In message , at 01:11:11 on Sun, 21 Jan 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
I suppose it has some of the characteristics of triple glazing, but there's quite a small airgap between the inner or outer panes, and the encapsulated leaded lights. What I don't know is whether that increases or decreases the insulation factor.
Your recent posting regarding the relative irrelevance of DG as an insulating device makes me feel happier about them than I was, so thanks for that!
Almost certainly increases it, less convection & two more surfaces ought to outweigh the conductivity.
DG isn't so much irrelevant, as completely over-emphasised.
I am wholly in favour of it in new builds or upgrades, except where its appearance simply won't cut the mustard.
Its the insistence that taking out perfectly good SG and replacing it should be the *first* thing a homeowner does that gets my goat..whereas damn thick curtains will achieve far more if the SG is draughtproof. AND the total underemphasis on cavity wall insulation or dry lining outer walls, and doing something about suspended wooden floors. Which are, after the loft, and draughts, the dominant heat loss paths in older houses.
Myl old hosuse had a convereted single rendred celcon block garage that was converted by adding in 2" studs with rockwool and plasterboarding it out. It wass one of the cosiest rooms in that house.
DG is almost compulsory for new builds to meet the regs. I believe the regs specify U values for walls and windows that imply DG but I think they also specify an overall U Value as an alternative method that might allow SG. Got a feeling that SG windows might have to be small as a percentage of the area..
Its cots me in 2000 about £250 to get a SAP rating calcualated for the proposed build here. SG windows. They aren't large, but they aren;t small either.
Essentially I had to go thicker on wall and roof insulation, thats all.
The Natural Philosopher wrote lots of really useful stuff, and then this:
OK, so for a family of four you have to multiply that up, (which you don't for an equivalent car journey), and 2000 miles is the round-trip so you "only" get to go 1000 miles away.
To be more realistic, a single holiday to (say) New York for a family of four equates to an approx. total round trip of 8000 miles per passenger, so 32,000 miles at 70mpg. So that's the equivalent fuel use of 16,000 miles in a 35mpg car, which is substantially more than I do in a year.
Simon.
I wonder how much of what you consume is airfreighted in, though.
If fuel costs go high enough, time to unmothball the 'queen mary' or whatever..
whats a liner do..40mph? 3000 miles..? 75 hours..thats three and a bit days.
Nice trip.
In message , at 12:10:21 on Mon, 22 Jan 2007, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
The problem is that for many USA destinations there's another thousand or two miles to go ! And they don't have many trains left running.
The reality is that international travel and commerce exists the way it does because of the cheap cost of fuel.
If that gets expensive. travel patterns will alter to suit.
If a return ticket to LA was 6000 quid not 600, a lot of people would decide that they really didn't need to go there all that often.
..oh and of course nuclear electric generation and 400mph trains are ideal for the USA.
With loading times being far faster, coast to coast times would be similar to a subsonic airliner.
Need to lay some decent track mind you..
If fuel prices went up that much, they wouldn't be able to afford the cab to the airport!
unless it was nuclear electric..
There is a lot to be said for raising fuel prices until the alternatives ARE cost competitive...
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required