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.....well....that 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. Uhhhhhhh.......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 "professionals." What have you been doing between posts? Sipping a bit too much of the national pride? >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 Sometimes. But not always, and certainly not by all people. Todd Swearingen ------------------------ 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/
