Re: Mills, etc (was Heating with Wood)
- From: Don Foreman <dforeman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:34:49 -0500
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:04:44 -0400, "George Willer" <gwill@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Sorry you perceive knowledge as arrogance, but I'm not surprised. After
>all, you've demonstrated a poor ability for understanding. The laws of
>physics are there for all who are willing to see. Try it some time.
>
>George Willer
This disinterested observer doesn't perceive knowledge as arrogance,
George, but I do find your posts to be arrogant. Would you display
such execrable manners in a face-to-face meeting? Maligning another
of different opinion does not reinforce yours for me; it weakens
it. It's a ploy often used to convince others of a position that
cannot be proved, as in politics and religion -- which are a hell of
a long ways from physics.
Applying laws of physics to a grossly-simplified model is
pseudoscience at best and sophistry if actual evidence indicates
otherwise. That seems to be the case here. No engineer with any
integrity ignores evidence that goes counter to his theory, for that's
how significant discoveries are sometimes made -- and, more often,
errors found in the evidence or the theory.
We don't even have a grossly-simplifed model here: no comparative
wall areas, roof areas, data on windows and doors, infiltration rates,
insolation rate, siting info as it relates to wind exposure, and so
on. ASHRAE data and mfrs specs for R value of insulation is useful
assuming "all other things are equal". There are a whole bunch of
"other things" that will not be equal between any two structures of
whatever construction.
No evidence (or even opinion) has been offered as to how offered
evidence (observed heating cost) was flawed, or that the offeror is
unable to tally up his bills or simply a liar.
The R-value the mfr specified for particular insulation is a relevant
parameter, but never the only parameter and may not even be the
dominant parameter. (See other post) Honeywell researchers found
that a great many variables had to be dealt with and accounted for to
achieve a computer model that would produce results resembling actual
test cases -- data carefully taken by trained technicians and
engineers in actual residential structures of a wide variety of design
and construction. It took several highly-competent engineers and
scientists several years to get it right. ASHRAE didn't have
anything remotely close to it, still doesn't AFAIK but I've been away
from it for a few years.
Steve, let this guy go. You will never convince him and there's no
need to do so. Thank you for your posts. I'll admit that I would
have thought that log construction might be colder than conventional,
but I'd now reserve judgement until I'd talked to some folks who had
actual living experience and some heating bills I might look at.
I'll note that there are plenty of log homes being built in northern
MN by people who can afford any form of construction they want. One
that I know of is being built by an engineer and founder of a
sucessful firm that does energy consulting.
It's a upscale place on Leech Lake. I'll bet he'll be bringing lots
of clients and customers there for marketing and tax writeoff.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mills, etc (was Heating with Wood)
- From: George Willer
- Re: Mills, etc (was Heating with Wood)
- Prev by Date: Re: Shaping Machines (newbie question)
- Next by Date: Re: Restored vacuum pump
- Previous by thread: Re: Mills, etc (was Heating with Wood)
- Next by thread: Re: Mills, etc (was Heating with Wood)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
