I’m looking at a “As Is” house and it has radiant heat in the floors and ceiling.It’s a 1.5 story built in 1948 It has a new Stant Fin boiler and some newer cooper work and valves around the boiler. The first floor has copper coils in the ceiling and floor heat in the second floor and basement, all original
My question is how efficient is this heat and are their any problems with cooper coil runs that are 60 yrs old? Their are also three zones run in the basement floor (1350sq.’)that are also cooper. These are in concrete.
Replies
My father in law installed many of these systems dating back to the age of your house. One of them is in a huge house just down the road from me that we work on frequently....not on the heating system....on the house itself.
The heating system still works like a charm, since 1958. I used to be a copper fitting cleaner on those jobs. He had a beautiful daughter and I would hang around and try to make points with both of them. He figured he might as well put me to work so he could keep an eye on me! I was 12 at the time.
I am aware of about a dozen of these heating systems near me, but none as old as yours. Actually, you give me confidence that these systems will last awhile longer.
Most of them needed a lot more insulation in the attic. One of them froze last year when it was -25 and burst a tube in the ceiling where somebody had moved insulation during an electrical project.
They were all imbedded in plaster and were very comfortable.
This goes to show that radiant heating is not a "new" idea.
Did you install any basement zones? Was the cooper inbedded in the concrete or was it below the slabe in sand/gravel? I'm concerned about any cracks or settling.
The concrete floor however is in great shape for it's age.
Assuming it is operating fine know and was installed with the best craftmenship how long could this system operate before major (replacing all cooper) would be needed?
These houses have copper tubing embedded in the concrete in the basement floor and embedded in the plaster on the upper levels.
These are not your typical basements. These are finished off just like the upstairs levels and most are exposed on one side. Beautiful homes. That was premium priced heat in those days....for premium priced homes.
It was all type "k" copper. This is the heavy walled, flexible copper you see in rolls. All the joints are silver soldered. So you have a pretty thick wall on the tubing.
I can't tell you how long this copper will last. I have been wondering this myself. One of my friends is now considering buying one of these homes and asked me that same question a few days ago. All I can tell you is that I have never heard of one problem yet in any of them, but the oldest one I'm familiar with, is a little over 50 years old.
Maybe someone else knows of other homes like this and can give you an idea how the tubing held up over time.
There are many Eichler homes built in the 1950's with radiant copper tube in concrete. The failures are confined to cracks in the concrete where the copper stretches and breaks.
http://www.radiantheat.net/eichler_concealed_leaks/
That's pretty interesting. The one thing that's always concerned me about the slabs, is that they could leak and you wouldn't necessarily know it.
The first floor has copper coils in the ceiling and floor heat in the second floor and basement, all original
My question is how efficient is this heat and are their any problems with cooper coil runs that are 60 yrs old?
The efficiency of radiant heat depends not just the efficiency of the boiler and the design of the circulation and distribution elements, but also on the themal efficiency of the house.
But that aside, radiant ceilings are not nearly as comfortable or efficient as radiant floors. Human comfort requires that our heads remain cooler than our feet, and ceiling heat will cause not only more radiant gain to our heads but also more air temperature stratification - both of which are uncomfortable.
With hard (mineral-laden) water, copper pipes build up a scale on the inside which can severely reduce the diameter and flow. If there was every antifreeze in the system, that can be corrosive to copper and is sometimes evident as green material oozing out of fittings and valves.
I would have it checked by a competent heating contractor.
Solar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
With hard (mineral-laden) water, copper pipes build up a scale on the inside which can severely reduce the diameter and flow. If there was every antifreeze in the system, that can be corrosive to copper and is sometimes evident as green material oozing out of fittings and valves.
No evident of Glycol in the water and the filling line come from the city water. This is the best soft water in the state.
The Living room on the main floor has the ceiling heat and you do notice that the air at your head is warmer than your feet. Somewhat odd. Might be more noticeable if a finished ceiling was istalled below it in the basement.
Copper in concrete, I'm surprised it's lasted this long.
Copper coils in under wood floor - after all these years - may develope pin holes from the turbulance near the fittings. Especially if the pipe wasn't reamed. I would plan on a total rip-out.
My parents first home, bought new in 1962ish was a 3BR ranch with gas fired slab heat. To this day I remember the warm (hot really) areas in the house as we would run to them in our bare feet as little kids. I know that there was no heat in the ceiling and remember my father unrolling fg up in the attic about 71 or so.
I always wondered how those copper pipes lasted. The subdivision remains mostly the same today as I drive thru once in a while. The trees I watched him plant along the street are huge now. Even though it's old by todays standards, people really have taken great care of these homes and their yards show it.
The ceiling radiant ... is unusual ... and somewhat less affective in some ways and more in others.
Radiant floors are nice because that is the only part of a building that we routinely and fairly continuously come into physical contact with our feet.
The efficiency is primarily in the notion that since our footsies are warm(er), we can crank down the stat by say 2-4 degrees and still feel fairly comfortable. That buys us say 5+% efficiency. I keep my stat cooler with my radiant floors than I did w/ forced air. Not everyone will do this, though.
Radiant heat of this type is a BIT of a misnomer ... it's not really high temp radiant heat, but since an otherwise cold surface (that we come into contact with) is somewhat warmer, our body reacts better (i.e. radiates less heat to it) to it. But with cold walls and windows, the radiant floor does little about that.
Radiant floors are nice because that is the only part of a building that we routinely and fairly continuously come into physical contact with our feet.The efficiency is primarily in the notion that since our footsies are warm(er)
The function of a radiant floor is not simply to warm the feet. If you're wearing shoes indoors it will have almost no effect on foot temperature.
Radiant heat of this type is a BIT of a misnomer ... it's not really high temp radiant heat... with cold walls and windows, the radiant floor does little about that.
Human comfort depends on a number of factors, including clothing level, metabolic activity, air temperture, mean radiant temperature of all surfaces, radiant asymmetry, air temperature stratification, air veocity and turbulence, and relative humidity.
What a radiant floor does is raise the mean radiant temperature of the space and so increase thermal comfort without increasing air temperature, or maintaining thermal comfort at a lower air temperature. Air temperature and mean radiant temperature are approximately equal in effect on human comfort - so of you lower one by 5° and raise the other by 5° there will be no net effect.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
If your shoes contact a floor that is 55 degrees, it will make some difference. Many people I know have a tendency not to want to wear shoes around the house anyway ... so it is a big plus.
So what do you define as 'the mean radiant temperature of the space'? Warm floors mean that surface has a higher mean radiant temperature. Fine and dandy, but a lot of my body surface faces the cold walls/windows. Radiant floors aren't quite the same radiant animal as e.g. radiant sun.
You forgot that human comfort also depends on psychological state of mind. If I am depressed, I will often need higher space temp for comfort. If I'm motivated, I may need less. I suppose that all adds up to 'metabolic rate'. Yes LOTS of factors affect comfort. Not sure your point.
So ... if I lower my stat 5 deg and raise my mean radiant temp by 5 deg, my comfort remains the same ... but potentially, my energy use is lower since most of energy consumption is from space temp and heat loss of surfaces (for the most part).
Not sure of the points your are trying to make. I don't disagree with what you say.
Not sure of the points your are trying to make.
Not making "points" just correcting misconceptions about radiant heat and its impact on comfort.
If your shoes contact a floor that is 55 degrees, it will make some difference.
Except any interior surface will be within a few degrees of indoor air temperature. What makes a floor feel cool to bare feet is more the conductivity of the material than the actual temperature since any unheated indoor surface will be at least 20° colder than your skin (avg skin temp = 91.4°). That is why a wood floor doesn't feel as cold as a marble or concrete floor.
So what do you define as 'the mean radiant temperature of the space'? Warm floors mean that surface has a higher mean radiant temperature. Fine and dandy, but a lot of my body surface faces the cold walls/windows.
It's not my definition - it's THE definition. Every enclosed space has a mean radiant temperature, as experienced by a body at a particular height and orientation within the space. The angular orientation to each surface is taken into account in determining the experienced mean radiant temperature of the space. While a cold window will have a dramatic effect, the floor is a much larger surface and will often have a bigger effect on comfort.
Radiant floors aren't quite the same radiant animal as e.g. radiant sun.
Of course not. Neither is a radiant woodstove or a radiator, but that's not what we were discussing. Those are radiant heaters - i.e. they have a positive radiant heat transfer to a human body if they are more than body temperature and have at least as high an emissivity as human skin (E-0.87). Radiant heat transfer is a function of surface temperature multiplied by the E of the surface.
You forgot that human comfort also depends on psychological state of mind.
It's probably more correct to say that human thermal comfort effects one's state of mind, but that's irrelevant as well because it is not quantifiable and verifiable. Human comfort studies are statistical, not anecdotal. The standards are determined by the hygro-thermal variables that at least 80% of people indicate is comfortable.
Yes LOTS of factors affect comfort. Not sure your point.
There are nine commonly-used indoor human comfort variables:
Clothing level
Metabolic activity
Air temperature
Mean radiant temperature
Radiant asymmetry
Air convection velocity
Air convection turbulence
Air temperature stratification
Relative humidity
In addition, there are some lesser-recognized variables such as color.
So ... if I lower my stat 5 deg and raise my mean radiant temp by 5 deg, my comfort remains the same ... but potentially, my energy use is lower since most of energy consumption is from space temp and heat loss of surfaces (for the most part).
As you had indicated earlier, radiant heat is no more energy-efficient or cost-efficient than any other heat unless the occupant lowers the air temperature (via thermostat set point). It is, however, more efficient at producing comfort - and that's why it's so popular.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Are you saying I have misconceptions of radiant heat? Maybe I don't know about the details you are discussing ... but my points are not really misconceived, I don't think. Mostly just simplifications of some of what you are saying.
BTW ... I was asking you specifically about what you define as mean radiant temperature ... I understood what you were talking about in the general sense ... just not the specific sense (as I was trying to get you to explain in more specifically for all of us).
I was asking you specifically about what you define as mean radiant temperature ... I understood what you were talking about in the general sense ... just not the specific sense
You'll have to be more specific. I don't have a clue what you're asking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_radiant_temperature
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Thanks for the link. Explains a little more about what you said. I think I was thinking of specifics w/in the context of our discussion ... a person standing in a room surrounded by: warm floor, cold wall, cold window, cool walls, etc. But I've lost track of the point of the conversation ... sorry.
I think I was thinking of specifics w/in the context of our discussion ... a person standing in a room surrounded by: warm floor, cold wall, cold window, cool walls, etc.
I can share this:
"Experiments exposing people to changing degrees of radiant temperature asymmetry have proved that warm ceilings and cold windows cause the greatest discomfort, while cold ceilings and warm walls cause the least discomfort. During these experiments all the other surfaces in the room and the air were kept at an equal temperature."
So,what contributes to thermal discomfort is not simple air and radiant temperatures but the asymmetry we feel on our bodies. Standing in front of a bonfire on a cold winter night will leave us uncomfortable because our back is so cold relative to our front, even though our front is nice and warm.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
But I've stood in a hot springs naked in -20 degF and been relatively OK. Radiant floors are similar ... warm the surface we are in contact with and it can make a big difference in our comfort ... even standing in front of the cold window. Which was my orignial statement, I think. You can turn the stat down a few degrees because of the affect of the floor ... whether 'asymetrical radiant affect' or whether my feet are touching a surface that is 50 deg warmer than all the other surfaces in the house.
Even wearing my shoes, I can tell my slab is freezing cold.
I don't want to hijack, but I am gearing up for a project and want radiant. I have to put a standard construction floor down to get up off of a slab outside. Its an old carport that was enclosed. The radiant part seems straightforward, insulating between the slab and the floor less so.
What goes under joists exposed to outside air, such as a floor over a dirt crawl area? This is a very high moisture area too. I have a damp slab from uphill hydro pressure in the winter. Since I need to pour a footing where there is none, I may have to tear the slab out anyway. Feel free to move this post if not appropriate here. http://www.etherhuffer.typepad.com
You are installing a wood framed floor over a crawl over an existing slab? Definately install a 6 mil vapor barrier/retarder. Do a good job of it. This is key to controlling moisture. If you are having problems with groundwater from uphill, you might consider installing like a french drain to divert at least a bulk of it around your project. I would think some trenching, gravel, and drain tile would be relatively inexpensive (famous last words and assuming you have only the most ideal conditions to do this groundwork). Then ... insulate the floor.
Are you doing radiant floor on this? You have two choices ... radiant tubing On the subfloor or under it. I did mine on ... made my own custom 'warm board' (that stuff is expensive).
Probably a warm board style install. We have ways to drain water away. What went under your joists?http://www.etherhuffer.typepad.com
Sounds like the question now is, While you were in this hot spring naked, were the people around you comfortable with you being naked??Now let's see what study Riversong can quote on this one!!
Yeah, they were cool. Casual setting among strangers. Hated to conjer up images, but didn't want to distort the facts, ya know?
But I've stood in a hot springs naked in -20 degF and been relatively OK.
You're really mixing your metaphors here. I'm warming up my outdoor wood-fired hot tub right now and getting ready to jump in at 0°. And I've been comfortable in it in sub-zero weather, too. But that's not radiant heat - it's hot water that heats your body by conduction.
I've also warmed up in a sauna and then jumped through a hole in the ice into frigid water. Lots of fun, but that has nothing to do with radiant heat.
You're still misunderstanding the concept.
Radiant floors are similar ... warm the surface we are in contact with and it can make a big difference in our comfort ... even standing in front of the cold window. Which was my orignial statement, I think. You can turn the stat down a few degrees because of the affect of the floor ... whether 'asymetrical radiant affect' or whether my feet are touching a surface that is 50 deg warmer than all the other surfaces in the house.
Radiant floors don't warm us by "warming our feet". They only remove heat less quickly from our feet, since our feet are about 90° and the floor is no more than 75°-85°.
And no radiant floor is going to be 50° warmer than the walls or ever warmer than our bodies. A radiant floor does not warm our bodies. It radiates heat to any sufaces in the room which are cooler than the floor and hence raises the mean radiant temperature of the entire space. A higher mean radiant temperature feels warmer on our bodies because it is cooling us less quickly - the room is always cooler than our bodies.
A radiator warms our bodies. A radiant woodstove warms our bodies. The sun streaming through the window warms our bodies. A radiant floor does not.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/17/2009 4:27 pm ET by Riversong
Oh please stop. I'm not misunderstanding.
Radiant floor warm us by conduction through our feet ... very similar to the hot tub. Neither is radiant heat, really (although there is some radiant affect in both situations).
OK ... maybe the floor only feels like it is warming us because it is removing heat less quickly. Whatever. I really don't cool a space down either; I remove heat from it. You say tomato, I say tomato.
I'm not disagreeing with your statements. I'm looking at it from a little different point of explanation. Maybe not scientifically perfectly accurate and not explaining it like you want me to. But not entirely inaccurate, either. Back off, dude. OK?
Oh please stop. I'm not misunderstanding.
Sorry, clewless, but about radiant heat you are clewless.
Radiant floor warm us by conduction through our feet ... very similar to the hot tub. Neither is radiant heat, really (although there is some radiant affect in both situations).
No heat can transfer except from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. As long as the floor is cooler than your feet it cannot warm your feet.
A radiant floor warms the other surfaces of a room by radiation - that's why it's called a radiant floor.
A hot tub warms by conduction with some potential internal convection, but not radiance.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I am without clew ... you sir are the one that is clueless.
There isn't a right and wrong here ... just different ways to look at the same thing. You're being ridiculous.
There's no shame in ignorance, even for an engineer. But to pretend you understand what you're completely confused about and then to rationalize your misunderstaning as a difference in perception only undermines any credibility you might have had.
You picked the perfect pseudonym.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/19/2009 12:26 am ET by Riversong
to address your first misconception about radiant ceiling: modern radiant ceilings with reset water temperatures and lower heat loads provide comfort very similar to low temp radiant floors. floors are indirectly heated (as are all objects in the space) and so an increase in the mean radiant temperature of the space still occurs, very similarly to a radiant floor.Trick is not overheating the head. With low loads and reset water, that is not much of a problem. In high load situations, the scenario appears to differ. But in any house you are likely to build, radiant ceiling is a much cheaper way to get a very similar level of comfort in the end, if radiant of any kind makes any sense at all.But this hot head/cold foot situation happens only in high load situations and/or with uninsulated floors, and/or with grossly over temp water. In many old fashion radiant ceiling with 180 degree water, copper and plaster, over an uninsulated slab in a 50's style ranch house, you might have all 3 situations present.As for the original poster: copper in slab systems do typically fail by now. Certainly their lifespan is variable, but sooner or later someone with experience in diagnosing old systems like this should have a look-see to see where your particular system is at in terms of its longevity.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
to address your first misconception about radiant ceiling: modern radiant ceilings with reset water temperatures and lower heat loads provide comfort very similar to low temp radiant floors. floors are indirectly heated (as are all objects in the space)
Thanks for the input, but I harbor no misconceptions about the effects on human comfort of radiant heat. And the radiant ceiling in question was in a 1948 house - not likely to meet the modern standards you describe.
But radiant heat exchange is not only proportional to the 4th power of the delta-T (such that higher temperature radiant surfaces will be far more noticeable to the head, which is the most sensitive part of the body to radiation), but radiant energy also dissipates by the square of distance travelled (such that it wil have several times the effect on the human head at 6' or 4' above the floor as it will on the floor or other objects.
Every study of indoor human comfort has demonstrated that the radiant temperature asymmetry that is most bothersome is a cold wall or a warm ceiling. ISO and ASHRAE have established these as standards: radiant asymmetry no more than 9°F warmer at head level than ankles, and air temperature asymmetry no more than 5° from head to ankle.
The advantages of radiant ceilings is quicker response than floor, less obstruction and insulative coverings, and the opportunity for greater heat output (with higher temperatures), as floor temperature is limited to about 84°. But they are less effective at producing human comfort than a radiant floor.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
cherry picking a worst case scenario does not make your original statement correct.Radiant ceilings may be "less" effective at producing human comfort, but that is a meaningless statement. It is quite possible, and in fact easy, to produce comfortable humans in modern buildings (not necessarily superinsulated) with radiant ceiling and it is done every day. Whether a radiant floor would be some esoteric measure (in such a case) be more comfortable is perhaps true, but not necessarily a useful distinction. Of course in high load, high temp, or cold floor situations, the difference is not esoteric.I call this out only because radiant ceiling already has a bad rap from its unfortunate past in high load, improperly insulated, high temperature systems. That does not apply to modern design standards and as such, killing the myth of "hot heads" would be appreciated. Care must be taken to avoid heating heads, but it's quite possible, thanks.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
killing the myth of "hot heads" would be appreciated.
If you believe it's a myth, then it's your job to kill it, since you're apparently a salesman for the Radiant heating industry.
I'm a teacher of thermal engineering, so my job is to share the science and let people decide.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Then I guess we have to get rid of all the radiant panels we have installed over the years in ceilings. No offense, you may teach otherwise, but in real life they do work.
So a nine foot ceiling at 90 degree apparent surface temperature is uncomfortable? How about simply noting when you are making an assumption that is based on a particular type of building envelope or system configuration? Or is that somehow some kind of insult? Do you disagree that in modern envelopes that radiant ceiling can be quite comfortable?it is simply a myth to say that radiant ceiling causes hot heads without further exposition. It's like saying forced air systems cause asthma, passive houses grow mold and radiant floor makes noise: it's true in some circumstances, but not because of anything inherent in the tech. if I run a baseboard system at 100 degrees when it needs 140, am I justified in saying "baseboard doesn't work"? If I put a radiant floor in a carpeted room with a 60 BTU/sq ft heat load it can't keep up with, am I right to call radiant floor 'Uncomfortable'? Or is there some responsibility to note problems are caused by improper application, not the application itself?I also find your "salesman" allegation rather insulting, thank you very much. While I do sell radiant systems, that does not make you correct and your ad hominem attack is a pretty weak tactic for someone who purports to be a "teacher"; someone who really is interested in truth debates merit, not messengers. The fact is I have a lot of clients with radiant ceilings who are not only satisfied but love the heat. The one that didn't? Old, leaky building, high output. Go figure, huh? I enjoy and respect your input on these forums, but you've got some serious issues with qualifying your statements. Making a statement about hot heads and then expecting a casual reader to compute radiant intensity to figure out when your statement does not apply is slightly disingenuous.If you're going to cut out this whole thing to pick the line you want to respond to again, please make it this one: Do you disagree that in modern envelopes that radiant ceiling can be quite comfortable?
-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
If you're going to cut out this whole thing to pick the line you want to respond to again, please make it this one: Do you disagree that in modern envelopes that radiant ceiling can be quite comfortable?
As you igored my detailing of the advantages of a radiant ceiling and based your argument on some imagined condemnation?
And as you created a straw man argument by focussing on poorly installed systems?
Sorry if you don't like it, but I don't jump to conclusions about people just because they sell a product. But when they argue disingenuously about the merits of a product without acknowledging the negatives - AND they are selling the product - then it is fair game to point to their conflict of interest.
I stand by my last statement. In spite of some advantages, a (perfectly installed) radiant ceiling is not going to be as efficient at producing human comfort as a (perfectly installed) radiant floor.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
You mentioned advantages, it's true, I'm not claiming that you are out there just slamming radiant ceiling left and right. I was only clarifying that the DISadvantages you refer to are largely only significant downsides in old, leaky homes with old, uncontrolled radiant ceiling systems, and are therefor not a useful or accurate assessment in many homes. They are accurate for those particular situations were the ceiling is hot (vs. warm) and/or the floor is cold (vs. cool). that is NOT the situation in most modern homes.In modern systems, in modern homes, while radiant ceiling is TECHNICALLY less comfortable than radiant floor; the difference is often (not always) small enough to be nearly unnoticeable. Lower loads (especially downward): lower surface temps; dynamic water temperature control all greatly minimize any comfort differential between the two methods.That is the differentiation I was attempting to clarify. I would love it if you would acknowledge this qualifier as valid, since it was an attempt to modify your original statement. I suspect though that your information on this is limited from a practical point of view so all you can comment based on is the math, which only tells part of the story. As much as the engineer in me hates to say so, comfort cannot be mathematically determined with precision because comfort is subjective, and we are talking about a very fine degree of precision in the difference here in many modern homes, between floor vs ceiling.You are, in affect, arguing to upsell system from my point of view: radiant ceiling is much cheaper than most equivalent (in terms of low temperature performance) radiant floor methods. I have lots of clients choose radiant floors even after I explain to them the lack of need for the more expensive solution in their particular situation because of this perceive benefit you are talking about: a benefit that, in many modern homes, they will never feel or notice. for instance, if your maximum heat load is 10 BTUs/sq ft and your floor is well insulated, you would be unlikely to be able to tell if a room were heated from the ceiling, or the floor the vast majority of the time. I could take you to a home that fits that profile a half hour from my office I have personally visited several times including cold weather. At 15 BTUs/sq ft, that is not true in cold weather (but still is during milder conditions), and at 20+ floor is very very noticeably more comfortable most of the time. Those are round approximation of course and there are a mile of details in what works in any particular home, but that's a pretty good approximation of the situation in the real world.Basically, I am attempting to counteract what I perceive to be another unnecessarily floor-focused solution, because radiant floor itself IS OVERKILL for many people. And your post probably just convinced more people to blow more cash on a solution that will not, in any PRACTICAL measure, enhance their comfort in any way, even if on paper it says it will by some small measure.If that makes me a "salesman" arguing disingenuously, I believe It makes me a poor one, or I apparently don't understand what "disingenuously" means.I would appreciate an apology though, since I neither refused to acknowledge the negatives of radiant ceiling such as you state, nor argued in bad faith. I won't hold my breath, of course, and I won't hold it against you in the future, but you maligned me twice now without cause or warrant for attempting to debate this point. That's fairly rude.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I'm sorry you got caught up with Riversong's diatribe.. He's this self important myopic person who needs to challenge others to feel important.. Myself and others have learned the hard way that he's just an unpleasant person who isn't worth a discussion..
Frenchy, if you had any wisdom, you would refrain from jumping into an otherwise useful and substantive discussion to which you have nothing constructive to add.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Who died and made you the great wise one who knows all about what may or may not be constructive. Your diatribe is by definition not constructive. As stated earlier, first you have to have respect and without it, no facts that you may possess will gain any acceptance from those who you are trying to teach.
Been reading through this thread in amazement that nobody seems to know more about the history of radiant floors. In the US, the radiant floor began to be popularized in the 1920's by none other than Frank Lloyd Wright after his journeys to Japan while designing the Imperial Hotel. Wright often complained how cold the Japanese kept there homes. The only way to get refuge was in the tea rooms which along with having low ceilings, used in floor radiant heat. Since the custom of the tea room was to enter sans shoes, it was a joy to Wright to find that the floor temperature, was comfortable and therefore made his entire being comfortable. To maximize this comfort, the Japanese wore Kimonos which were insulated silk robes, open at the bottom to allow the rising heat in. The feet truly are the body's thermostat. Any carpenter and avid hiker like myself can tell you that. As long as my feet are warm and dry, my core is easier to keep warm. When It is hot and humid, a quick dip of the feet in a stream is all that is necessary to cool the entirety.Although I don't think radiant ceilings would be worth the effort, I can maybe see them operating in the summer, pumping cold water to produce a cooling effect or in the winter to regain heat coming off the floor. If it was installed in the 40's I assume it was out of a misunderstanding of thermodynamics and building sciences as we know them today. There are a great many sources on the internet and in books now covering the ideas involved in in floor radiant heat that can easily contest to the proper and most efficient methods of system design.DC (accredited designer builder)
In the US, the radiant floor began to be popularized in the 1920's by none other than Frank Lloyd Wright
But it was William Leavitt who popularized them by making radiant floors the only heat source in his 17,447 home subdivision for returning WWII veterans.
The feet truly are the body's thermostat. As long as my feet are warm and dry, my core is easier to keep warm.
While warm feet certainly contribute to perceived comfort, they have little to do with regulating the body's temperature or warming the core. When you're mildly hypothermic, there's very little circulation in the feet and so very little opportunity for warming the body by warming the feet. When we have to warm a cold person in the woods, we place heat packs on the groin, armpits, and neck where large blood vessels are close to the surface. This "counterflow" system works just like a heat exchanger in the house for quick core rewarming.
Although I don't think radiant ceilings would be worth the effort, I can maybe see them operating in the summer, pumping cold water to produce a cooling effect
Hydronic cooling of the ceiling (or floor) in the summer is a recipe for condensation and mold. I wouldn't suggest it.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
As I heard it, FLW first encountered underfloor heating at the home of a Japanese person who had imported the idea from Korea, which was under Japanese occupation at the time. Japan itself never did much in this area.
View Image
Edited 1/22/2009 2:29 pm ET by KHWillets
I was just stating it as I learned about it in school and read about it in "In the Nature of Materials" a biography of FLW that used his own testimony of the occurrence. I have never heard of it being a Korean invention but who knows. I'm curious where you read that?DC
The Romans used underfloor heating 2000 years ago.Google Hypocaustum
Was thinking the same thing, watched the History Channel how the Romans heated the spas and floor with the same heat.
(quote) In the early 1900s, when the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright was building the Imperial Hotel in Japan, he was invited to the home of a Japanese nobleman. There Wright found a room that was different from typical Japanese rooms, with a warm floor covered with yellow paper -- a Korean ondol room. The Japanese gentleman had experienced ondol in Korea and, once back in Japan, had an ondol room built in his house. "The indescribable comfort of being warmed from below" impressed Wright.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underfloor_heating
Thanks KHW, I recall that quote now from the book. You and riversong are debating something all a bit different when you are talking about calderiums and ondols which both use under floor heating. We are talking about "in floor heating" or "hydronics" as invented by Wright. The use of water tubing in the floor is a big jump forward in building technology and differs greatly from using air channels, slaves, and fire underfoot. Technically, I could simply put a wood stove in the basement and say I have underfloor heat (I actually know a few people who do that, one is a house I designed). Pumping water though is a major advance (I wonder why we don't pump hot oil though?) allowing us to capture heat from a variety of sources, most of which are maintenance free...and don't require slaves. With the momentum the green movement has now, I predict in floor heating will soon take over as the most common heat source; it just makes sense. Not that I agree with them but in the last two years, my local area has been overtaken by those exterior wood burner systems. Geothermal is slowly on the rise; and solar thermal is finally beginning to come down in price and that's were it's at. I built a house not long ago that was completely off the grid and mechanically heated 75% by solar thermal (the rest by solar electric and heat exchange...also passive and hybrid passive). Although that house's solar heat exchangers were about $10,000 (Veissman) I have seen many that are cheaper and it is easy to build your own. My point is that hydronic heating and ancient methods are really apples and oranges. Also...does anyone actually agree with riversong that the feet aren't most important in determining comfort in a home (we are not talking about hypothermic levels here...rather the differing comfort between 60˚ and 80˚ in a home). Throw the technical stuff out the window when you are commenting on human perception! I don't build houses to be scientific but to look and feel good to the occupants. DC
Yes, I agree the differences are large. The history is interesting, though. The Ondol is something like a horizontal masonry heater, and someday I plan to figure out how well it works in practice: how often it needs firing, how well it maintains temperature, etc. From what I've heard it could get uncomfortably hot, and extra mattress pads, etc., were used to insulate against the heat. It's also common to crack a window when it gets overheated (for a few hours while the masonry cools down). These days hydronic and electric are the predominant underfloor heating over there. But lately there's been a revival in traditional or "modern traditional" houses that have some of the old-style features.
Milestones in the global development of radiant cooling and heating...sans all the fine details which would take several pages...some other time.
Before hypocaust (Romans) and ondol (modern Korea) was the kang (northern China) and in ancient Korea the dikang, huodi and gudeul.
Literary references to the word "kang" ( original. "to dry") can be traced back to c. 10,000 B.C. ...later became a raised heated surface. Dikang evolved into heated floor or Ondol as it is known today in Korea. Archeological finds are carbon dating these early surface heating systems to the pre 2000 B.C. era.
The kang and dikang influenced both the Chinese and Korean cultures...shoes on (China) shoes off (Korea)...tighter clothing (sitting on benches/chairs - China) versus looser clothing (sitting on floor - Korea).
Interestingly similar system to the dikang have been uncovered in the Aleutian islands (c. 2000 B.C.)of Alaska also of the same Neolithic period but no cultural link has yet been established.Other dates of interest:c. 700 a.d. radiant cooling in what is today modern day Afghanistan...dwellings built with double walls were packed with snow brought down from the mountains by slaves...there may be earlier radiant cooling system but I have yet to find any source or reference...
c. 1750 Benjamin Franklin studies early Korean, Chinese and French heating systems later influencing the Franklin Stove.
1864 Civil war hospitals heated with a form of dikang (ondol).
1908 Prof. Barker of the U.K. was given the patent #28477 for panel warming using small dia pipes...before FLW....patent later sold to Crittal Co who distributed systems across northern Europe.
Asia never abandoned the use of radiant heating
Europe reestablished it (heated air in ducts) in greenhouses c. the 1700/1800'fs (study the Dutch and French (earlier developers of steam and hot water)) leading up to Prof. Barker patent.
America followed in the 1900's...popularized by FLW later Levitt and then Eichler.
Suggested reading
Among many others...
Gard'ners almanac, John Evelyn, 1691
The Book of The Garden,, Charles M'fintosh, 1853
The Medical And Surgical History Of The War Of The Rebellion Part III, Volume II., Surgical History, 1883
The Complete Works of Benjamin Franklin, New York: C.P. ,Putnam's Sons, 1888
Early Application of Engineering To The Warming Of Buildings, A. F. Dufton's, Newcomen Society Transactions, 1940/41
Radiant Heating, T.N. Adlam, 2nd Ed., 1949
Heat And Style: 18th Century House Warming By Stoves, S.Y. Edgerton, 1961
Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian Houses. John Sergeant, New York: Whitney Library Of Design, 1976
A History of Heating In Europe, ASHRAE Transactions, Roberts (C.Eng.), B., Ch95.6.4
Historical Changes and Recent Energy Saving Potential of Residential Heating In Korea, Yeo, Yang, And Kim, 2003
Chinese Architecture and Planning: Ideas, Methods, Techniques By Qinghua Guo, B.Arch (Harbin) Ph.D. (Cth), 2006
Huts and History: The Historical Archaeology Of Military Encampment During The American Civil War Edited By C.R. Geier,
D.G. Orr, And M.B. Reeves, 2006
The Battle Over Amaknak Bridge, H. Pringle, Prof. R. Knecht, Archaeology, 2007
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Heritage Group Website
Frank Lloyd Wright, Edgar Kaufmann, Ed. An American Architecture
Eichler Network, Time Magazine,
...many other references of equal interest.
Once again this is a macro summary without claim to presenting all the micro details...
Edited 1/23/2009 11:41 pm ET by RBean
Edited 1/23/2009 11:51 pm ET by RBean
Also...does anyone actually agree with riversong that the feet aren't most important in determining comfort in a home (we are not talking about hypothermic levels here...rather the differing comfort between 60¢ª and 80¢ª in a home). Throw the technical stuff out the window when you are commenting on human perception! I don't build houses to be scientific but to look and feel good to the occupants.
To suggest that foot temperature is the most important comfort factor ignores the obvious truth that with warm feet and noticably chilly air no one is going to be comfortable. Add to that additional complications like convective breezes, radiant losses to the windows and an overheated ceiling and you've got a recipe for discomfort to a high degree.
If you really want to build houses to feel good to the occupants, than you won't ignore the "technical stuff", since every bit of it was derived from actual human subjective perceptions of comfort from a multitude of contolled experiments. This "stuff" isn't theoretical, its real.
One of those findings is that with people wearing shoes indoors 90% reported being comfortable with floor temperatures between 66.2 and 84.2 (19-29 C).
If you're in the habit of being barefoot indoors (as most are on occasion in a bathroom), then you will likely prefer a floor at the high end of 84.2 if it's highly conductive like marble and 78.8 if it's linoleum on wood. But as we've all experienced, the conductivity of floor has more effect than its temperature on perception of comfort.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/24/2009 10:49 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 1/24/2009 10:50 pm ET by Riversong
Two articles of interest to those who want to study comfort research.
Temperature and Tempermenthttp://www.ashrae.org/publications/detail/16657
A History of Thermal Manikins in Comfort Researchhttp://www.hpac.sartech.ca/digimag/display.asp?a=457
Edited 1/25/2009 1:07 am ET by RBean
I found the ASHRAE article to be VERY interesting and relevant to the work I do (energy management). We frequently talk about control of temperature, perception of temperature or perception of the control of temperature, the placebo affect, etc.
The temperature dummy (cousin to the crash dummy??) was also very interesting. Beyond their existence, though I'd be more interested in some of the testing/information that comes out of their use.
Thanks for the contribution/link!!
"people wearing shoes indoors 90% reported being comfortable with floor temperatures between 66.2 and 84.2"How technical, and in such a narrow range! I bet 100% are comfortable between 30 and 120 degrees. That's science for you. And at the same time I sit here in a 68 degree house with forced air underfloor heat, no direct breeze, hardwood finish floor, wearing wool socks, leather shoes, and normal clothing. My core is indifferent to the temperature and my feet are freezing. My overall condition I would classify as uncomfortable. Again, that's science for you. I contend that the feet are in control.By building to human perception instead of science, I mean to say I build to suit the individual client's needs. Some people like it hot, some don't. Some go barefoot, others wear slippers. Science tends to group everyone in the same box.DC
see post #81 ... and read the ASHRAE article link. Pretty interesting stuff. Perception means a great deal according to that article.
I tend to NOT wear shoes around the house ... don't like the confinement and prefer the relaxed feel of no shoes. Typically socks, maybe slippers. I tend to agree w/ your point of view ... warmer floors ... regardless of whether they are still below my foot or body temp and regardless of whether I have shoes on ... will affect my perception and feel. I contend that if I have shoes on, I will be able to feel the difference between a cold slab and a heated slab ... e.g. w/ standard thin sole leather shoes (vs. e.g. athletic shoes). And feeling that difference, I'll feel warmer w/ the heated slab.
Like I said before, if I have my feet in hot water (say 105 degF), I can tolerate pretty cold air temps and still have a comfort level. The ASHRAE article pretty much backs that notion up, I think.
This is my opinion ... not science ... so River doesn't need to bother responding to this since he is a science only, black and white kind of guy (even if the black and white has some grey areas to it).
Comfort is like poker …some of the combinations of comfort cards carry a heavier weighting than others but you still need all of the cards to play…if you can get a Royal Flush in comfort you are said to have satisfied 80% of the occupants in the space…meaning that there are still circumstances where no matter what you do to win - you still could lose.
The Royal Flush cards are:
Aces: Vertical air temperature difference and radiant asymmetry.
Kings: Warm or cool floors
Queens: Air temperature and radiant temperature (combined they create what is called the “Operative Temperature)<!----><!----><!---->
Jacks: Air speed and draft
Tens: Humidity
Wild cards: clothing, metabolic rate, thermal drifts and ramps.
All other cards are the nuances that influence ones perception of comfort. Examples would be - does the person have the ability to control the system (psychological – see ASHRAE article above) or the state of one’s health (i.e. Multiple Sclerosis or Alzheimer’s or other ailments which affect or are affected by temperature)…many others to consider.
One of the reasons why the Aces and Kings carry a heavier weighting has to do with the distribution of thermal sensors in your skin. In addition to the pressure sensors which tell the brain about things like pain or touch there are also approximately 166,000 (+/- a few thousand) thermal sensors and they are distributed in greater proportions in your feet, ankle, and calves, hands, wrist and forearm, neck and head.
When the thermal air traffic controller in your brain (called the hypothalamus) picks up different readings from the sensors such as large temperature difference between the ankles and the head it gets bent all out of shape so your conscious thought becomes…damn its uncomfortable and so you put on a hat or thrown on some socks or move towards or away from the sun or some other adaptive means…and/or adjust the mechanical system.
It’s a very broad topic with a million paths but the end result is that thermal comfort research quantifies and verifies what we experienced as soon as we were born…and yes we don’t need science to tell us when we have cold feet or a sweaty forehead…our bodies already do a good job with that…but the science can support decisions like how to build an enclosure and what type of HVAC system should be installed so that people (not the building) can be conditioned in a way which results in acceptable comfort – this in turn leads to better productivity, greater ability to learn and an improvement in our general state of well being.
Lastly, human thermal comfort works on fuzzy logic where “maybe†and “sometimes†overrides yes/no, right/wrong or on/off approaches…it’s one of the gifts that we have that makes each of us unique.
Edited 1/25/2009 2:33 pm ET by RBean
Well ... interesting analogy and point of view. Different. 'R' will undoubtedly tell you you are dead wrong and that science is science; numbers don't lie, etc.
Your point of view is appreciated, regardless.
can't quite read the note at the bottom of the drawing ... could you repost more clearly? ;)
And perhaps the Koreans learned it from the Romans?
View Image
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
If the Romans were able to time-travel back to the Neolithic period, it's certainly possible. However the designs are somewhat different. The Ondol was/is a common dwelling feature, while the Hypocaust was an expensive structure to build and operate. You can build an Ondol in a weekend (and there is at least one book I've seen that shows how -- maybe FHB has a Korean branch).
"Misperceptions", "cherry-picking", "disingenuous", "rude" - those were your words.
I have nothing to apologize for. I hear what you're saying about your experience with radiant ceilings (within the narrow limitations in which you say they work), and I'm open to expanding my view if I see some proof.
Do you have radiant temperature gradient and air temperature gradient and room temperature time cycle data you can share with me? Or any studies of subjective comfort in rooms with radiant ceilings that support your view? Or, better yet, comparative studies of radiant floor and ceiling applications?
I'd be more than glad to read them.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/21/2009 6:50 pm ET by Riversong
maybe you could start, by walking into a house with such a system operating?I know, it's crazy. but it just might work! When the floor is comfortable, and you can't feel the ceiling, I guess I'm not sure why I would need to commission or wait for a study to tell me what's going on.I'm not sure why i would need it to explain that a certain temperature ceiling is or is not particularly uncomfortable beyond the basic ASHRAE radiant temperature asymmetry data I assume you are well aware of, nor that a floor will absorb direct radiation and, with proper downward insulation, will not be cold. there are of course variances for flooring as well.The point is not that ceilings are the perfect application. the point is that the "perfect" application is sometimes overkill and virtually indistinguishable from other forms of relative even heating.Seriously, you have built superinsulated houses with radiant floors. Have any of them ever achieved a floor temperature you would call "warm"? If so, then your homes are not as tight or well insulated as I assumed given your apparent building science knowledge. I assume that while you would agree radiant floor is very comfortable, you would also note that it can pretty hard to tell if it's running or not in a well insulated home with moderate glass, right?Assuming you agree, is it REALLY such a stretch to understand how little that differs from a low temp radiant ceiling application? Or are you just digging in your heels?-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
My house has infloor heat but the floors ain't warm. The system you designed ain't working right. Watcha going to do about it????????????????????
LOL
You did check to see your water heater/boiler is turned on right? ;)
NRT,
I wish I could have caught you before you were getting sucked into the black hole of disrespect, arrogance, and self righteousness. My condolences, dude. I don't wish that on anyone. I got caught in it the other day. You can agree with him all you want, but he will still think you are lame and that your opinion and words are "completely" without value.
Just remember ... it is OK. You are participating in relevant conversation where [almost] everyone respects your right to express yourself and your point of view whether they agree w/ it or not.
"I'm a teacher of thermal engineering, so my job is to share the science and let people decide."
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
What are we to believe? Your are a teacher? You are a housewright (a fictitious word, please define)? You are a designer/builder/renovator? You are a consultant?
Obvious personality flaws aside, if you wish to establish any credibility here (or anywhere else for that matter) at all, you may want to decide what you really do for a living (and tell the truth) explain that to us "pieces of work" you have so graciously honoroed with you enlightened presence.
What I believe is probably not accurate, so I'll keep it to myself and let you explain, if you will.
Well fascinating thread. Now I will go to my electric resistance heated radiant ceiling home and enjoy the quiet and warmth of it.
No leaks to worry about, no boiler to repair.
Warm, quiet and consistent. Same as it has been for almost 40 years. Have a good day.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
House´wright`
n.
1.
A builder of houses.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.
You have much to learn. It's a shame that you choose not to.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
So THAT is where your science comes from ... 1913 Physics texts? That explains it.
:o)
Edited 1/24/2009 4:32 am ET by Clewless1
So then you are a residential builder.
<blockquote>radiant energy also dissipates by the square of distance travelled (such that it wil have several times the effect on the human head at 6' or 4' above the floor as it will on the floor or other objects.</blockquote>Radiation from a point follows the inverse square law, but from higher-dimensional objects you lose one from the exponent for each dimension you add to the radiator.point: inverse square
line: inverse
plane: no dissipation
Not sue what I did to apparently upset you so much. Maybe it was that I haven’t disagreed with you. Maybe I don’t think exactly like you. Or express myself exactly in the way you might like. I am certainly ignorant about a lot of things. I’m not arrogant or pompous about it. I generally have respect for others’ points of view and way of expressing themselves.
<!----><!----> <!---->
You probably are saying something like … but it’s only science. But scientists disagree on many things. Often it is simply the semantics of how they say it. Just because I don’t see things and express them in the exact same way you do doesn’t make me “completely†confused.
To be a teacher of anything, you have to first understand how to respect the point of view and their method of expressing themselves. Without that, they won't buy into a word you say; 'right' or 'wrong', they won't even listen to you. You are polarizing the conversation by acting like we have nothing whatsoever to contribute and with the attitude that only your line of thinking has value. If you are a teacher, you've got a lot to learn yourself if you actually expect anyone to even listen to you ... let alone buy into anything you might have to say.
I generally have respect for others’ points of view
What you and Frenchy continue to miss is that I also have respect for other's perspectives, as long as they are well-founded, fact-based, empirically-justified.
What I have no tolerance for is propaganda, bias, prejudice, or deliberate ignorance or complete bullmoose.
What you're also missing is that, with both of you, I tried the gently "teacherly" approach and you both refuse to acknowledge where you're wrong or accept the corrections. When this deliberate refusal to accept solid facts, sound logic, and accepted science goes on long enough, then I put away my teacher hat and put on my sh-t-kickers to dispell the manure.
I'm not trying to influence either of you. You've both made it abundantly clear that you'd rather bask in your misconceptions than open yourselves to what is real and demonstrably true.
But I will continue to counteract your nonsense so that others who use this forum won't be misled or misinformed.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/20/2009 9:36 pm ET by Riversong
You, sir are acting like a complete self centered idiot who thinks only their righteous way of thinking is the only scientific fact that there is and that you have the only right way of looking at it and expressing it and if it isn't expressed in your way it is "completely" wrong. You seem to lack any compassion or respect for anyone else. I don't need to stay on this forum to defend myself ... you, sir are your own worst enemy with the high an mighty attitude that few will have any propensity to listen to. All the selling in the world will not get people to listen to your statements with your attitude. It's amazing that both Frenchy and I have not particularly disagreed w/ you, but you've still acted like we/ve somehow got it wrong. Your self centered attitude and disrespect for others way of expressing themselves leaves you with no one to listen to what you have to say ... regardless of whether you may or may not be right. You are acting like a total jerk.
Why are you so threatened by someone who knows more than you do and offers to help you understand?
A mature person would be grateful.
And what kind of engineer are you and where were you trained. If you were just a nail banger, I could accept your ingorance about engineering and science. But since you claim professional status, I hold you to a higher standard.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/20/2009 11:14 pm ET by Riversong
We should be greatful? What arrogance!
What was this post about? My apologies to the OP for digressing. I should have done the mature thing and walked away from the conversation. Got caught up in it, though.
We should be greatful?
When someone offers you someting of value for free - yes!
But you'd not only rather look a gift horse in the mouth, you keep insisting it's not a horse at all but really an EPS pinata.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/21/2009 7:08 pm ET by Riversong
I don't see much value in disrespect. So no ... I"m not greatful and I'm guessing neither is Frenchy or NRTRob.
clewless if you haven't figured it out by now Riversong wants you to parrot back his exact verbage and kiss his posterior for being so clever..
His life has no tolerance for those who view the world differantly.
clewless if you haven't figured it out by now Riversong wants you to parrot back his exact verbage and kiss his posterior for being so clever..
His life has no tolerance for those who view the world differantly.
You seem to be as clueless as clewless.
What I share is not "my verbiage" but accepted fact and science in the building trades, as established by the recognized standards organizations, such as ASHRAE, ISO, ANSI.
I'm not very clever. But I'm well-informed.
The only thing I have zero tolerance for is the deliberate dissemination of falsehood, dysinformation, prejudice, bias, uninformed opinions or anecdotal evidence passed off as truth.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
Edited 1/19/2009 10:30 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 1/19/2009 10:31 pm ET by Riversong
What I share is not "my verbiage" but accepted fact and science in the building trades, as established by the recognized standards organizations, such as ASHRAE, ISO, ANSI.
Accepted fact and science ... which as we all know through the ages has and still does have plenty of misinformation and 'theories'. Even in the last 30 years I've been involved with building science there are plenty of issues that e.g. ASHRAE has had their proverbial heads where the sun don't shine. I respect ASHRAE very much, but they aren't the end all and I still have a head on my shoulders to enable me to make up my own mind or buy into their theories, philosophies, or 'scientific facts'. Accepted science is only a snapshot in one point in time. And while we can respect that, it is respectful to not as well.
I'm not very clever. But I'm well-informed.
I've no doubt that you may be fairly well informed ... in some science. But not very respectful. And if you want others to buy into your being informed you have to first respect others.
The only thing I have zero tolerance for is the deliberate dissemination of falsehood, dysinformation, prejudice, bias, uninformed opinions or anecdotal evidence passed off as truth.
No one here has blatantly tried to recklessly or deliberately disseminate falsehoods. They are simply expressing themselves and in their own way. We've all had some little piece to contribute to the discussion. Apparently you think everyone else but you is "completely confused". That may or may not be, but you can't expect us to buy into what is obviously a huge and very complex topic of science and conversation with a handful of paragraphs of 'wisdom'.
You got that right, frenchy. For one trying to get a point across (AND trying to get people to buy into it), he sure is agressive and self righteous about his point of view. While he may be right about a lot of this high level stuff he doesn't know how to provide it on another level. Transferring concepts in this format is tough anyway and he's effectively trying to transfer some pretty heady thermodynamics in a handful of paragraphs and expecting everyone to say ... oh gee thanks ... it's perfectly clear. Give me a break. Much of his stuff I didn't even [necessarily] disagree with and he still disrespects my point of view.
See my other response to him.
Yes I know.. It's sad that the green movement has such a spokesman for it because he's not gaining any converts.. even thouse who agree in part or completely with him find him offensive..
If he'd lighten up a little he'd find that even I agree with much of what he's saying..we may arrive at the goals differantly but we're heading in the same direction..
uh huh. How can anyone retain clients w/ that type of attitude. Maybe he doesn't. Anyone that approached an intelligent person to sell them a product, service, or idea w/ that type of approach would turn me and most people I know away. Could be the best thing since sliced bread, but the delivery doesn't cut it ... tends to alienate people. And I thought I had strong convictions at times. wow.
<<<<<<<A radiant floor warms the other surfaces of a room by radiation - that's why it's called a radiant floor.>>>>>Are you sure?Have you done a Stefan–Boltzmann law calculation of the radiant heat emitted from a floor at the typical 75Deg.F and with the emissivity of a typical floor surface, (subtracting out the re-radiation of all other heated objects in the room? I think you will find that the term "Radiant Heat" is really a misnomer, particularly with the 10-30 btu/hr/sq.ft heat loss of most residences. I also think you will find a majority of the heat provided by a warm floor is delivered to the room by simple conduction-convection.The T exp4 is a powerful thing.Dick
<<<<<<<A radiant floor warms the other surfaces of a room by radiation - that's why it's called a radiant floor.>>>>>
Are you sure? Have you done a Stefan–Boltzmann law calculation of the radiant heat emitted from a floor at the typical 75Deg.F and with the emissivity of a typical floor surface,
Yup. And by that formula, a 75° surface with E-0.87 will transfer 13 btu/hr-sf to an object of similar emittance at 60°. Raising the radiant temperature to 85° will increase the heat transfer rate to 22 but/hr-sf.
I think you will find that the term "Radiant Heat" is really a misnomer
While it's true that an inefficient radiant floor will not be very effective in a high heat loss house, in a relatively tight house it will allow higher comfort at lower thermostat settings. Additionally, the mean radiant temperature of a space is as important as air temperature in determining human comfort and warm feeet and cool head are far more comfortable than the opposite normally encountered in a warm air heated house.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes