources to comission top >heavy (bureaucratic) university or industry studies on whether or >not the HVAC ducts need to be resealed, insulation improved or if >the corner petrol distributor should turn off during daylight and >cloudless hours all 42 of the 500 watt metal halide bulbs that >their corporate office decries should be left lit 24/7/365. > >Rather, many of the blue collar and ethically contemplative >persuasions opted into the combined worlds of the environmental >sciences and studies, the dismal science (economics), philosophy >and politics. Which is just as well, as they are all >intrinsically entwined, rather diverse and every bit as important >individually and in their marriages as calculating turnover rates >and prefab stress factors. (I guess one just has to follow their >bliss.) > >As for opting to discuss principles over details...one without >the other is a bit off kilter, especially when so much of what is >on paper must be implemented in a retrofit environment. (How many >politicians does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent >floodlight (lightbulb)?) > >As for engineers who essentially grasp the same notion that there >is much that can and must be done in the world of existing >physical structures, it's a bit difficult to argue with them. >Granted, in some instances there may be a manner of retrofit or >improvement that is more sound or efficient than another from an >engineering perspective, short term, long term or both. But there >also are the realms of monetary and time restraints, payback >periods and the peculiarities of whomever might be behind the >helm. Matter of fact, all the latter variables are frequently the >very ones that give cause to some of the greatest inefficiencies >that have to be later retrofitted. > >On the residential and tertiary note, you no doubt are painfully >aware that principles and details from both realms are >overlapping and with enormous frequency interchangeable. While it >may take more energy to pump a gallon of water to the 86th floor >than to the privy in a flat, thereby justifying a low flow >commode more readily in one than the other from an energy savings >perspective, a watt is still a watt and heat gain and loss is >largely "universal." Which means that one need not invariably be >an engineer to know how, what or why many of the energy retrofits >in either a residential or a tertiary building need to be. > >Indeed, a
Re: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Hakan, We types who opted out of second year calc tend to focus more on the three dimensions that we live, eat and breathe, rather than the abstracts, finites and theoreticals of mathematics and physics. For us, it's a simple matter of energy in = dollars out, which is quite often > available capital or at minimum greatly diminishes financial liquidity, creating the fiduciary responsibility to make energy consumption reductions, erego inact conservation measures and improvements in efficiency. And, in some respects thankfully, most of us don't have the requisite patience nor the capital resources to comission top heavy (bureaucratic) university or industry studies on whether or not the HVAC ducts need to be resealed, insulation improved or if the corner petrol distributor should turn off during daylight and cloudless hours all 42 of the 500 watt metal halide bulbs that their corporate office decries should be left lit 24/7/365. Rather, many of the blue collar and ethically contemplative persuasions opted into the combined worlds of the environmental sciences and studies, the dismal science (economics), philosophy and politics. Which is just as well, as they are all intrinsically entwined, rather diverse and every bit as important individually and in their marriages as calculating turnover rates and prefab stress factors. (I guess one just has to follow their bliss.) As for opting to discuss principles over details...one without the other is a bit off kilter, especially when so much of what is on paper must be implemented in a retrofit environment. (How many politicians does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent floodlight (lightbulb)?) As for engineers who essentially grasp the same notion that there is much that can and must be done in the world of existing physical structures, it's a bit difficult to argue with them. Granted, in some instances there may be a manner of retrofit or improvement that is more sound or efficient than another from an engineering perspective, short term, long term or both. But there also are the realms of monetary and time restraints, payback periods and the peculiarities of whomever might be behind the helm. Matter of fact, all the latter variables are frequently the very ones that give cause to some of the greatest inefficiencies that have to be later retrofitted. On the residential and tertiary note, you no doubt are painfully aware that principles and details from both realms are overlapping and with enormous frequency interchangeable. While it may take more energy to pump a gallon of water to the 86th floor than to the privy in a flat, thereby justifying a low flow commode more readily in one than the other from an energy savings perspective, a watt is still a watt and heat gain and loss is largely "universal." Which means that one need not invariably be an engineer to know how, what or why many of the energy retrofits in either a residential or a tertiary building need to be. Indeed, a great number of what might be called tertiary buildings would fall under the exact same energy principles as residential buildings As for the Amory Lovins statement on the level of import reductions that could be achieved if all US buildings were adequately insulatedyes...it was and remains a serious statement. Squire Lovins is a bit on the ball when it comes to energy issues, inclusive of most things engineering. For your entertainment, his bio, or at least in part, can be found at http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid166.php#Mgmnt You might enjoy back pedaling through the Rocky Mountain Institute site. It's not unlike your own in many ways. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: [biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general > > Dear Todd, > > I thought I covered the whole of this answer in, > > 1. Manipulation of the emission factors for the construction. > 2 Control of air leakage and window insulation. > > I am not clear on if you wanted to have a list or you wanted to do it > yourself, if you look at our site you will find those and some more of > them. I thought we discussed principles, not details. Details will fill up > its own discussion list, but if you get the principles wrong, you will > chase ghosts. I have heard what you are saying repeatedly during 30+ years > and still we could at the end make a big difference. It is maybe ok that > you are saying this, because you are not a professional in the industry, > but educated engineers (your advisers) says the same and that is not ok. It > is something awfully wrong with the understanding of how both buildings and > people works. Only such a basic principle as. that we are not heating or > cooling the body, we are actually working with accommodation of a heat > source of 37 centigrade temperatur
[biofuel] Re: Energy Efficiency and "Stuff" in general
Dear Todd, I thought I covered the whole of this answer in, 1. Manipulation of the emission factors for the construction. 2 Control of air leakage and window insulation. I am not clear on if you wanted to have a list or you wanted to do it yourself, if you look at our site you will find those and some more of them. I thought we discussed principles, not details. Details will fill up its own discussion list, but if you get the principles wrong, you will chase ghosts. I have heard what you are saying repeatedly during 30+ years and still we could at the end make a big difference. It is maybe ok that you are saying this, because you are not a professional in the industry, but educated engineers (your advisers) says the same and that is not ok. It is something awfully wrong with the understanding of how both buildings and people works. Only such a basic principle as. that we are not heating or cooling the body, we are actually working with accommodation of a heat source of 37 centigrade temperature, that need around 80 Watt losses (cooling) in idling mode and more in working mode. The heat source (body) temperature needs to be kept at 37 +/- 0.5 centigrade. The source works with radiation (50%), convection (24%) and evaporation (22%) in idling mode. In working mode the source will compensate with a much larger part of evaporation. Please read more on our web site http://energysavingnow.com/ , because this mail will be too long otherwise. We have basically two categories of buildings, residential and tertiary. Grassroots lives in residential and companies in tertiary, to make it simple. The tertiary is maybe the one that causes most problems and this is not a grassroots problem. I have been part of an cycle of 45 years and neither I or the oil reserves will last that long, if we have to be so slow again in other areas. The thing is that Amory Lovins adequate insulation, must be adequate, otherwise he will be far from making the US oil independent and since I did not knew the details, I thought it was a serious statement. As I said, the products and actions are many, but we have some really wrong here and that is the understanding of some major principles. One of the is that air temperature and air, is not the best medium and if you compensate other mistakes or bad designs with warm air, you have this situation with enormous amounts of hot air that we try to keep inside as long as possible and with enormous energy waste. To do it right, you must have at least a minimal understanding on emission/storage/timings etc. in your environment. Todays waste is the result of lack of this minimal understanding and the use of U-values in linear methods for design. dimensioning and control. Linear methods that already from the beginning was known to be awfully inaccurate. When you make bio fuels, you need to understand the process and know the quantities to make it and you must know how to use it. Why do you not have the same demands for people that make our buildings or give you advices on how to correct the mistakes of the people to made the buildings? This was a long answer, as yours, but it was also necessary. I learn a lot about bio fuels and other tings on this list, but I have not learned or have experience to say that I know enough. One day hopefully, because I am a curious person, I will start to practise what I am learning about making bio fuels. For now I am learning because I need to know more about renewable sources, before I publish material on our site. What got me started on this,. was my admiration of Keith's motives, knowledge and work in a developing part of the world. My opinion is that the developed countries are heading for a very hard landing, if not a crash, with very large planes and the developing countries are trying to get off the ground with ultra lights. If you ever piloted a plane, you know that the large ones are less sensitive and easier than the smaller ones. But if you do a mistake in those speeds or the systems fails, the are very unforgiving and consequences disastrous. Hakan At 12:06 PM 9/19/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hakan, > >We need to work on that deeply ingrained, "heavilily humidified, >insulative layer" mind set that keeps popping up. > >Ya' gotta' stop looking and waiting for "top down solutions" and >start implementing "grassroots up" answers. It's the "age old" >adage of "wish in one hand, spit in the other and see which one >fills up fastest." > >Take the simple Amory Lovins "statement" about adequate >insulation and weatherization making the US an oil independent >country (paraphrased from "Energy Unbound," by Amory & Hunter >Lovins). No mention is made in the same breath of numerous other >efficiencies and technologies that could be used to further >reduce energy demand. He is speaking strictly of those >"insulative" technologies that can be easily applied as "topical >solutions," such as low-e window films and
