Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
thought I would ask for your advice.
I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
and suggestions for installation.
Thanks in advance,
TMT
>
> I've kept the records. My propane costs are still less than my
> cordwood costs were 6 years ago. [last year just barely-- and this
> year I'm sure I'll exceed them-- but firewood has gone up 50% in this
> neck of the woods, too]
>
> The space I'm heating is more comfortable, cleaner, safer . . . .
> and I can sit there and enjoy it a hell of a lot more.
>
> Jim
>
Excellent, we don't want everybody burning wood anyway. If everybody
started burning wood it would be outlawed due to all the woodsmoke in
the air. You CAN get clean-burning wood stoves, but the vast majority of
wood users don't have them. That said, I bought a semi-trailer load of
bundled tamarack slabs for $25/cord. I burned about a fifth of it (4
cords) last (Manitoba) winter. I cut a cord at a time with my cradle saw
and drop it into the basement of my house, next to my Charmaster wood
furnace. So what if I take ashes out once a week, it cost me a total of
$100 to heat my (large) house for the winter. A 5 hour round trip (for
wood for five years), and an hour cutting four times a winter. Please
don't start burning wood, this is too good to be outlawed.
Jason
You gonna start this "Gymmy" bullshit too? You just lost me. I couldn't care
less what you have to say, fuckhead!
Go fuck yourself asshole. What is with you and your fucking moronic ideas
here?
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Here are some facts for you Gymmy,
No. 28 kWh per day consumption after my solar contribution. I would
normally run about 42-46 kWh per day without them and pre-efficiency cleanup
rounds. I still have some loads to find in this place yet. Haven't had time
yet. My clamp on ammeter won't register the light circuit breaker loads, as
I found out the hard way. New unit also. GRRRRRR..
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Solar Flare <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >28 kWh per day with 1600W solar for about two months this year...
>
> Do you mean your 1600 nameplate watts of solar panels delivered
> 28 kWh per day of energy, under 28kWh/1600W = 17.5 hours of sun?
>
> Nick
>
George Willer wrote:
> Maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember a similar discussion with you
> several years ago when you took a ridiculous stand on the value of multiple
> glazing. IIRC, you were just as hard headed and wrong then as you are now.
>
> George Willer
>
You recall incorrectly, as I've never heard of you until recently, and
don't ever recall having had a discussion on glazing.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Back in the 80s when people jumped into wood heating I was working at
the electric utility. We had a large number of electrically heated
homes and started to worry about lost sales. As part of an appliance
survey we asked customers if they were heating with alternate fuels.
Looking at their electric consumption (end of season) we noticed that
it actually went up in many cases. Turns out that they opened a window
for combustion air and their electric heating system did a fine job of
pre heating the combustion air.
For those customers that used an outside air inlet for the woodstove
there were some savings primarily overnight.
Bottom line outside air inlet and a stove that can and is safe to heat
all day when you are at work. Oh and a clean burning unit otherwise
you get savings and the rest of us get localized bad air.
Howard
Nog wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> > supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> > considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
> >
> > Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> > thought I would ask for your advice.
> >
> > I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> > and suggestions for installation.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > TMT
> It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of wood
> costs $200 a cord and up. Some people collect pallets, saw them up stove
> size. They heat nice since many are hardwood. You just have lots of nails
> and staples in your ash bin. If you have your own wood lot, a pickup, a
> chain say and a wood splitter you're in business. a nice table saw for cord
> wood is nice too to saw up those 4 foot logs into stove size. A large
> splitter will let you split 4 ft logs, then saw them up stove length. Small
> splitters only allow splitting stove length. Have a chain sharpening kit and
> plan on sharpening the saw chain often. There is lots of dirt in bark,
> especially if you drag your logs to the cutting area. And remember, a chain
> saw cuts meat real fast so know what you are doing and take your time.
>
> Fuel oil has about 139,000 btu's per gallon.
> Wood will average 20,000,000 btu's per cord or about equal to 143 gallons of
> oil. So if you burned 1000 gallons of oil last year you'll need about 7
> cord of wood to replace it.
> If a cord of wood is 225 a cord the heating season will cost about $1500. A
> 1000 gallons of fuel oil at $2.99 a gallon will cost $2990.
> If your wood is free, the only cost is chainsaw gas, wood splitter gas and
> maintenance on all wood preparation equipment and time involved cutting,
> splitting, hauling and stacking plus feeding the wood stove and cleaning the
> stove, emptying ashes and cleaning the chimney once a year to prevent
> chimney fires. Wood is filthy, brings in bugs and things into the house,
> coats the chimney with soot and goes cold when not attended to. But if you
> were raised in a home with wood heat there is nothing like it and nothing
> better.
Not a bad post but there are some corrections needed.
1. All wood has approximately the same btu PER POUND. The BTU per
cord varies enormously depending on the type of wood.
2. Wood splitter. Not needed. I do 8-10 cord year and up to a month
ago split it all by hand for the exercise. I am now retired so have the
time but I was doing it manually for several years prior to retiring
from a full time job. My hydraulic splitter had been parked for many
years and used only occasionally to split a few knotty chunks. I had
to start using it again as my work area was beaten down into powder
dust and got too dirty to continue manual splitting.
Harry K
"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:41:11 -0400, Steve Spence
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >,;Nog wrote:
> >,;
> >,;> It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of
wood
> >,;> costs $200 a cord and up.
> >,;>
> >,;
> >,;Fortunately for the Northeast, wood is more like $36 / face cord, or
> >,;about $100 for a full cord. 18" slabwood is $5 a pickup truck load at
> >,;the local Amish sawmill.
>
> Here in the northern Minnesota I pay $53 for a full cord. No one who
> is serious about heating with wood buys "face cords". I get eight foot
> logs which I block and split. Eight to ten cords per winter.
>
>
That's were a tractor powered rail splitter comes in handy.
And a bunching saw cradle as well.....
Split your rails on the tractor,then load cradle to cut about a rick of wood
per pass with saw.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> >supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> >considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
> >
> >Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> >thought I would ask for your advice.
> >
> >I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> >and suggestions for installation.
>
>
> 1st thing--- unless you're cutting your own wood on your own land, and
> already have a chainsaw & truck. . . forget about wood. It costs
> more than propane or fuel oil.
>
Not necessarily. A neighbor does a pretty good job scrounging
firewood. A couple of years ago he wanted to give me a truckload
of Chinese elm because it was too hard to split, unlike the black
walnut he had just finished splitting into firewood befor I
stopped by. I passed.
The City gives away unsplit wood as do some local
tree service companies. If trees are abundant in your area
a little scouting will probably turn up some sources. There is
no shortage of greenwood locally for bowl turners. Since the
City mostly takes down dead and diseased some of it is spalted,
--
FF
Steve Spence wrote:
> Lacustral wrote:
> > Burning wood for heat is very polluting, from what I've heard. The
> > woodsmoke.
> It can be, if you have older, non-epa, inefficient fireplaces and wood
> stoves. Modern EPA certified stoves and EPA compliant stoves don't
> smoke, and are very efficient and clean burning. Take a look at
>
> http://www.green-trust.org/2005/08/clean-efficient-biomass-fueled-heat.html
>
Haven't kept up with the technology but twenty years ago they were
putting catalytic converters on wood stoves, similar to those
on motor vehicles. In addition to cleaning the smoke they
also extacted a more heat by completing the combustion of
the unburned material in the smoke.
It won't deactivate the K-40 so if you're worried about radiaton
don't live downwind. ;-)
--
FF
Christina Peterson wrote:
> Hey Harry, do you make animated gifs?
>
> Tina
>
>
> "Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > And running a chainsaw ain't exactly featherbedding either. Just
> > returned with another load. Time you cut, load, unload, stack, move to
> > the stove you have some significant physical activity going. Note that
> > I even left the 'splitting' part of the work out.
> >
> > Harry K.
> >
Who me? I am barely able to use programs. Have no idea how to go
about it. I do have a good file of some though.
Harry K
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> >
> > You store your wood outside uncovered????
>
> Of course. I bring it in as needed, but a day or three in advance.
> Covering is nice to keep snow off of it, but does little or nothing to help
> it dry and may even hinder air circulation. Rain does not affect wood as
> much as people think.
Correct. Wood aborbs water mostly through the end grain. My situation
is a bit different from most areas. Here in SE WA we are in a semi arid
area with about 12" annual precip, most of which falls Nov-Mar. I burn
Willow (poor quality firewood but cheap as I get it free for the
cutting nearby). Cut one year, stack outside. Fill 3 cord woodshed
the next year plus another 3 cord in the back porch. Thus the wood
always remains outside for at least one winter. No problem with
rotting. I usually have 2 year old wood left in the outside stacks
that gets used first the next season. That also shows no rotting
problems.
Harry K
First of all, EPA qualified wood stoves have been for sale for what 20 years?
I bought one in 1987.
All stoves smoke one way or another. The better ones have afterburners that
burn the carbon into CO and CO2.
The trees I had ate the co and co2 with a great hunger and generated more O2 than
I could ever think of.
My yard was mossy, and had lots of here and there delicate organic life that dies
in the city. From neytes to massive fungi. Some dangerous to man but are food to
deer. I never ate any of it.
So the area was not burned out with my wood stove and I burned about 2 cords (full)
a year.
former Northern Ca. Coastal Redwood forest resident.
Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
Steve Spence wrote:
> Lacustral wrote:
>
>> Burning wood for heat is very polluting, from what I've heard. The
>> woodsmoke.
>
> It can be, if you have older, non-epa, inefficient fireplaces and wood
> stoves. Modern EPA certified stoves and EPA compliant stoves don't
> smoke, and are very efficient and clean burning. Take a look at
>
> http://www.green-trust.org/2005/08/clean-efficient-biomass-fueled-heat.html
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Christina Peterson wrote:
> "Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote...
> >
> > Christina Peterson wrote:
> > > Hey Harry, do you make animated gifs?
> > >
> > > Tina
> >
> > Who me? I am barely able to use programs. Have no idea how to go
> > about it. I do have a good file of some though.
> >
> > Harry K
>
>
> I'd seen a lot of them that would appeal to this group, created by "turnkey"
>
> Tina
Ah so! I was wondering why you asked. Nope not me. Mine has the 4099
at the end, never just by itself. Maybe I should google it.
Harry K
Red oak lasts -much- longer here in New England. The bark falls off
within a year or two, then the tree will stand for 10 years or so until
the roots rot. Standing dead red oak dries so well it can be cut and
burned the same day, even after a long rain storm.
White oak rots fast here, from the top down.
jw
Sheldon Harper wrote:
> "Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > There are very few absolutes in this world.
>
> Realistically, none, in the universe.
Is that absolutely true?
Goedel will get you (almost) every time.
--
FF
When I was living in the Redwood Forest in northern Ca. We had a number of logs
that were left (after the good stuff was stolen) when we moved in. The 100' fir
was just sawdust from one weekend to the next. They come and go fast.
The rest of the redwood I had - mostly tops and two 12' trunks that were to short I guess
were then waiting for something. I found a Wood Mizer owner that was planning on visiting
our valley from another. I put two days of sawing - he did it with his younger son
and the two drug logs out of mud and out of stacks. He had the fancy rig and did it
cut nice. Ton of wood - really - built wood bins and deck benches..... lots of stuff,
some with me now. I had asked for Big wood - I could get 2x at the store easily enough.
The 3x and 4x was useful in heavy construction. I provided a water line - hose -
and the labor to haul the boards up the hill to the house.
I really wanted one back then , but I suppose some of you in the gulf region could
use one for some time stacking up oversize wood in stickers and then once dry
plane down. Lots of wood on the ground that is sure.
Maybe invest in a dryer tunnel - long building with a blowing heater...
Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
Archangel wrote:
> "Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How does the M7 mill compare to the Wood Miser, and Lucas? Do you use it
>>with a band saw?
>>
>
>
> I'm currently using mine in the "classic" configuration with a Stihl 066
> gas chainsaw and ripping chain. Once I've got our house built I intend to
> look into adding the electric bandsaw to it.
>
> I've never used the Lucas but it always struck me as having the all the
> limitations of the Wood Mizer and all the limitations of the Logosol M7
> rolled up in a really cool design that lets you do specialty cuts. I'd love
> to play with one.
>
> The Logosol M7 wins hands down for portability, I can pick up the fully
> assembled M7, walk into the woods, plop in on that monster tree*, attach
> the saw and go. *If the tree is to big to load on the mill, the mill can be
> inverted onto the tree. It's also better at handling small diameter logs.
> It beats Lucas and the Wood Mizers in, ease of use, width and depth
> of cut. The cut is smoother than the Lucas and nearly as smooth as the
> cheaper Wood Mizers (probably smoother with the bandsaw head).
> The M7 has a great log bed design so you can get just the right board
> or maximize your BF output.
> It also costs about half what the "cheaper" Wood Mizers and Lucases do.
>
> The down side is cut speed and kerf loss; the electric chainsaws cut
> about twice as fast as my 066, about 15Hp. Lucas speeds, but slower than
> a 15Hp bandsaw.
> At 1/4" the kerf loss is as bad as it gets, it's zero when I square timbers
> for framing (my primary focus), but I've also been milling my own 1/2"
> siding and standing ankle deep in the boards I'm losing. I've found
> many creative uses for saw dust thanks to my mill ;-)
> The new electric bandsaw will eliminate that (and give it a speed boost),
> it's so new (in the US) they haven't posted the price on it yet.
>
> With the M7 it's a little more important to look at what log length you'll
> be cutting before you buy. Logs under 7' are inconvenient on the standard
> 16' mill. If I had to replace my mill I'd probably buy the little wood workers
> model and add a half mill to get back to my current length.
> This is a combination that is still below the cost of the Lucas and Wood
> Mizer,
> in fact adding the bandsaw should bring the total investment up to the price
> of the base model 12' Wood Mizer and you'ld have a far superior mill.
>
> I really like Wood Mizers and if money wasn't a factor I'd own one,
> unfortunately
> money is a factor and the Wood Mizer that gives me what I want is pushing $30K.
> If you want to crank out dimensional lumber the Wood Mizer is the way to go.
> Everyone I've talked has a little different experience, but the general
> concensus is
> that you need at least 24Hp before you can quickly turn out perfect boards and
> timbers on every species of wood, but even the little 12' hand pushed guy can
> cut
> very smooth boards given a sharp blade the right touch.
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
I just paid $165/full cord stacked this weekend. I live in a new home.
My goal is to cut my electric bill down this winter. Over the summer,
my bill was $300/month. I'm thinking using wood will be a boon to my
pocket. (Mind you, I am not REPLACING my source of heat but
supplementing it, so that I can keep the thermostat down.
Andi
Where do you live? I live in Maryland. I stack my wood on pressure
treated 2x4's. Three 16 footers (or is it 12 footers) that I laid in
rows, horizontally. I have never covered my wood and it simply dries
better for me.
But. We don't get alot of heavy heavy rains or blizzards either, so
that may make a HUGE difference.
Andi
Odinn wrote:
> On 9/18/2005 8:29 PM [email protected] mumbled something
> about the following:
> > Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
> >
> >
> >>>Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
> >>>their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >>...the link contains data from a test done by the National Bureau
> >>of Standards for HUD comparing heating and cooling costs between
> >>a log home and a standard stick frame.
> >
> >
> > This "data"? :-)
> >
> > ...In 1981-82, the National Institute of Standards [1] conducted
> > a series of tests at its facility outside of Washington DC for
> > the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development... over the course of seven
> > months using six 20' X 20' buildings that were identical except for
> > the construction of the exterior walls, one of which was log...
> >
> > ...the log home (rated as an R-10 wall) performed as well as the
> > insulated wood frame house (R-12 rated wall) during the winter
> > heating period. The log home consumed 24% less energy during the
> > summer cooling period and 46% less during the transitional spring/fall
> > heating period...
> >
> > 1.) Contact: Mr. Douglas Burch, National Institute of Standards &
> > Technology, BR-B 320, Gaithersburg, MD, (301) 975-6433...
> >
> >
> >>No one is claiming that log homes don't require heating or cooling, only
> >>that they are not energy inefficient as would be perceived by the R
> >>value of wood.
> >
> >
> > OK. I CLAIM log homes are "as inefficient as would be perceived by the
> > R-value of wood." Somebody should defend this 300-year old physics :-)
> >
> > The alleged R10 "home" above may have had less air infiltration than
> > the fiberglass "home," so it performed "as well" in wintertime, or
> > maybe the fiberglass did contain some moisture. Who knows? But that
> > has nothing to do with the log's R-value.
>
> Did you even read it, or just copy it? They said they were IDENTICAL
> except for the construction of the exterior walls.
That is not possible, whether they said so or not. If the
exterior dimensions are identical the log building will have
less volume inside due to the thicker walls. For a 20' by 20'
building, that could easily be a ten percent difference
in the internal volume of the buildings.
>
> The R-10 log home performed as well as an R-12 framed wall.
Yet there was no actual explanation for why. My guess would
be that the reduced surface area of the interior walls was
a major factor. But unless I do the math, that is
only a guess.
--
FF
Christina Peterson wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote...
> > Christina Peterson <[email protected]> :
> >
> > >The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
> > >temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
> > >thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass.
> >
> > To me, a heat sink is a gadget with fins that clips onto an IC or some
> > other power electronic device to dissipate heat with no heat storage,
In electronics, yes, though that term is a colloquism fairly unique
to electonics.
> > vs thermal mass, which stores heat with no dissipation.
The first thing one learns in heat transfer class is that heat
cannot be stored. 'Heat storage' is a misnomer for 'slow loss'.
But we know what you mean.
> > A car radiator
> > is a heat sink, altho it also stores some heat in the coolant.
> >
Certainly an automotive radiator is analogous to an electronic
heat sink, which is probably what you meant.
But an automobile radiator is not an electronic component.
An automobile radiator is a heater exchanger. It relies primarily
on convective heat transfer from the coolant to the radiator
and then from the radiator to the air. Conduction through the
thin wall of the radiator itself is usually a minor issue.
'Radiator' of course, is a misnomer it should more properly
be called a 'convector'. Something that becomes obvious when
you consider that if the fan fails the car will overheat when
idling.
--
FF
rec.crafts.metalworking removed form distribution as this thread is
off-topic there.
Rod Speed wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Odinn wrote:
> >> On 9/18/2005 8:29 PM [email protected] mumbled something
> >> about the following:
> >>> Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
> >>>>> their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year
> >>>>> :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ...the link contains data from a test done by the National Bureau
> >>>> of Standards for HUD comparing heating and cooling costs between
> >>>> a log home and a standard stick frame.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This "data"? :-)
> >>>
> >>> ...In 1981-82, the National Institute of Standards [1] conducted
> >>> a series of tests at its facility outside of Washington DC for
> >>> the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development... over the course of
> >>> seven months using six 20' X 20' buildings that were identical
> >>> except for the construction of the exterior walls, one of which
> >>> was log...
> >>>
> >>> ...the log home (rated as an R-10 wall) performed as well as the
> >>> insulated wood frame house (R-12 rated wall) during the winter
> >>> heating period. The log home consumed 24% less energy during the
> >>> summer cooling period and 46% less during the transitional
> >>> spring/fall heating period...
> >>>
> >>> 1.) Contact: Mr. Douglas Burch, National Institute of Standards &
> >>> Technology, BR-B 320, Gaithersburg, MD, (301) 975-6433...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> No one is claiming that log homes don't require heating or
> >>>> cooling, only that they are not energy inefficient as would be
> >>>> perceived by the R value of wood.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> OK. I CLAIM log homes are "as inefficient as would be perceived by
> >>> the R-value of wood." Somebody should defend this 300-year old
> >>> physics :-)
> >>>
> >>> The alleged R10 "home" above may have had less air infiltration than
> >>> the fiberglass "home," so it performed "as well" in wintertime, or
> >>> maybe the fiberglass did contain some moisture. Who knows? But that
> >>> has nothing to do with the log's R-value.
> >>
> >> Did you even read it, or just copy it? They said they were IDENTICAL
> >> except for the construction of the exterior walls.
> >
> > That is not possible, whether they said so or not. If the
> > exterior dimensions are identical the log building will have
> > less volume inside due to the thicker walls. For a 20' by 20'
> > building, that could easily be a ten percent difference
> > in the internal volume of the buildings.
>
> Nope, basic maths. Its only the difference between the wall
> thicknesses that matters and that isnt 2' with log and drywall.
SPLORF! Do the basic math. If one building has a wall thickness
of 12" and the other has a wall thickness of 4" they cannot be
otherwise identical. If the internal dimensions are the same
they must have different external dimensions or vice versa.
Dunno where you got 2' from.
Just do the basic math and calulate the internal volume
differences assume that the 20' by 20' dimensions are
the external dimensions, which is how buildings are typically
measured.
It may be that the researchers normalized the building by internal
dimensions, but I don't see on that webpage where they
said one way or another.
>
> And its academic anyway, they'd have got the same result
> if they had ensured that the internal dimensions were identical.
They absolutely could not get the same results. This is easily
demonstrated without doing any math. Just imagine two log buildings,
one that is 20' by 20' inside, the other 20' by 20' outside.
Those will give you different results from each other, right?
>
> >> The R-10 log home performed as well as an R-12 framed wall.
>
> > Yet there was no actual explanation for why. My guess would
> > be that the reduced surface area of the interior walls was
> > a major factor. But unless I do the math, that is only a guess.
>
> And it isnt hard to do the maths and show its bullshit.
But instead of doing math, you go on and spew bullshit.
Clearly you won't even do arithmetic.
--
FF
Steve Spence wrote:
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>
> > So, no, he didn't misunderstand what he was reading. What happened is
> > that you misunderstood what you were writing, and you got it wrong, and
> > you are no claiming that you didn't say what you clearly said.
> >
> > - Logan
>
> Nope, that's not it at all. What I said was R Value is not all that
> important when talking about log. The thickness of the log is
> sufficient. ...
Huh? Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
If not, how could it be useful for comparison?
--
FF
Solar Flare wrote:
> If wood was so bad then why do the 6" insulated walls need no insulation
> where the wood is between the batts?
Conductive heat transfer is directly proportionate to cross
setional area.
...
>
> But it isn't necessary to "insulate" a 10" or 12" log wall...
Correct. It is not necessary to insulate any wall. It's not
a binary pehnomenon. The question is how much, not if.
--
FF
rec.crafts.metalworking removed from distribution as this is off-topic
there.
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Huh? Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
>
> It seems more accurate to say thermal diffusivity (1/RC) depends on R-value,
Not if the other poster, who wrote that R = t/k, where t is thickness
and k is thermal conductivity, is correct.
If so, R-value is independant of the specific heat, therefor there
is no direct correspndence between thermal diffusivity and R-value.
Two materials with the same thickness nd same R-value can have
different thermal diffusivities.
>
> >R- value isn't all that useful for comparison.
>
> Wrong. Open your brain a bit, Steve :-) Even George Ghio admits mistakes.
> Your stubbornness is giving you and alternative energy a bad reputation.
I think he's right. You really should be comparing thermal
diffussivities.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
> >>
> >> It seems more accurate to say thermal diffusivity (1/RC) depends on R-value,
> >
> >Not if the other poster, who wrote that R = t/k, where t is thickness
> >and k is thermal conductivity, is correct.
>
> You might enjoy looking up thermal diffusivity vs conductivity.
>
You must be trolling.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>...Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
> >>
> >>...thermal diffusivity (1/RC) depends on R-value
> >
> > Not if the other poster, who wrote that R = t/k, where t is thickness
> > and k is thermal conductivity, is correct.
>
> You seem to be confusing conductance and diffusivity.
No. I did not know the definition of R-value, speculated, and was
shown to be wrong. R-value is not a generally useful concept in
heat transer work. It is a very useful concept for builders.
>
> R is the thermal resistance (a wall property), k is the conductivity
> (a material properrty), 1/R is the conductance, (a wall property), and
> 1/RC is thermal diffusivity (a largely irrelevant material property,
> in constantly cold weather.) Generally, words ending with "-ivity" are
> bulk material properties and words ending with -ance" are properties
> of a particular chunk of material.
R-value, as you note, is a wall property, it is partly
dependent on thickness. Thermal diffusivity, as you note,
is a material property, independent of the 'bulk' geometry
of the material.
Thus thermal diffusivity is independent of R-value. The
thermal diffusivity of the material does not 'know' how
thick the wall is.
For example, two walls with identical geometry can have the
same R-value but different thermal diffusivities if the
material therein has the same thermal conductivity but
different specific heats or densities.
Both R-value and thermal conductivity have a common dependency
on thermal conductivity.
It is clear that R-value is dependent on thermal conductivity,
not vice-versa. Changing the thicknes of a wall changes the
R-value while the thermal conductivity of the material in the
wall does not change despite that change in the R-value. But
changing the thermal conductivity of the material in the wall
DOES change the R-value.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >R-value is not a generally useful concept in heat transer work.
>
> I'd say it's very useful :-) Diffusivity seems less useful.
I worked in industry for several years doing, among other things,
heat transfer, and never even saw a definition for R-value at
work or in heat-transfer and solar energy utilization classes.
>
> >It is a very useful concept for builders.
>
> It could be, but most builders seem to have little interest in heatflow.
> They just look at the drawing and the building inspector and figure out
> what they can get away with before they shoot themselves in the leg with
> a nailgun or declare bankruptcy and leave town with pocketfuls of money.
>
That's what makes R-value a useful concept to them. They can
just add up the R-values to meet spec (code perhaps) and not
worry about what the actual energy losses/costs are going to be.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >R-value is not a generally useful concept in heat transer work.
> >>
> >> I'd say it's very useful :-) Diffusivity seems less useful.
> >
> >I worked in industry for several years doing, among other things,
> >heat transfer, and never even saw a definition for R-value at
> >work or in heat-transfer and solar energy utilization classes.
>
> You "did heat transer work" for several years and never ran into
> an R-value, and then confused conductance with diffusivity? :-)
Yes and no, respectively. But then again, you knew that
because I had told you both befor.
>
> >> >It is a very useful concept for builders.
> >>
> >> It could be, but most builders seem to have little interest in heatflow.
> >> They just look at the drawing and the building inspector and figure out
> >> what they can get away with...
> >
> >That's what makes R-value a useful concept to them. They can
> >just add up the R-values to meet spec (code perhaps) and not
> >worry about what the actual energy losses/costs are going to be.
>
> They could... Then again, my brother (a mechanical engineer) bought
> an expensive new house on paper in a development near Philadelphia.
> ...
Well if he was a Civil Engineer he probably would have bought a
house on a more substantial foundation, like cement block.
--
FF
I would love to live like that. These flipping heat pumps are for the
BIRDS!!!
Btw, I don't do much outdoors either when the temp gets over about 98F
here. But we have HUGE humidity here, too, so it can feel like a sauna
some days. YUK
My house is 3000 s/ft but that still shouldn't warrant the bills I'm
paying. (See statement above about heat pumps.)
Andi
[email protected] wrote:
>
> So... if it's comfy inside on a 30 F morning, and the outdoor temp rises
> to 50 by afternoon, you might have to sweat or take off your coat or
> open a window. And setting the thermostat back at night wouldn't save
> much energy, because the slab temp and the indoor air temp wouldn't
> decrease much overnight.
>
> Nick
That is not how it works. On a 30 F morning it is comfortable and when
the temperature outside rises to 50 by the afternoon, the inside
temperature changes almost not at all, so it is still comfortable.
At least that is how it works in my basement in the Seattle area. On a
30 F morning ( rare around here ) the temperature in the basement is
about 62 F. I have a wood stove in the basement so I light a fire and
the temperature goes up to about 66 F. The next morning it is the more
normal low 40's and the basement temp is down to about 63 F. Since it
is the Seattle area, in the summer I just burn less wood........ Never
have a month that does not have fires in the wood stove. During the
winter if I don't burn wood the temperature will drop to the mid 50's
in the basement.
Dan
We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
than the logs provide.
Steve
Christina Peterson wrote:
>My husband is doing a small log job. Nice Aspen. We also are interested in
>putting up a structure on an adjoining lot. So Pete was looking for a book
>he used to have, Short Log and Timber Building, by James Mitchell. It's
>out of print so we got the new book by Mitchell, The Craft of Modular Post
>and Beam.
>
>Our house is log. Two big benefits. The logs store a lot of temp (heat in
>winter, cool in summer). Also, log houses are alive; always adapting and
>adaptable. Living on ice lens (frozen water vs frozen dirt/muck in
>Permafrost) at a time of global warming, the structural flexibility is an
>asset.
>
>Since we have the (free) logs, and the lot, milling seems like a good idea.
>My husband has worked with trees all his life, though an injury and age are
>slowing him down. We're looking at the mill, as a way to help build the
>house, a source of lumber for bolted furniture to sell, and as a possible
>asset we can possibly lease out.
>
>Here in Interior Alaska, we don't have to worry about monster trees.
>
>Thanks for all the information. I am, of course, passing it on the Pete.
>He's currently looking at the Wood Miser LT15 series.
>
>By the way, it sounds like your Logosol is light enough that the shipping
>wouldn't be prohibitive, too.
>
>Tina
>
>
>
>
>"Archangel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>"Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How does the M7 mill compare to the Wood Miser, and Lucas? Do you use it
>>>with a band saw?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm currently using mine in the "classic" configuration with a Stihl 066
>>gas chainsaw and ripping chain. Once I've got our house built I intend to
>>look into adding the electric bandsaw to it.
>>
>> I've never used the Lucas but it always struck me as having the all the
>>limitations of the Wood Mizer and all the limitations of the Logosol M7
>>rolled up in a really cool design that lets you do specialty cuts. I'd
>>love
>>to play with one.
>>
>> The Logosol M7 wins hands down for portability, I can pick up the fully
>>assembled M7, walk into the woods, plop in on that monster tree*, attach
>>the saw and go. *If the tree is to big to load on the mill, the mill can
>>be
>>inverted onto the tree. It's also better at handling small diameter
>>logs.
>> It beats Lucas and the Wood Mizers in, ease of use, width and depth
>>of cut. The cut is smoother than the Lucas and nearly as smooth as the
>>cheaper Wood Mizers (probably smoother with the bandsaw head).
>> The M7 has a great log bed design so you can get just the right board
>>or maximize your BF output.
>> It also costs about half what the "cheaper" Wood Mizers and Lucases do.
>>
>> The down side is cut speed and kerf loss; the electric chainsaws cut
>>about twice as fast as my 066, about 15Hp. Lucas speeds, but slower than
>>a 15Hp bandsaw.
>> At 1/4" the kerf loss is as bad as it gets, it's zero when I square
>>timbers
>>for framing (my primary focus), but I've also been milling my own 1/2"
>>siding and standing ankle deep in the boards I'm losing. I've found
>>many creative uses for saw dust thanks to my mill ;-)
>> The new electric bandsaw will eliminate that (and give it a speed boost),
>>it's so new (in the US) they haven't posted the price on it yet.
>>
>> With the M7 it's a little more important to look at what log length
>>you'll
>>be cutting before you buy. Logs under 7' are inconvenient on the standard
>>16' mill. If I had to replace my mill I'd probably buy the little wood
>>workers
>>model and add a half mill to get back to my current length.
>> This is a combination that is still below the cost of the Lucas and Wood
>>Mizer,
>>in fact adding the bandsaw should bring the total investment up to the
>>price
>>of the base model 12' Wood Mizer and you'ld have a far superior mill.
>>
>> I really like Wood Mizers and if money wasn't a factor I'd own one,
>>unfortunately
>>money is a factor and the Wood Mizer that gives me what I want is pushing
>>$30K.
>> If you want to crank out dimensional lumber the Wood Mizer is the way to
>>go.
>>Everyone I've talked has a little different experience, but the general
>>concensus is
>>that you need at least 24Hp before you can quickly turn out perfect boards
>>and
>>timbers on every species of wood, but even the little 12' hand pushed guy
>>can
>>cut
>>very smooth boards given a sharp blade the right touch.
>>
>>--
>>Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some...
>>
>>Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages:
>>http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/
>>
>>remove the REM... (sleep is over rated)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient, and
> if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall. Forget R
> value when talking log.
> --
> Steve Spence
Why forget about the loss? Because it upsets the misguided who think log
homes are a good idea? By your reasoning a medieval castle wouldn't be
difficult to heat because of the thermal mass. POPPYCOCK!
Next thing you'll be touting earth sheltered homes!
George Willer
> Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems. They
> were drafty, and had poor heating systems. *******If****** those rock
> walls had been warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the
> air leaks sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter. Log homes are
> a good idea. Lived in one for many years. Low heating bills, and very
> comfortable. Not hard to heat at all.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
Well, yeah!!! And ****if**** you could flap your arms fast enough, you
could probably fly.
A more important consideration if what happens ***** if***** the walls cool
to less than an ideal indoor temperature, which in most parts of the country
they tend to do? That's the reason most dwellings even need a heating
system.
Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to anything else
better than a tent.
That's a silly argument. Who knows how you replace the heat lost through
your walls without seeing your situation? Maybe you burn buffalo dung? The
fact remains, if you don't replace the heat escaping through your walls, the
interior will cool off. The more that escapes, the more you must replace to
be comfortable. That should be (but it won't be) the end of the story.
George Willer
> Then explain why we are comfortable in a log home at -40, without large
> fuel bills ......
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Who knows? Maybe one of you is lying? Maybe they have shoddy construction?
Maybe your comfort level is lower? Here's a flash for you... trade homes
with them and you could lower your expenses even further.
George Willer
> Then you'd have to explain to me why my heating bills are no bigger than
> my
> neighbors with 6" insulated stick built homes.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
Mike,
Of course I wouldn't be able to run a heat loss computation on a home that I
don't have all the pertinent information on. That's why the "who knows".
Certainly I have a firm grasp on the principles of heat loss. Do you? In
our area of northern Ohio we're figuring our heating needs based on 3300
degree days. How much different is your area?
George Willer
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Who knows? Maybe one of you is lying? Maybe they have shoddy
> construction?
>> Maybe your comfort level is lower? Here's a flash for you... trade homes
>> with them and you could lower your expenses even further.
>
> George - you really need to try less hard to prove(?) a point that you
> just
> can't prove. As you said - "who knows?". Maybe we don't suffer any of
> those possibilities. Maybe you're just wrong. We're a pretty good test
> of
> insulation and comfort here in Central NY as our winters are pretty cold.
> Here's a flash for you - I've owned a stick built home and I know the
> comparison.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
Thermal mass is a whole different thing than insulation. Heat loss is
still heat loss. Wood is not a great insulator.
You can stay nice and cozy, but you burn more fuel than a well insulated
house.
Steve
Steve Spence wrote:
> Steve Smith wrote:
>
>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
> baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>
>
Steve Spence wrote:
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Steve Spence wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>>>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>
>>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
>>> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
>>> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood
>>> fired baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of
>> a material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is
>> about 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to
>> equal a standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch
>> stud wall ( which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a
>> log wall of about 18", and that's not even taking into account things
>> like air leakage.
>
>
> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes
> because of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change
> temperature that quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to
> 12" is sufficient, and if properly constructed, there is no air flow
> through the wall. Forget R value when talking log.
>
Not so in places like Maine, where it gets cold and stays that way.
Steve
Brownfield, Maine
Yes, of course the U value and R values are reciprocal of each other... but
it doesn't matter to a hard head like Steve Spence who doesn't understand
either one. He's simply got his head up his butt and is unwilling to admit
he doesn't understand heating requirements. He prefers, instead, to think
others don't understand. It must be Hell to be delusional!
George Willer
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>>An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a material's resistance
>>to heat flow.
>
> ...in ft^2-F-h/Btu-in... "Btu/ft2/hour/oF" is a thermal conductance.
>
> Nick
>
Sir,
You may not be confused, but since you are holding yourself out to be some
kind of expert on home heating you certainly are misleading others. You
seem to be totally ignoring one of the important sources of heat loss and
dismissing your ignorance by claiming it doesn't matter. While it may not
matter to you, you are doing a disservice to others by propagating your
ignorance.
A solid wood wall is a major loss of heat when compared to a stick built
wall built with the same care... regardless of the stated difference in
thickness.
It isn't really necessary to have lived in a log home to understand why they
lose more heat... the ASHRAE guide makes it easy.
George Willer
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to anything
>>>>else better than a tent.
>>>
>>>You've never lived in one, so there's no point in discussing this with
>>>you. You just don't know.
>>
>>
>> I suggest you try harder to reconcile your experience with physics.
>> Lots of people confuse thermal mass and insulation, some deliberately.
>> Fewer people confuse capacitors and resistors :-)
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
> I'm not confused. I have 10" of fiberglass batt insulation in the ceiling,
> 10" in the floor, and 12" thick log walls, insulated and sealed between
> the logs with a foam strip and two beads of caulking on either side of the
> T&G's. The logs are machined, and spiked tightly together. there is no
> airflow coming through the logs at any point. It's easy to keep warm, does
> not use an exorbitant amount of fuel for it's size compared to modern
> stick builts, and the walls are not cold, ever.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Well of course you understand! So why do you write messages that indicate
you are delusional? As you should know, but won't admit, is that the
insulation value of the logs is much less than a comparably well built wall
of frame construction. Why do you persist when you clearly know you are
wrong?
You could easily clear up the matter by admitting you know you are wrong
instead of an idiot. Your high and mighty tone isn't fooling anyone who
understands the subject under discussion.
I don't recall anyone saying the log homes use a LOT more fuel, only that
they use more than necessary, if built to higher standards. This is a
reality you don't seem to understand.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember a similar discussion with you
several years ago when you took a ridiculous stand on the value of multiple
glazing. IIRC, you were just as hard headed and wrong then as you are now.
George Willer
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Willer wrote:
>> Yes, of course the U value and R values are reciprocal of each other...
>> but it doesn't matter to a hard head like Steve Spence who doesn't
>> understand either one. He's simply got his head up his butt and is
>> unwilling to admit he doesn't understand heating requirements. He
>> prefers, instead, to think others don't understand. It must be Hell to
>> be delusional!
>>
>> George Willer
>
> ah, but I do understand, very well. I was just answering the idiots who
> think that log homes use a lot more fuel because they have no insulation.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Then I'll admit to being wrong on that point... it was a fleeting memory
anyway.
Thank you for conceding that I was correct on the other, deleted points.
George Willer
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Willer wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm mistaken, but I seem to remember a similar discussion with you
>> several years ago when you took a ridiculous stand on the value of
>> multiple glazing. IIRC, you were just as hard headed and wrong then as
>> you are now.
>>
>> George Willer
>>
>
> You recall incorrectly, as I've never heard of you until recently, and
> don't ever recall having had a discussion on glazing.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
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
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Willer wrote:
>> Then I'll admit to being wrong on that point... it was a fleeting memory
>> anyway.
>>
>> Thank you for conceding that I was correct on the other, deleted points.
>>
>> George Willer
>
>
> I'm not conceding you are right on any points. I will forgive your
> ignorance, but not your arrogance.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
No, Tina, I'm not a troll... just a retired building contractor who has
considerable experience dealing with heating issues.
If you think my statement was wrong, simply explain why...
"I don't recall anyone saying the log homes use a LOT more fuel, only that
they use more than necessary, if built to higher standards."
The higher standards I referred to are the conventional frame walls that
indeed lose less heat.
I'm sure you are clever enough to understand why this is true. I think
Steve Spence could also understand, except for his pride and his hard head.
George Willer
"Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George, the reason Steve Spence got into this is that when I spoke of
> living
> in a log house, a bunch of people did exactly that. They said, among
> other
> things,
> "We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
> than the logs provide." (Steve Smith)
> And you said "Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared
> to
> anything else better than a tent." "Next thing you'll be touting earth
> sheltered homes!"
>
> You don't remember "anyone" disparaging log homes? I think you must be a
> troll.
>
> Tina
>
>
> "George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote...
> ...................
>> I don't recall anyone saying the log homes use a LOT more fuel, only that
>> they use more than necessary, if built to higher standards.
>
>
Bingo!!!!
Steve the great has just admitted the flaw in his previous ~contributions.
"In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor
heat from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a substitute
for insulation.
In this case there is no difference except one between the ground under the
slab and the great outdoors on the other side of his famous insulating logs.
His logs are subject to the effects of wind blowing the insulating boundary
layer away.
Some folks will never get it!
He's arguing with himself.
George Willer
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>>> That's not how he screwed up, though.. He screwed up by not pouring
>>> that 8" slab over 4" of urethane foam.
>>
>>
>> I don't need Foam! I have all that thermal Mass ;~))))))
>
> In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor heat
> from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a substitute for
> insulation.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Look, Sonny... I do understand the difference. I was working with this
stuff when you were still pooping yellow. I have no difficulty reading and
understanding... my only difficulty is making sense of your flawed position.
I don't know whether or not there are any studies regarding moisture's
effects on the poor insulating value of solid wood, but the smart money
would bet that it's not good for your hypothesis.
If you were a little smarter you would have quit while you were ahead.
You're still wrong.
Infiltration on a well constructed frame wall???
George Willer
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Willer wrote:
>> Bingo!!!!
>>
>> Steve the great has just admitted the flaw in his previous
>> ~contributions.
>>
>> "In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor
>> heat from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a substitute
>> for insulation.
>>
>> In this case there is no difference except one between the ground under
>> the slab and the great outdoors on the other side of his famous
>> insulating logs. His logs are subject to the effects of wind blowing the
>> insulating boundary layer away.
>>
>> Some folks will never get it!
>>
>> He's arguing with himself.
>>
>> George Willer
>>
>
>>
> No, you just don't get the difference between the "theoretical" R-Value of
> batt insulation vs. realworld performance of a solid wood wall. Open your
> eyes and ears, so that you may understand. Read up on U and K factors, and
> the effects of moisture and air infiltration on fiber based insulations.
>
> There was no flaw, you just didn't understand what you were reading.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Certainly I'm caustic, but far from ignorant.
Ignorant??? Ancient??? Sorry I'm presumed to be the arrogant one.
You're making wild guesses in an effort to CYA, but the laws that govern
heat loss will still win... regardless of your protestations.
20 years! Wow! You must know all there is to know by now. Technology is
one thing, but the underlying forces that make it work are quite another.
Why not open up your closed mind and try to learn instead of making up nutty
explanations that don't fit the facts.
I understand that some would be like Thoreau and live the idylic life in a
cabin by the lake and that's just fine... but working so hard to wrongly
convince them a log constructed home is necessarily a more economical way to
do it is a fraud. Shame on you!''
George Willer
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Willer wrote:
>> Look, Sonny... I do understand the difference. I was working with this
>> stuff when you were still pooping yellow. I have no difficulty reading
>> and understanding... my only difficulty is making sense of your flawed
>> position. I don't know whether or not there are any studies regarding
>> moisture's effects on the poor insulating value of solid wood, but the
>> smart money would bet that it's not good for your hypothesis.
>>
>> If you were a little smarter you would have quit while you were ahead.
>> You're still wrong.
>>
>> Infiltration on a well constructed frame wall???
>>
>> George Willer
>
> you are as caustic as you are are ignorant. I built my first log home 20
> years ago, so maybe technology has passed you by, being ancient and all.
> fiberglass batt walls are subject to both moisture (even with a vapor
> barrier) and air infiltration. That derates the laboratory calculated
> r-value of the fiberglass by up to 50%, making the effective U value of
> the wall worse than solid log.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Steve,
Of course you won't admit what you said, and you will claim others have said
what they have not said.
Here's what I remember from previous posts that I think is relevant...
1. You mistakenly said the R values of the walls is not important.
2. You correctly said the thermal mass of the logs tends to level out
temperature swings.
3. You totally ignored the thermal conductivity of the walls...
4. You totally ignore the heat lost through the walls which will either
cause a temperature decline or the use of fuel to offset it.
5. The original claim that the log home wastes energy by conductance
through the walls is true.
6. Can you point to ANY post that claimed the log home was uncomfortable
because of its' greater heat loss, as long as the temperature is maintained?
7. Your added details haven't done anything to clear up the misinformation
you spread early on, only expanded on what you clearly have wrong. Can you
point to any specific misinformation you claim has been sent by others? I
didn't think so.
George Willer
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>
>> So, no, he didn't misunderstand what he was reading. What happened is
>> that you misunderstood what you were writing, and you got it wrong, and
>> you are no claiming that you didn't say what you clearly said.
>>
>> - Logan
>
> Nope, that's not it at all. What I said was R Value is not all that
> important when talking about log. The thickness of the log is sufficient.
> The thermal mass makes it comfortable because it level out the temperature
> swings, giving an even temperature. The original claims were that log
> homes waste energy and are uncomfortable due to their "poor" r value.
> Those claims were incorrect for a variety of reasons which I have
> explained quite clearly. As more and more misinformation was posted, I
> backed up my statements with more details.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If wood was so bad then why do the 6" insulated walls need no insulation
> where the wood is between the batts?
It's only because it isn't practical to insulate them. It isn't because
they aren't a greater source of heat loss, because it can be easily
demonstrated that they are.
If you are prepared for an explanation, I'm prepared to give you a good one.
George Willer
It may be baloney to you, but here's what I know...
My shop (40 x 54) is built exactly like my home it is attached to. (they
were both built in 1991) The walls have R19 batts, 5/8" drywall on the
interior over 6 mil vapor barrier. The exterior is 1'' closed cell foam
applied horizontally covered by 7/16 wafer board applied vertically so there
is minimum infiltration. The whole works is covered by vinyl siding.
The shop sees occasional welding and is heated by an airtight wood fired
stove.
You're invited to come see the result of the slight condensation of welding
smoke on the cooler surfaces of the studs. It isn't baloney that causes the
darker marks... it's because the studs conduct more heat out and are colder.
True even though they have some insulation on their exterior surface in
addition to the batts (about R-8). The framing is doing exactly the same
thing to about 10% of the wall's area that happens to the entire surface of
a log wall... it's colder.
George Willer
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Boloney. Many home builders do insulate them with exterior foam insulation
> on the exterior surface. The homes without the exterior foam insulation
> never experience mildew or moisture problems where the wood is.
>
> What is the R factor of a 2x4 or 2x6 piece of spruce or pine lumber on
> edge
> after it has dried for a few years?
>
>
> "George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> If wood was so bad then why do the 6" insulated walls need no insulation
>> where the wood is between the batts?
>
> It's only because it isn't practical to insulate them. It isn't because
> they aren't a greater source of heat loss, because it can be easily
> demonstrated that they are.
>
> If you are prepared for an explanation, I'm prepared to give you a good
> one.
>
> George Willer
>
>
>
"Alan Raisanen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I built a pallet-fueled wood-burning outdoor woodstove to provide heat for
> my shop. This is a plans-only design from this place:
> http://www.deb-design.com/
>
Where in upstate NY?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/18/2005 9:31 AM Steve Spence mumbled something about the following:
> Odinn wrote:
>
>>
>> The R-Value of a log is misleading. An 8" log home will provide
>> better characteristics of an R-12 stick home, with as much as 30% in
>> savings in heating and cooling.
>>
>> http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>>
>
> Thank you. I knew this existed, but forgot where it was.
>
>
I've been researching building a log house, and had just run across this
recently. My neighbor works at the local EMC as an energy consultant or
something like that. He gives me all kinds of info on houses, heating,
cooling, etc. His largest electric bill was $80 cooling a 2100 sq ft
home, mine, for that same month was $250 for my 1300 sq ft doublewide
trailer. Another neighbor who has a 1600 sq ft traditional stick home
was about $180 for that same month. They guy with the real cheap
electric bill also has a 2 zone geo-thermal A/C setup as well as all
kinds of other things he's done.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important...
>>>
>>>...k = 1/r. Which one is "made up"? :-)
>>>
>>>Would that you learn more basic physics.
>>
>>r = k/1
>>
>>r is a calculated number from k, which is a measured number.
>
>
> So which one is more important? :-)
If you don't measure your K properly, your R (R is calculated from K, R
is not a measured value) is going to be meaningless. R of fiberglass and
rockwool is pretty much meaningless anyway, discount by 50% once you get
it out of the lab (or your ASHRAE book). I'm more interested in the
total U of the finished wall.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Steve Spence wrote:
> George Willer wrote:
>> In this case there is no difference except one between the ground
>> under the slab and the great outdoors on the other side of his famous
>> insulating logs. His logs are subject to the effects of wind blowing
>> the insulating boundary layer away.
>>
>> Some folks will never get it!
> No, you just don't get the difference between the "theoretical" R-Value
> of batt insulation vs. realworld performance of a solid wood wall. Open
> your eyes and ears, so that you may understand. Read up on U and K
> factors, and the effects of moisture and air infiltration on fiber based
> insulations.
>
> There was no flaw, you just didn't understand what you were reading.
No, you're trying to get around the fact that what you wrote isn't
consistent with what you are now saying.
You are now saying that you were always referring to the difference between
theoretical performance of insulation and R-values and to other factors
that make a log home more efficient. But what you *said* is that the
R-value isn't important "because of the greater thermal mass" in a log
home. Then you went on to further emphasize thermal mass twice, saying
that "the logs just don't change temperature that quickly" and that
they're "slow to heat up, slow to cool down".
In the context of the thread, you were clearly saying that thermal mass
makes up for bad insulation, because you made your comments about thermal
mass in response to one person who said they wished they "had better
insulation than the logs provide".
So, no, he didn't misunderstand what he was reading. What happened is
that you misunderstood what you were writing, and you got it wrong, and
you are no claiming that you didn't say what you clearly said.
- Logan
"Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>How does the M7 mill compare to the Wood Miser, and Lucas? Do you use it
>with a band saw?
>
I'm currently using mine in the "classic" configuration with a Stihl 066
gas chainsaw and ripping chain. Once I've got our house built I intend to
look into adding the electric bandsaw to it.
I've never used the Lucas but it always struck me as having the all the
limitations of the Wood Mizer and all the limitations of the Logosol M7
rolled up in a really cool design that lets you do specialty cuts. I'd love
to play with one.
The Logosol M7 wins hands down for portability, I can pick up the fully
assembled M7, walk into the woods, plop in on that monster tree*, attach
the saw and go. *If the tree is to big to load on the mill, the mill can be
inverted onto the tree. It's also better at handling small diameter logs.
It beats Lucas and the Wood Mizers in, ease of use, width and depth
of cut. The cut is smoother than the Lucas and nearly as smooth as the
cheaper Wood Mizers (probably smoother with the bandsaw head).
The M7 has a great log bed design so you can get just the right board
or maximize your BF output.
It also costs about half what the "cheaper" Wood Mizers and Lucases do.
The down side is cut speed and kerf loss; the electric chainsaws cut
about twice as fast as my 066, about 15Hp. Lucas speeds, but slower than
a 15Hp bandsaw.
At 1/4" the kerf loss is as bad as it gets, it's zero when I square timbers
for framing (my primary focus), but I've also been milling my own 1/2"
siding and standing ankle deep in the boards I'm losing. I've found
many creative uses for saw dust thanks to my mill ;-)
The new electric bandsaw will eliminate that (and give it a speed boost),
it's so new (in the US) they haven't posted the price on it yet.
With the M7 it's a little more important to look at what log length you'll
be cutting before you buy. Logs under 7' are inconvenient on the standard
16' mill. If I had to replace my mill I'd probably buy the little wood workers
model and add a half mill to get back to my current length.
This is a combination that is still below the cost of the Lucas and Wood
Mizer,
in fact adding the bandsaw should bring the total investment up to the price
of the base model 12' Wood Mizer and you'ld have a far superior mill.
I really like Wood Mizers and if money wasn't a factor I'd own one,
unfortunately
money is a factor and the Wood Mizer that gives me what I want is pushing $30K.
If you want to crank out dimensional lumber the Wood Mizer is the way to go.
Everyone I've talked has a little different experience, but the general
concensus is
that you need at least 24Hp before you can quickly turn out perfect boards and
timbers on every species of wood, but even the little 12' hand pushed guy can
cut
very smooth boards given a sharp blade the right touch.
--
Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some...
Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages:
http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/
remove the REM... (sleep is over rated)
I'm installing my own wood stove and chimney (got permit/will have my work
inspected/will have insurance company inspect and ok installation).
It will cost me over $2,000.00 for the wood stove, proper hearth pad, and
proper chimney. And this is doing it myself.
Also I live in a heavily wooded area and have a source of very low cost
wood - in some cases, free for the taking. I will cut and haul my own
firewood.
Note that a permit is required in my area from the wood owner to haul the
wood. This can be just a signed and dated piece of paper with the wood
owners contact information, description of the wood, description of the
hauling vehicle, and effective date(s). Or an official wood cutting permit
issued by a government agency.
Lord knows I need the exercise. (They say you warm yourself three times
with a wood stove 1. Cutting/splitting wood. 2. Burning it. 3. Cleaning
the stove and chimney.)
So in the long run, installing my own wood stove will save me money. If I
had to pay to have someone install my wood stove and had to pay $130.00 to
$250.00 for each cord of wood (depending on your area), I don't think it
would be cost effective.
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
> Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> TMT
>
>>
>>>My new shop has 2x6 stud walls with vapour barrier, drywall, 12 inches
>>>of insulation in the ceiling and double paned windows. I can heat it
>>>with a 10,000 btu heater at minus 20 ;-) The only cold area is the
>>>8" concrete slab floor.
>>
>>
>> You screwed up! :-)
>>
>> Had you chosen hydronic heat, your slab would be warm, as well as your feet.
That's not how he screwed up, though.. He screwed up by not pouring
that 8" slab over 4" of urethane foam.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:04:59 -0400, "Solar Flare" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>Here are some facts for you Gymmy,
>You gonna start this "Gymmy" bullshit too? You just lost me. I couldn't care
>less what you have to say, fuckhead!
>
>Go fuck yourself asshole. What is with you and your fucking moronic ideas
>here?
Whatdya' know, Solar Flare and Gymmy Bob and John Benji and Pizza Girl
and Piezo Guru all like to use the same 3 words.
http://tinyurl.com/8gval http://tinyurl.com/ctxhs
http://tinyurl.com/8mdsf http://tinyurl.com/8sqg8
Wayne
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:07:20 GMT, Logan Shaw
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Why would thermal mass be a liability? I could see that if there are
>times when you don't use the home, such as if it's a vacation home or
>something. It would then take longer to bring the interior temperature
>to a comfortable level. But other than that, there doesn't seem to be
>any real reason thermal mass makes a big difference in energy usage.
>
> - Logan
That vacation home scenario can be your everyday situation if you
don't have (or can't afford) sufficient energy to keep the house
constantly heated or cooled. In which case the mass might be near the
average daily temperature most of the time. Not always a good thing.
For example, let's say the average daily temperature is 90F, and you
don't have AC. The home might be somewhat cooler inside than out
during the day. Then you come home from work at dusk and it's a
relatively pleasant 80 outdoors, but the whole building is
substantially warmer than that. If there's a breeze you can open the
windows, but if you're anywhere near a wall you're still worse off
than if you were outside or in an R3 trailer. If you decide to add a
window shaker to cool things down for a few hours, it will have to
work harder fighting the mass than if you'd spent the log premium on
insulation instead. You could have similar situations in heating
season, and you might end up wondering why you wanted gobs of mass in
the first place. Which reminds me of the joke about the homeless guy
with a dog, and the dog wants to know why he needs an owner. :-)
Wayne
Christina Peterson <[email protected]> wrote
> Why would there be a lot of heat loss?
Because the R value of the walls is quite ordinary.
> The vulnerable places are the roof and where the roof meets the walls.
Thats just ONE place that heat is lost.
> Where the roof lies on the walls the logs are flattened and the flat roof is
> placed on top of them. That's the only place where the structure doesn't
> overlap deeply.
Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
> The only place where the structure is the same as on a lumber house too.
Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
> My roof was replaced about 10 years ago so that I have a cold (and vented)
> roof now.
Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
> My floors is vulnerable too, but that's because I can't enclose the foundation
> because of permafrost, not because I live in a log house.
Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
> My fuel consumption is low.
It would be lower with a better R value of the walls.
> "Steve Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Thermal mass is a whole different thing than insulation. Heat loss is
>> still heat loss. Wood is not a great insulator.
>>
>> You can stay nice and cozy, but you burn more fuel than a well
>> insulated house.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Steve Spence wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>>>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>
>>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
>>> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
>>> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood
>>> fired baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
Christina Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Koz" <kmiller@*dontspamme*metalbelt.com> wrote...
>>
>> Christina Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote ...
>>
>>>> Christina Peterson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Depends on the logs and the construction. Our logs are pretty
>>>>> sizable, 18" butts. And the logs are scribed. That is, the top
>>>>> of the log is round, and before putting the next log on it, the
>>>>> bottom of it is given a concave surface, so the logs nest on top
>>>>> of each other like this -- CCCCC (but vertical), with insulation
>>>>> between them. There used to be some oakum chinking. I don't have and
>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>> want PermaChink. I've seen too many houses where it has cracked
>>>>> open. And it just looks too plastic to look good with the
>>>>> natural logs. Tina
>>>>>
>>>> we use 12" machined logs, double tongue and groove, two beads of
>>>> caulking and a foam strip. You can get the real scoop from
>>>> hundreds of folks living in log homes at
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>>
>>>
>>> Logically, or maybe intuitively or both, chinked scribed logs will
>>> be tighter than tongue and groove. Greater area of overlap. Because of
>>> settling, shifting because of permafrost, and checking,
>>> I much prefer round logs. I've seen the same kinds of changes in
>>> machined logs or 3 sided logs. When rounds are not straight, they
>>> still look and act good. Not as true with flattened logs.
>>>
>>> The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
>>> temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
>>> thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal
>>> mass. And yes, it works. The house isn't very large, about 1K sq
>>> ft, but 600 gal is plenty to heat our place for a year, without any
>>> supplemental heat, and keeping it very warm in winter. That's here
>>> in interior Alaska, where we have some -40 weather every year, and
>>> mostly -15 to -25 for at least 4 months.
>>>
>>> Don't worry, I know the real scoop about living in log homes! They
>>> are very warm, consistent in temperature. In a power outage (before
>>> installing the wood stove), the house retains its heat 3 or 4 times
>>> as long as my friends' homes. The logs radiate warmth in the
>>> winter and cool in the summer.
>>>
>>> Tina
>> And...in every one I've stayed in they seem VERY quiet. Just don't
>> seem to be hard echoes like standard construction. Yea, it has
>> nothing to do with heat loss but in reality, the question is
>> livability not whether it costs a nickle more to heat when
>> calculated by the book. Koz (who thinks people are debate engineering numbers
>> too much and
>> forgetting that it's about the "feel", not just the BTUs lost. If
>> we all built based on the book numbers, we'd live in foam igloos)
> Especially with round logs, the sound is baffled.
Nope.
> It can actually even be a problem for a sound system.
For a different reason.
> As for BTUs lost, it seems to me that the BTUs get absorbed by the wood.
You're wrong.
> But the logs are so thick, it doesn't bleed out on the other side.
Corse it does. That's what the ordinary R value is about.
> The temperatures in my house are very, very consistent.
Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
> The house is well sealed, just like most "stick houses", so it also is
> draft-free. I have triple pane windows -- good, but not top of the line.
> Actually, the only place I have to be careful of, have to
> think about maintaining insulation, is the floor. I can't enclose
> the bottom of my house; need to keep it exposed to the extreme cold
> of winter because the ground must remain cold enough to avoid damage
> to the ice lens I'm one, which is even more sensitive than Permafrost.
Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
Ed Earl Ross <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Christina Peterson <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Why would there be a lot of heat loss?
>>
>> Because the R value of the walls is quite ordinary.
>>
>>> The vulnerable places are the roof and where the roof meets the
>>> walls.
>>
>> Thats just ONE place that heat is lost.
>>
>>> Where the roof lies on the walls the logs are flattened and the
>>> flat roof is placed on top of them. That's the only place where
>>> the structure doesn't overlap deeply.
>>
>> Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
>>
>>> The only place where the structure is the same as on a lumber house
>>> too.
>>
>> Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
> R value of walls is important, but not everything.
Never said it was. I used the word ONE at the top for a reason.
> Other factors that determine overall heat loss for a house, include its size,
> shape, window area, window R values, air leaks, ceiling and floor insulation.
Duh.
> Arguing that Christina's log house really looses more heat than her neighbors
> is pointless unless you know all the facts about all the houses in her
> neighborhood.
Pity I didnt even comment on that at all.
> Take her word for it,
No thanks, she clearly hasnt got a clue about the basics, most
obvious in her other post I chose to comment on which claimed
that heat cant get thru log walls. Mindless pig ignorant bullshit.
> her house uses about the same amount of energy as her neighbors.
No thanks, I use measurements, not claims.
> Higher R values in the walls will reduce heat loss
> --no one disagrees and it is true of all houses.
She does disagree with that, even if she doesnt
actually know what R values are about.
Lou <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Victor Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 17 Sep 2005 15:56:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes
>>>> because of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change
>>>> temperature that quickly...
>>>
>>> Thermal mass is not a substitute for insulation, except in very
>>> temperate climates! When it's -40 outdoors (or anything less than
>>> 60 F), thermal mass is completely irrelevant in the sense that a
>>> house with no mass and a house with lots of mass will use exactly
>>> the same amount of fuel, if they have the same insulation.
>>>
>> http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=070401a.xml
>> True, when talking about heating. Not true when talking about
>> cooling.
>> Here's some general guidelines, and correct me if I've misread the
>> link above, which fits with my experience of living in both frame and
>> masonry homes in different weather environments.
>> All points assume the same R-value.
>> 1. Where nighttimes are cold and daytimes are hot, thermal mass will
>> moderate interior temps. Higher elevations of Southwest fit the bill
>> most closely. Heating and cooling costs will be reduced.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Thermal mass will make the interior temperature
> fluctuate out of phase with the exterior temperature, but that
> doesn't necessarily mean the total interior fluctuation is reduced.
It normally does with daily cycles.
> It may mean that the warmest (or coolest) interior temperature does
> not occur at the same time as the warmest (or coolest) exterior
> temperature. It may be more costly if the period of highest (during
> the cooling season) or lowest (during the heating season) interior
> temperature occurs during times when the discomfort is most
> noticeable (hot when you're trying to sleep, for instance, or cold
> during the morning shower) and the heating/cooling plant has to fight
> the effect of all that thermal mass.
[email protected] wrote:
> Odinn wrote:
>> On 9/18/2005 8:29 PM [email protected] mumbled something
>> about the following:
>>> Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
>>>>> their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year
>>>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...the link contains data from a test done by the National Bureau
>>>> of Standards for HUD comparing heating and cooling costs between
>>>> a log home and a standard stick frame.
>>>
>>>
>>> This "data"? :-)
>>>
>>> ...In 1981-82, the National Institute of Standards [1] conducted
>>> a series of tests at its facility outside of Washington DC for
>>> the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development... over the course of
>>> seven months using six 20' X 20' buildings that were identical
>>> except for the construction of the exterior walls, one of which
>>> was log...
>>>
>>> ...the log home (rated as an R-10 wall) performed as well as the
>>> insulated wood frame house (R-12 rated wall) during the winter
>>> heating period. The log home consumed 24% less energy during the
>>> summer cooling period and 46% less during the transitional
>>> spring/fall heating period...
>>>
>>> 1.) Contact: Mr. Douglas Burch, National Institute of Standards &
>>> Technology, BR-B 320, Gaithersburg, MD, (301) 975-6433...
>>>
>>>
>>>> No one is claiming that log homes don't require heating or
>>>> cooling, only that they are not energy inefficient as would be
>>>> perceived by the R value of wood.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK. I CLAIM log homes are "as inefficient as would be perceived by
>>> the R-value of wood." Somebody should defend this 300-year old
>>> physics :-)
>>>
>>> The alleged R10 "home" above may have had less air infiltration than
>>> the fiberglass "home," so it performed "as well" in wintertime, or
>>> maybe the fiberglass did contain some moisture. Who knows? But that
>>> has nothing to do with the log's R-value.
>>
>> Did you even read it, or just copy it? They said they were IDENTICAL
>> except for the construction of the exterior walls.
>
> That is not possible, whether they said so or not. If the
> exterior dimensions are identical the log building will have
> less volume inside due to the thicker walls. For a 20' by 20'
> building, that could easily be a ten percent difference
> in the internal volume of the buildings.
Nope, basic maths. Its only the difference between the wall
thicknesses that matters and that isnt 2' with log and drywall.
And its academic anyway, they'd have got the same result
if they had ensured that the internal dimensions were identical.
>> The R-10 log home performed as well as an R-12 framed wall.
> Yet there was no actual explanation for why. My guess would
> be that the reduced surface area of the interior walls was
> a major factor. But unless I do the math, that is only a guess.
And it isnt hard to do the maths and show its bullshit.
[email protected] wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Odinn wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2005 8:29 PM [email protected] mumbled
>>>> something about the following:
>>>>> Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
>>>>>>> their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...the link contains data from a test done by the National Bureau
>>>>>> of Standards for HUD comparing heating and cooling costs between
>>>>>> a log home and a standard stick frame.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This "data"? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...In 1981-82, the National Institute of Standards [1]
>>>>> conducted a series of tests at its facility outside of
>>>>> Washington DC for the Dept. of Housing and Urban
>>>>> Development... over the course of seven months using six 20' X
>>>>> 20' buildings that were identical except for the construction
>>>>> of the exterior walls, one of which
>>>>> was log...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...the log home (rated as an R-10 wall) performed as well as
>>>>> the insulated wood frame house (R-12 rated wall) during the
>>>>> winter heating period. The log home consumed 24% less energy
>>>>> during the summer cooling period and 46% less during the
>>>>> transitional spring/fall heating period...
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) Contact: Mr. Douglas Burch, National Institute of
>>>>> Standards & Technology, BR-B 320, Gaithersburg, MD, (301)
>>>>> 975-6433...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No one is claiming that log homes don't require heating or
>>>>>> cooling, only that they are not energy inefficient as would be
>>>>>> perceived by the R value of wood.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. I CLAIM log homes are "as inefficient as would be perceived by
>>>>> the R-value of wood." Somebody should defend this 300-year old
>>>>> physics :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The alleged R10 "home" above may have had less air infiltration
>>>>> than the fiberglass "home," so it performed "as well" in
>>>>> wintertime, or maybe the fiberglass did contain some moisture.
>>>>> Who knows? But that has nothing to do with the log's R-value.
>>>>
>>>> Did you even read it, or just copy it? They said they were
>>>> IDENTICAL except for the construction of the exterior walls.
>>>
>>> That is not possible, whether they said so or not. If the
>>> exterior dimensions are identical the log building will have
>>> less volume inside due to the thicker walls. For a 20' by 20'
>>> building, that could easily be a ten percent difference
>>> in the internal volume of the buildings.
>> Nope, basic maths. Its only the difference between the wall
>> thicknesses that matters and that isnt 2' with log and drywall.
> SPLORF!
GTREWS!!!
> Do the basic math.
Been there, done that.
> If one building has a wall thickness of 12" and the other has
> a wall thickness of 4" they cannot be otherwise identical.
Never said a word about identical, I JUST said
that the difference isnt 2' with log and drywall.
> If the internal dimensions are the same they must
> have different external dimensions or vice versa.
Duh.
> Dunno where you got 2' from.
Your silly 10% claim.
> Just do the basic math and calulate the internal volume differences
> assume that the 20' by 20' dimensions are the external dimensions,
> which is how buildings are typically measured.
You dont get your 10% when you do, and like I said,
it aint the internal volume that determines the heat loss
anyway, its the AREA of the walls that determines that.
> It may be that the researchers normalized the building
> by internal dimensions, but I don't see on that webpage
> where they said one way or another.
Because it doesnt matter which way it was done.
>> And its academic anyway, they'd have got the same result
>> if they had ensured that the internal dimensions were identical.
> They absolutely could not get the same results.
Wrong. Its the AREA of the walls and their R value
that determines how much heat is lost thru the walls.
> This is easily demonstrated without doing any math.
> Just imagine two log buildings, one that is 20' by 20'
> inside, the other 20' by 20' outside. Those will give
> you different results from each other, right?
Not with the HEAT LOSS being discussed they wont.
>>>> The R-10 log home performed as well as an R-12 framed wall.
>>> Yet there was no actual explanation for why. My guess would
>>> be that the reduced surface area of the interior walls was
>>> a major factor. But unless I do the math, that is only a guess.
>> And it isnt hard to do the maths and show its bullshit.
> But instead of doing math, you go on and spew bullshit.
> Clearly you won't even do arithmetic.
I did it and doing it shows that your 10% claim is just plain wrong
and the arithmetic on the internal volume is irrelevant to the AREA
of the walls, which doesnt change. Its THAT that determines the
heat loss, not the internal volume of the house.
Howard wrote:
>
> Back in the 80s when people jumped into wood heating I was working at
> the electric utility. We had a large number of electrically heated
> homes and started to worry about lost sales. As part of an appliance
> survey we asked customers if they were heating with alternate fuels.
>
> Looking at their electric consumption (end of season) we noticed that
> it actually went up in many cases. Turns out that they opened a window
> for combustion air and their electric heating system did a fine job of
> pre heating the combustion air.
It's really nice when stupidity carries its own punishment.
--
Cheers,
Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Nobody needs to speak on behalf of idiots, they manage
to speak entirely too much for themselves already.
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, if you're chopping wood with a chainsaw, you're doing it wrong. The
> key word here is "chopping" as opposed to "cutting". Chopping implies an
> axe and I assure you that using one for a length of time will get the
> heart
> rate up.
>
And chopping with a chainsaw is even more work than an axe.
Waino went to see Toivo to get his crosscut replaced. Toivo offered,
instead, one of the new Stihl chainsaws. "You can do five cords where you
could do one with this."
Waino took his saw and left, only to return, covered in sweat and shavings,
that same evening. He disgustedly threw the saw on the counter with the
words "couldn't do even two cords. I want my money back."
Toivo, puzzled took the saw, placed his foot in the handle, pulled, and
started it.
"What's that noise? What's that noise?"
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Fuel oil has about 139,000 btu's per gallon.
>> Wood will average 20,000,000 btu's per cord or about equal to 143 gallons
>> of oil. So if you burned 1000 gallons of oil last year you'll need about
>> 7 cord of wood to replace it.
>>
>
> I don't know about the present models, but 20 years ago a good stove was
> only about 65% efficient, much less than oil burners. That cord of wood is
> closer to 100 to 120 gallons from my experience of burning wood.
>
"Efficiency" is a matter of how long you can keep the warmed air in the
space to be heated.
Since gas is what burns, fuel in that form burns cleaner than liquid, which
in turn burns cleaner than solid. Dirty means you clog or clear. Clearing
means less efficiency. That said, oil burners do not have a tremendous
advantage over wood. Gas does.
"Sheldon Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote in news:dg3vs1
> [email protected]:
>
>> George <George@least> wrote:
>>
>>>"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about the present models, but 20 years ago a good stove
> was
>>>> only about 65% efficient...
>>>
>>>"Efficiency" is a matter of how long you can keep the warmed air in the
>>>space to be heated.
>>
>> You are talking about something different. We might say that a heater's
>> efficiency is the ratio of the amount of heat released to the house to
>> the total amount of heat released when the fuel is completely burned and
>> the combustion products are cooled to room temperature.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>
> "Combustion efficiency: (actual heat produced by combustion) divided by
> (total heat potential of the fuel consumed)"
>
> http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/faqs/glossary.html
>
> This is a very good resource about bioenergy.
I still read Ed as talking about stove efficiency, which is how much of
what's produced by burning is recovered to heat the space rather than the
chimney. Nick's definition.
Combustion efficiency suffers on oil burners as well, do to incomplete
atomization and combustion.
Steve Spence wrote:
> Nog wrote:
>
>> You are right. I have split many a cord with an axe but people are
>> lazy today. Wood splitters ARE good for twisty grains and knots which
>> are a pain in the butt with an axe.
>>
>
> I can't imagine splitting with a wood splitter or an axe. My trusty maul
> does a fine job, and keeps me in shape ...
>
>
I use a double-bitted axe on the easier stuff and a splitting axe on the
tougher stuff. Never had a logsplitter but I helped a friend split
wood for his dad with one once.. slow, tedious, gotta lift every piece
onto the thing. I can get more done with an axe.. but I admit it was
cool on the stuff that you could see would be hard splitting.
John
Well, let's see. It would be real hard to fit 10 cords inside. On the
other hand, I live in a desert (though a cold one). So, what the hell. Why
not?
There are very few absolutes in this world.
Tina
<[email protected]> wrote...
> You store your wood outside uncovered????
Hey Harry, do you make animated gifs?
Tina
"Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And running a chainsaw ain't exactly featherbedding either. Just
> returned with another load. Time you cut, load, unload, stack, move to
> the stove you have some significant physical activity going. Note that
> I even left the 'splitting' part of the work out.
>
> Harry K.
>
How does the M7 mill compare to the Wood Miser, and Lucas? Do you use it
with a band saw?
Tina
"Archangel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >And running a chainsaw ain't exactly featherbedding either. Just
> >returned with another load. Time you cut, load, unload, stack, move to
> >the stove you have some significant physical activity going. Note that
> >I even left the 'splitting' part of the work out.
> >
> >Harry K.
> >
>
> I notice that everyone is leaving out the part where you cleanup
> the brush which if harvesting with powertools is probably the most
> aerobic of the activities involved. Depending on where the tree's
> are located brush must be dragged to piles or to a chipper.
> I've pretty much minimised the splitting to once in half with an axe
> as I'm turning trees into lumber these days. All those pieces I used
> to hate because they were a bear to split I now love as they mill into
> the most decorative of panels. I'm also a landscaper so at times I'm
> getting paid to haul the tree away which means "free" heat that pays
> me cash and lumber.
>
> I'm currently building our new house which has been designed to
> work with a central heat source, in our case an 18" cylinder stove
> from the 1890s. Stoves are like most hand tools in that the best
> ones are either really old or quite recent and really expensive.
>
> My father's house which I'm living in at the moment was built by my
> Grandfather in 1967-68 (a former electric co. engineer) has electric
> baseboard heat and has been heated by a single wood stove since
> the early 70s. There are a few cold corners downstairs but upstairs
> (especially in the office where computers heat the room) the trick
> is to keep things cool enough to be comfortable. The house adjoins
> 90+ acres of family owned land.
>
> In my previous house I had a hybrid wood/oil furnace used for heat
> only and a large portion of the basement devoted to cord wood. The
> coldest year we lived there (also the year with the highest oil prices)
> I burned 135 gallons of fuel oil all year, most of it in the early fall
when
> wood produced more heat than we wanted and spring when the wood
> ran out.
>
> My experience is that wood is a viable source of heat especially when
> obtained with pure sweat equity and a chainsaw.
>
> --
> Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some...
>
> Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages:
> http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/
>
> remove the REM... (sleep is over rated)
>
>
"Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote...
>
> Christina Peterson wrote:
> > Hey Harry, do you make animated gifs?
> >
> > Tina
>
> Who me? I am barely able to use programs. Have no idea how to go
> about it. I do have a good file of some though.
>
> Harry K
I'd seen a lot of them that would appeal to this group, created by "turnkey"
Tina
"Sheldon Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > There are very few absolutes in this world.
>
> Realistically, none, in the universe.
You apparently haven't heard of death and taxes. :-)
Harold
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
>
> "Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> snip--
> >
> > The "flywheel" effect of having so much thermal mass would also mean
> > that you could burn a load of wood and the heat wouldn't immediately
> > cook you and it would remain comfortable for several hours after the
> > fire.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> Yep! The advantage of heating concrete slabs hydronically. Temperature
> changes occur very slowly.
>
No, it works the opposite way...the wall temperature lags, so the air
temperature will have to rise <first> before the the walls can have
their temperature raised, to then subsequently re-radiate that heat back
when the room air temperature is cooler...
My husband is doing a small log job. Nice Aspen. We also are interested in
putting up a structure on an adjoining lot. So Pete was looking for a book
he used to have, Short Log and Timber Building, by James Mitchell. It's
out of print so we got the new book by Mitchell, The Craft of Modular Post
and Beam.
Our house is log. Two big benefits. The logs store a lot of temp (heat in
winter, cool in summer). Also, log houses are alive; always adapting and
adaptable. Living on ice lens (frozen water vs frozen dirt/muck in
Permafrost) at a time of global warming, the structural flexibility is an
asset.
Since we have the (free) logs, and the lot, milling seems like a good idea.
My husband has worked with trees all his life, though an injury and age are
slowing him down. We're looking at the mill, as a way to help build the
house, a source of lumber for bolted furniture to sell, and as a possible
asset we can possibly lease out.
Here in Interior Alaska, we don't have to worry about monster trees.
Thanks for all the information. I am, of course, passing it on the Pete.
He's currently looking at the Wood Miser LT15 series.
By the way, it sounds like your Logosol is light enough that the shipping
wouldn't be prohibitive, too.
Tina
"Archangel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>How does the M7 mill compare to the Wood Miser, and Lucas? Do you use it
>>with a band saw?
>>
>
> I'm currently using mine in the "classic" configuration with a Stihl 066
> gas chainsaw and ripping chain. Once I've got our house built I intend to
> look into adding the electric bandsaw to it.
>
> I've never used the Lucas but it always struck me as having the all the
> limitations of the Wood Mizer and all the limitations of the Logosol M7
> rolled up in a really cool design that lets you do specialty cuts. I'd
> love
> to play with one.
>
> The Logosol M7 wins hands down for portability, I can pick up the fully
> assembled M7, walk into the woods, plop in on that monster tree*, attach
> the saw and go. *If the tree is to big to load on the mill, the mill can
> be
> inverted onto the tree. It's also better at handling small diameter
> logs.
> It beats Lucas and the Wood Mizers in, ease of use, width and depth
> of cut. The cut is smoother than the Lucas and nearly as smooth as the
> cheaper Wood Mizers (probably smoother with the bandsaw head).
> The M7 has a great log bed design so you can get just the right board
> or maximize your BF output.
> It also costs about half what the "cheaper" Wood Mizers and Lucases do.
>
> The down side is cut speed and kerf loss; the electric chainsaws cut
> about twice as fast as my 066, about 15Hp. Lucas speeds, but slower than
> a 15Hp bandsaw.
> At 1/4" the kerf loss is as bad as it gets, it's zero when I square
> timbers
> for framing (my primary focus), but I've also been milling my own 1/2"
> siding and standing ankle deep in the boards I'm losing. I've found
> many creative uses for saw dust thanks to my mill ;-)
> The new electric bandsaw will eliminate that (and give it a speed boost),
> it's so new (in the US) they haven't posted the price on it yet.
>
> With the M7 it's a little more important to look at what log length
> you'll
> be cutting before you buy. Logs under 7' are inconvenient on the standard
> 16' mill. If I had to replace my mill I'd probably buy the little wood
> workers
> model and add a half mill to get back to my current length.
> This is a combination that is still below the cost of the Lucas and Wood
> Mizer,
> in fact adding the bandsaw should bring the total investment up to the
> price
> of the base model 12' Wood Mizer and you'ld have a far superior mill.
>
> I really like Wood Mizers and if money wasn't a factor I'd own one,
> unfortunately
> money is a factor and the Wood Mizer that gives me what I want is pushing
> $30K.
> If you want to crank out dimensional lumber the Wood Mizer is the way to
> go.
> Everyone I've talked has a little different experience, but the general
> concensus is
> that you need at least 24Hp before you can quickly turn out perfect boards
> and
> timbers on every species of wood, but even the little 12' hand pushed guy
> can
> cut
> very smooth boards given a sharp blade the right touch.
>
> --
> Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some...
>
> Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages:
> http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/
>
> remove the REM... (sleep is over rated)
>
>
Depends on the logs and the construction. Our logs are pretty sizable, 18"
butts. And the logs are scribed. That is, the top of the log is round, and
before putting the next log on it, the bottom of it is given a concave
surface, so the logs nest on top of each other like this -- CCCCC (but
vertical), with insulation between them.
There used to be some oakum chinking. I don't have and wouldn't want
PermaChink. I've seen too many houses where it has cracked open. And it
just looks too plastic to look good with the natural logs.
Tina
"Steve Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
> than the logs provide.
>
> Steve
>
> Christina Peterson wrote:
>>Our house is log. Two big benefits. The logs store a lot of temp (heat
>>in winter, cool in summer). Also, log houses are alive; always adapting
>>and adaptable. Living on ice lens (frozen water vs frozen dirt/muck in
>>Permafrost) at a time of global warming, the structural flexibility is an
>>asset.
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Christina Peterson wrote:
>> Depends on the logs and the construction. Our logs are pretty sizable,
>> 18" butts. And the logs are scribed. That is, the top of the log is
>> round, and before putting the next log on it, the bottom of it is given a
>> concave surface, so the logs nest on top of each other like this --
>> CCCCC (but vertical), with insulation between them.
>>
>> There used to be some oakum chinking. I don't have and wouldn't want
>> PermaChink. I've seen too many houses where it has cracked open. And it
>> just looks too plastic to look good with the natural logs.
>>
>> Tina
>
>
> we use 12" machined logs, double tongue and groove, two beads of caulking
> and a foam strip. You can get the real scoop from hundreds of folks living
> in log homes at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>
Logically, or maybe intuitively or both, chinked scribed logs will be
tighter than tongue and groove. Greater area of overlap. Because of
settling, shifting because of permafrost, and checking, I much prefer round
logs. I've seen the same kinds of changes in machined logs or 3 sided logs.
When rounds are not straight, they still look and act good. Not as true
with flattened logs.
The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass. And
yes, it works. The house isn't very large, about 1K sq ft, but 600 gal is
plenty to heat our place for a year, without any supplemental heat, and
keeping it very warm in winter. That's here in interior Alaska, where we
have some -40 weather every year, and mostly -15 to -25 for at least 4
months.
Don't worry, I know the real scoop about living in log homes! They are very
warm, consistent in temperature. In a power outage (before installing the
wood stove), the house retains its heat 3 or 4 times as long as my friends'
homes. The logs radiate warmth in the winter and cool in the summer.
Tina
"Koz" <kmiller@*dontspamme*metalbelt.com> wrote...
>
> Christina Peterson wrote:
>
>>"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote ...
>
>>>Christina Peterson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Depends on the logs and the construction. Our logs are pretty sizable,
>>>>18" butts. And the logs are scribed. That is, the top of the log is
>>>>round, and before putting the next log on it, the bottom of it is given
>>>>a concave surface, so the logs nest on top of each other like this --
>>>>CCCCC (but vertical), with insulation between them.
>>>>
>>>>There used to be some oakum chinking. I don't have and wouldn't want
>>>>PermaChink. I've seen too many houses where it has cracked open. And
>>>>it just looks too plastic to look good with the natural logs.
>>>>
>>>>Tina
>>>>
>>>we use 12" machined logs, double tongue and groove, two beads of caulking
>>>and a foam strip. You can get the real scoop from hundreds of folks
>>>living in log homes at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Logically, or maybe intuitively or both, chinked scribed logs will be
>>tighter than tongue and groove. Greater area of overlap. Because of
>>settling, shifting because of permafrost, and checking, I much prefer
>>round logs. I've seen the same kinds of changes in machined logs or 3
>>sided logs. When rounds are not straight, they still look and act good.
>>Not as true with flattened logs.
>>
>>The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
>>temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
>>thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass. And
>>yes, it works. The house isn't very large, about 1K sq ft, but 600 gal is
>>plenty to heat our place for a year, without any supplemental heat, and
>>keeping it very warm in winter. That's here in interior Alaska, where we
>>have some -40 weather every year, and mostly -15 to -25 for at least 4
>>months.
>>
>>Don't worry, I know the real scoop about living in log homes! They are
>>very warm, consistent in temperature. In a power outage (before
>>installing the wood stove), the house retains its heat 3 or 4 times as
>>long as my friends' homes. The logs radiate warmth in the winter and cool
>>in the summer.
>>
>>Tina
> And...in every one I've stayed in they seem VERY quiet. Just don't seem
> to be hard echoes like standard construction. Yea, it has nothing to do
> with heat loss but in reality, the question is livability not whether it
> costs a nickle more to heat when calculated by the book.
>
> Koz (who thinks people are debate engineering numbers too much and
> forgetting that it's about the "feel", not just the BTUs lost. If we all
> built based on the book numbers, we'd live in foam igloos)
>
Especially with round logs, the sound is baffled. It can actually even be a
problem for a sound system.
As for BTUs lost, it seems to me that the BTUs get absorbed by the wood.
But the logs are so thick, it doesn't bleed out on the other side. The
temperatures in my house are very, very consistent. The house is well
sealed, just like most "stick houses", so it also is draft-free. I have
triple pane windows -- good, but not top of the line. Actually, the only
place I have to be careful of, have to think about maintaining insulation,
is the floor. I can't enclose the bottom of my house; need to keep it
exposed to the extreme cold of winter because the ground must remain cold
enough to avoid damage to the ice lens I'm one, which is even more sensitive
than Permafrost.
Tina
Why would there be a lot of heat loss? The vulnerable places are the roof
and where the roof meets the walls. Where the roof lies on the walls the
logs are flattened and the flat roof is placed on top of them. That's the
only place where the structure doesn't overlap deeply. The only place where
the structure is the same as on a lumber house too. My roof was replaced
about 10 years ago so that I have a cold (and vented) roof now. My floors
is vulnerable too, but that's because I can't enclose the foundation because
of permafrost, not because I live in a log house.
My fuel consumption is low.
Tina
"Steve Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thermal mass is a whole different thing than insulation. Heat loss is
> still heat loss. Wood is not a great insulator.
>
> You can stay nice and cozy, but you burn more fuel than a well insulated
> house.
>
> Steve
>
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>
>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
>>> than the logs provide.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a log
>> home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling and
>> floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
>> baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>
>>
Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems.
>>>>> They were drafty, and had poor heating systems. If those rock walls
>>>>> had been warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the
>>>>> air leaks sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As long as you keep the walls at 70 F, which isn't easy, with no
>>>> insulation.
>>>> That takes LOTS of fuel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's doesn't take much more fuel.
>>
>>
>>
>> You live in a stone castle? :-)
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
> I used to rent the equivalent, a old stone blacksmith shop with stone
> walls three feet thick and no insulation. During the winter the 120,000
> btu oil furnace ran steady all day just to keep 800 sq ft at a workable
> 65 degrees. The walls never warmed up and were like cold radiators to
> touch.
Gee, imagine how bad it woulda been without all that thermal mass..
John
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to anything
else
> >> better than a tent.
> >>
> >You've never lived in one, so there's no point in discussing this with
> >you. You just don't know.
>
> I suggest you try harder to reconcile your experience with physics.
> Lots of people confuse thermal mass and insulation, some deliberately.
> Fewer people confuse capacitors and resistors :-)
>
> Nick
>
I don't care about thermal mass, R values, resistors or capacitors.
All I care about is how much fuel it takes to make me comfortable in my log
home. It doesn't take as much, because I have good windows, a good heating
system, nice tight walls, solid core metal doors (which won't warp from temp
differential). It is not drafty, heat is retained for a very long time in
power outages. I am watchful for leaks caused by shifting (from changes in
permafrost, mostly), especially at the roof.
The only problem I have ever had with heating my house occurred when I had a
malfunction in my thermostat (factory defect) while I was away for over a
week at -50 and the house froze up. The log walls had to soak up a lot of
heat before they stopped exuding cold It was at least a week.
I'm sure there are crappily built log homes, same as there are crappily
built lumber homes. I also have lived in an old log cabin in Northern
Calif. It was comfortable, but probably took too much to heat it. However,
it was a hundred years old, with leaky walls, windows, doors, roof and
floor. I've also lived on a lake in Ontario in a summer cabin that was
impossible to heat. You can only compare log to lumber if you compare an
efficient, well built log house, to an efficient, well built "stick house".
Tina
"Ford Prefect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip-----
> My new shop has 2x6 stud walls with vapour barrier, drywall, 12 inches
> of insulation in the ceiling and double paned windows. I can heat it
> with a 10,000 btu heater at minus 20 ;-) The only cold area is the
> 8" concrete slab floor.
You screwed up! :-)
Had you chosen hydronic heat, your slab would be warm, as well as your feet.
Harold (who heats hydronically)
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:35:47 -0400, Steve Spence
<[email protected]> wrote:
>So a 6" wall using fiberglass is claimed to have a R value of
>about 18, but in reality is closer to 9 because of thermal bridges
>(studs), moisture, and air infiltration.
Most stick-framed walls these days have at least one inch of R5 foam
over the studs and under the siding. That includes even the cheapest
of spec homes in our area which has a mild climate. By your own
worst-case numbers, that's at least R14 for a 6" stud wall.
I'd summarize the situation like this - if someone *wants* a log home,
and *if* they're willing to pay the premium for the thicker logs, then
they can have a home that overall isn't much less well-insulated than
the cheapest stick-frame spec home. But it will cost substantially
more initially, and appreciably more to maintain. If they're off-grid
and plan on limited heating or cooling, then they should do their
homework to make sure the additional thermal mass won't be a liability
in their climate.
Wayne
Logan Shaw <[email protected]> wrote
> wmbjk wrote
>> I'd summarize the situation like this - if someone *wants* a log
>> home, and *if* they're willing to pay the premium for the thicker
>> logs, then they can have a home that overall isn't much less
>> well-insulated than the cheapest stick-frame spec home. But it will
>> cost substantially more initially, and appreciably more to maintain.
>> If they're off-grid and plan on limited heating or cooling, then
>> they should do their homework to make sure the additional thermal
>> mass won't be a liability in their climate.
> Why would thermal mass be a liability?
Most obviously when you dont like it to be warm when sleeping.
That is why people sleep on roofs in hot weather, because the
thermal mass makes it a lot cooler outside the house at night.
> I could see that if there are times when you don't use the home, such as if
> it's a vacation home or something. It would then take longer to bring the
> interior temperature to a comfortable level. But other than that, there
> doesn't seem to be any real reason thermal mass makes a big
> difference in energy usage.
Not energy useage so much as comfort. Tho if you want
it to be cool while sleeping, its going to be difficult to cool
to cool enough if there is a lot of thermal mass.
There is a lot to be said for the alternative approach now,
very low thermal mass, excellent insulation, so you can
get the temperature you prefer without much energy usage.
High thermal mass structures were more suitable in the
days when there wasnt any easy way to cool. There is
now. You are just pumping out the heat that leaks past
the good insulation now.
"Logan Shaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wmbjk wrote:
>> I'd summarize the situation like this - if someone *wants* a log home,
>> and *if* they're willing to pay the premium for the thicker logs, then
>> they can have a home that overall isn't much less well-insulated than
>> the cheapest stick-frame spec home. But it will cost substantially
>> more initially, and appreciably more to maintain. If they're off-grid
>> and plan on limited heating or cooling, then they should do their
>> homework to make sure the additional thermal mass won't be a liability
>> in their climate.
>
> Why would thermal mass be a liability? I could see that if there are
> times when you don't use the home, such as if it's a vacation home or
> something. It would then take longer to bring the interior temperature
> to a comfortable level. But other than that, there doesn't seem to be
> any real reason thermal mass makes a big difference in energy usage.
>
Well this concept has been discussed a few times in the past. A high
thermal capacitance ('thermal mass') *can* be a good thing, or a bad thing.
For example, in a passive solar home, a high value can be used to limit the
temperature rise during a sunny day, and limit the rate the home cools down
in the evening.
But if you heat with conventional fuels, and you hope to save energy by
using a set-back type of thermostat, then when the thermostat 'sets-back',
it takes longer for the home to cool, so the temperature difference to the
outside isn't reduced as sharply. The furnace doesn't run because the
thermostat is off, but when the set-back clears, the furnace has to run a
lot longer to heat the home back up.
There are differences of opinion on this topic, so watch, we may see some
debate about this again...
daestrom
wmbjk wrote:
> I'd summarize the situation like this - if someone *wants* a log home,
> and *if* they're willing to pay the premium for the thicker logs, then
> they can have a home that overall isn't much less well-insulated than
> the cheapest stick-frame spec home. But it will cost substantially
> more initially, and appreciably more to maintain. If they're off-grid
> and plan on limited heating or cooling, then they should do their
> homework to make sure the additional thermal mass won't be a liability
> in their climate.
Why would thermal mass be a liability? I could see that if there are
times when you don't use the home, such as if it's a vacation home or
something. It would then take longer to bring the interior temperature
to a comfortable level. But other than that, there doesn't seem to be
any real reason thermal mass makes a big difference in energy usage.
- Logan
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip--
>
> The "flywheel" effect of having so much thermal mass would also mean
> that you could burn a load of wood and the heat wouldn't immediately
> cook you and it would remain comfortable for several hours after the
> fire.
>
> Anthony
Yep! The advantage of heating concrete slabs hydronically. Temperature
changes occur very slowly.
Harold
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip--
> Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
> their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year :-)
>
> Nick
So then, why would they lie? <g>
Harold
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Harold and Susan Vordos <[email protected]> wrote re:
>
> >...The advantage of heating concrete slabs hydronically.
> >Temperature changes occur very slowly.
>
> And you open windows on warm winter days,
> and night setbacks save little energy.
>
> Nick
>
Nope. Not here. I've *never* had to open a window, and the boiler runs
only once per day, if that, right now. Our temps are in the mid 60's during
the day time and mid 40's at night. Been running the system for 5 years
now.
Harold
George, the reason Steve Spence got into this is that when I spoke of living
in a log house, a bunch of people did exactly that. They said, among other
things,
"We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
than the logs provide." (Steve Smith)
And you said "Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to
anything else better than a tent." "Next thing you'll be touting earth
sheltered homes!"
You don't remember "anyone" disparaging log homes? I think you must be a
troll.
Tina
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote...
...................
> I don't recall anyone saying the log homes use a LOT more fuel, only that
> they use more than necessary, if built to higher standards.
<[email protected]> wrote...
> Christina Peterson <[email protected]> :
>
> >The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
> >temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
> >thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass.
>
> To me, a heat sink is a gadget with fins that clips onto an IC or some
> other power electronic device to dissipate heat with no heat storage,
> vs thermal mass, which stores heat with no dissipation. A car radiator
> is a heat sink, altho it also stores some heat in the coolant.
>
Thanks for this correction.
Tina
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Harold and Susan Vordos <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >...The advantage of heating concrete slabs hydronically.
> >> >Temperature changes occur very slowly.
> >>
> >> And you open windows on warm winter days,
> >> and night setbacks save little energy.
> >
> >Nope. Not here. I've *never* had to open a window, and the boiler runs
> >only once per day, if that, right now. Our temps are in the mid 60's
during
> >the day time and mid 40's at night.
>
> That's hard to believe, if "Temperature changes occur very slowly."
>
> Nick
>
Yep! I should have been far more specific. What I meant was temperature
changes *inside* occur very slowly. The concrete slab (42 yards of
concrete, 6-1/4" thick) doesn't get hot, just warm. It slowly radiates it's
heat through the course of the day and night, dropping the ambient
temperature (in the structure) only a degree or so until weather turns quite
cold outside (low 30's). The boiler runs more frequently when it does,
but it takes hours for the slab to warm up, and, likewise, cool down, so you
don't experience wide, rapid temperature swings. That was really my point
originally.
I've heated by other means in my years, but nothing comes close to the
comfort of hydronic. I'm stuck with oil, which I hate.
Harold
"Harold and Susan Vordos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
The concrete slab (42 yards of
> concrete, 6-1/4" thick) doesn't get hot, just warm. It slowly radiates
> it's
> heat through the course of the day and night, dropping the ambient
> temperature (in the structure) only a degree or so until weather turns
> quite
> cold outside (low 30's). The boiler runs more frequently when it does,
> but it takes hours for the slab to warm up, and, likewise, cool down, so
> you
> don't experience wide, rapid temperature swings. That was really my
> point
> originally.
Sheetrock works the same way.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George <George@least> wrote:
>
>>"Harold and Susan Vordos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>The concrete slab (42 yards of concrete, 6-1/4" thick) doesn't get hot,
>>just warm. It slowly radiates it's heat through the course of the day
>>and night, dropping the ambient temperature (in the structure) only
>>a degree or so...
>
>>Sheetrock works the same way.
>
> The slab above has about 42x27x25 = 28350 Btu/F of heat capacity,
> like 56700 square feet of 1/2" drywall, eg a 100' hollow cube :-)
>
Wow, you can do math. Answer is still that sheetrock works the same way.
Oh, good. I'm glad you're not a troll. I just didn't understand why you
made such wildly contradictory statements. I didn't take your statements
out of context, but in groups it easy to say something out of context for
the sake of brevity.
My own subjectively stated observations also come from professional
experience. As a Realtor, I dealt with a wide range of homes.
Tina
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, Tina, I'm not a troll... just a retired building contractor who has
> considerable experience dealing with heating issues.
>
> If you think my statement was wrong, simply explain why...
>
> "I don't recall anyone saying the log homes use a LOT more fuel, only
that
> they use more than necessary, if built to higher standards."
>
> The higher standards I referred to are the conventional frame walls that
> indeed lose less heat.
>
> I'm sure you are clever enough to understand why this is true. I think
> Steve Spence could also understand, except for his pride and his hard
head.
>
> George Willer
>
>
> "Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > George, the reason Steve Spence got into this is that when I spoke of
> > living
> > in a log house, a bunch of people did exactly that. They said, among
> > other
> > things,
> > "We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
> > than the logs provide." (Steve Smith)
> > And you said "Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared
> > to
> > anything else better than a tent." "Next thing you'll be touting
earth
> > sheltered homes!"
> >
> > You don't remember "anyone" disparaging log homes? I think you must be
a
> > troll.
> >
> > Tina
> >
> >
> > "George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote...
> > ...................
> >> I don't recall anyone saying the log homes use a LOT more fuel, only
that
> >> they use more than necessary, if built to higher standards.
> >
> >
>
>
"Ed Earl Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Christina Peterson wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote...
> >
> >>Christina Peterson <[email protected]> :
> >>
> >>
> >>>The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
> >>>temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
> >>>thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass.
> >>
> >>To me, a heat sink is a gadget with fins that clips onto an IC or some
> >>other power electronic device to dissipate heat with no heat storage,
> >>vs thermal mass, which stores heat with no dissipation. A car radiator
> >>is a heat sink, altho it also stores some heat in the coolant.
> >
> > Thanks for this correction.
>
> Though Nick's definition is commonly used, it is not technically
> correct.
>
> ...My wife says I am a compulsive nit picker.
>
> In physics there are sinks and sources of energy, and many things
> are relative, depending on point of view.
>
> A heat source emits heat and a heat sink absorbs heat.
>
> A mass, including a thermal mass, is a sink when it absorbs heat
> and a source when it is emits heat. Moreover, it is possible for
> one point on a mass to be a heat source and another point to be a
> heat sink. For example, typically a gadget with fins that clips
> onto an IC is a heat sink relative to the IC and a heat source
> relative to the air. It is also possible for a single point to
> alternate between being a sink and source.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, there is no pure heat sink that is
> always a heat sink, nor a heat source that is always a heat source.
>
Thanks, Ed. This clarifies it for me, because it makes intuitive sense.
So the logs in my house are a heat sink when they absorb heat (from the sun
in summer, from the fire in winter), and a heat source at other times. And
can be both when there are fluctuations in temperature. Also walls are a
heat sink inside the house and a heat source outside in winter. Just like
rocks absorb heat from the sun, and are later warm under foot.
So what is the difference between "heat sink" and "thermal mass"?
Tina
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Harold and Susan Vordos <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >What I meant was temperature changes *inside* occur very slowly.
> >The concrete slab (42 yards of concrete, 6-1/4" thick) doesn't get hot,
> >just warm. It slowly radiates it's heat through the course of the day
> >and night... it takes hours for the slab to warm up, and, likewise,
> >cool down, so you don't experience wide, rapid temperature swings.
>
> So... if it's comfy inside on a 30 F morning, and the outdoor temp rises
> to 50 by afternoon, you might have to sweat or take off your coat or
> open a window. And setting the thermostat back at night wouldn't save
> much energy, because the slab temp and the indoor air temp wouldn't
> decrease much overnight.
>
> Nick
>
It doesn't appear to work that way. Our walls are an R25, and there are few
windows. Only on extremely hot days (80+)do we have much influence on
inside temps. When that occurs, the boiler never runs. When it's in
the 60's, the boiler runs only infrequently. Our daily activities (lights,
stereo, computer, etc.) appear to be enough to keep the structure warm.
The only time we open a window is in the evening, after a hot day.
Harold
"LCT Paintball" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:VExXe.380205$xm3.351419@attbi_s21...
> > always a heat sink, nor a heat source that is always a heat source.
> >
>
> How about the sun?
>
>
Time! It's day will come..
Harold
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
> >
> > "Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > snip--
> > >
> > > The "flywheel" effect of having so much thermal mass would also mean
> > > that you could burn a load of wood and the heat wouldn't immediately
> > > cook you and it would remain comfortable for several hours after the
> > > fire.
> > >
> > > Anthony
> >
> > Yep! The advantage of heating concrete slabs hydronically. Temperature
> > changes occur very slowly.
> >
>
> No, it works the opposite way...the wall temperature lags, so the air
> temperature will have to rise <first> before the the walls can have
> their temperature raised, to then subsequently re-radiate that heat back
> when the room air temperature is cooler...
Which is what happens to us on hot days, but with the heat source the sun,
not inside heat. The walls are slow to warm, but warm they do. By evening,
when outside temps drop, and they always do here in Western Washington, the
walls then radiate their heat, much of it to the inside, which, by now, is
usually around 74 degrees. Rarely more. Nights here never stay above 65
degrees, and typically dip into the mid 50's, even in the dead of summer.
Harold
"LCT Paintball" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1DxXe.380203$xm3.54363@attbi_s21...
>
>
> > I've heated by other means in my years, but nothing comes close to the
> > comfort of hydronic. I'm stuck with oil, which I hate.
> >
> > Harold
> >
> >
>
> How do you keep from loosing vast amounts of heat into the ground?
>
>
Good question. There's insulation under the 'crete, although I screwed up
and used only an inch (R5). I should have used two. The more, the
better, of course. It's important to not have intimate contact with
earth, but the problems are even greater if it's dirt. Coarse gravel
provides a better base, what with the air spaces and small contact, bit to
bit, so heat isn't transferred as well, and doesn't hold water.. I have
compacted fill under my floor.
Insulation for floors is available to accommodate heavy loads. The stuff
sold at HD is generally good for 25 PSI floor load. It's available up to 100
PSI, which works out to some serious floor loading. My fork lift weighs 5
tons, and the largest load I am likely to move is 3 tons. The 40 PSI stuff
I selected will handle the load without deforming.
Harold
On 19 Sep 2005 02:37:37 -0700, "Foster Parents" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I just paid $165/full cord stacked this weekend. I live in a new home.
>My goal is to cut my electric bill down this winter. Over the summer,
>my bill was $300/month. I'm thinking using wood will be a boon to my
>pocket. (Mind you, I am not REPLACING my source of heat but
>supplementing it, so that I can keep the thermostat down.
I am glad I live in Oz, my electricity account for July & August
(winter season) was $146.55 (947 units) and I probably used about $10
of LPGas, the 40kg cylinder is still about 1/4 full after 2 years -
only used for cooking & heating. Summer accounts will probably be
about $180 as the air conditioner is on to cool the house to 23C
(74F), I really do not do very much when it is over 40C (104F)
outside, even though my workshop ( on the bottom floor) is the coolest
( not airconditioned) part of the house, I have to keep the door
closed to keep the heat out and it gets stuffy and I have to do
welding outside in the carport. Cannot saw wood either as the dust
extractor stands just outside the door when in use.
Alan
in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8
VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote...
> Actually, the poor performance of fiberglass and rockwool is not always
this
> bad. It suffers a lot in climates with below freezing temperatures, and
> when the vapor barrier is compromised. But it can perform up to it's
rating
> in a lot of installations (just not upstate NY ;-)
So some forms of insulation, like fiberglass are not as effective at
sub-zero (F) temps? That could very possibly account for the difference in
my experience (12-18" logs, vs "insulation"). I'm sub freezing 7 months,
sub zero 4 months. I also do not have as much variation in day and night
temps, especially in summer and winter. It's light about 3 months in summer
(we get forecasts of "sunny skies tonight), and we have little light, and
that aslant, in winter.
Tina
I'm in France and I've read most of the messages in this topic.
I have a lot of land with many trees that need to be cut anyway, when
I bought this house it came with a butane-gas boiler for the central
heating with a huge ugly gas tank in the garden. Heating the house a
little in winter costed me 500 euro per month, that's about $600.
I figured a wood boiler is the best thing so I started to look around
on the web what's available. All wood boilers manufactored in Europe
today are so called wood gassers, with inversed burning (basically the
flame is sucked down into another chamber), with claimed efficiency of
90% or more. Apparently wood stoves, inserts and old fashioned boilers
have an efficiency of 50 to 60%.
Anyone interested in European (Danisch) technology, take a look here:
http://www.fbcgroup.co.uk/baxi.html
Do not fear, this site is in English.
I am about getting a wood boiler like this installed. With heat
storage tanks and domestic hot water. I'm afraid it's going to cost me
around 10,000 euros, that's about $12,000.
Henk
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 03:01:34 GMT, Jesse Spencer
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am about getting a wood boiler like this installed. With heat
>> storage tanks and domestic hot water. I'm afraid it's going to cost me
>> around 10,000 euros, that's about $12,000.
>>
>> Henk
>
>That's a lot of cash. Are you confident of the reliability of this
>(Lambda??) technology? If you have access to free wood the payback
>probability is high unless expensive maintenance is regular thing.
>If the company is confident of product they offer good FULL warantee.
I already changed my mind. I was looking at the Solo Innova, in the
USA that one is marketed as the TARM, www.woodboilers.com
It has a claimed efficiency of >80%. The one I was looking at costs
5700 euros, without Lambda. Lambda adds another 3000 euros to the
price and may add only 5% of efficiency. And a lot of potential
problems. Put a box with electronics on top of a boiler and what will
you get? And what if the built-in turbo fan breaks down? What if
electricity goes down?
I am now looking at http://www.selfclimat.com/Morvan/afx2/afx2.php
Same burning principle as the TARM, but without fan or electronics.
Made of cast iron, and 1000 euros cheaper than the TARM. Big loading
door, so I can burn those big hard-to-split logs as well.
Basically it does the same thing as the TARM, but totally naturally,
and since it's made of cast iron, it should work for at least a 50
years.
Henk
George Willer wrote:
>>Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems. They
>>were drafty, and had poor heating systems. *******If****** those rock
>>walls had been warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the
>>air leaks sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter. Log homes are
>>a good idea. Lived in one for many years. Low heating bills, and very
>>comfortable. Not hard to heat at all.
>>
>>--
>>Steve Spence
>
>
> Well, yeah!!! And ****if**** you could flap your arms fast enough, you
> could probably fly.
>
> A more important consideration if what happens ***** if***** the walls cool
> to less than an ideal indoor temperature, which in most parts of the country
> they tend to do? That's the reason most dwellings even need a heating
> system.
>
> Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to anything else
> better than a tent.
>
>
You've never lived in one, so there's no point in discussing this with
you. You just don't know.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jim Elbrecht wrote:
-snip-
>> I switched to a propane stove years ago. Cheaper, cleaner, easier.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>How is even $50 / face cord cheaper than propane?
>
>$150 per full cord, 24 million btu = $0.00000625 / btu
>24m btu / 91k btu = 264 gallons of propane
>Where do you get propane for $0.56 / gallon?
I'm paying nearly 4 times that for propane. But I don't lose any
btus up a chimney. Nor do I lose any as I go in and out of my
house loading my stove with cold wood from outside.
The room the stove is in stays at exactly the temp I want it to.
Never too hot-- and if I want I can turn the roaring stove off, and
stop wasting btu's immediately.
I've kept the records. My propane costs are still less than my
cordwood costs were 6 years ago. [last year just barely-- and this
year I'm sure I'll exceed them-- but firewood has gone up 50% in this
neck of the woods, too]
The space I'm heating is more comfortable, cleaner, safer . . . .
and I can sit there and enjoy it a hell of a lot more.
Jim
What was that bullshit you used before? "I will go by facts and science not
somebody's opinion"
Stop trolling here.
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It may be baloney to you, but here's what I know...
My shop (40 x 54) is built exactly like my home it is attached to. (they
were both built in 1991) The walls have R19 batts, 5/8" drywall on the
interior over 6 mil vapor barrier. The exterior is 1'' closed cell foam
applied horizontally covered by 7/16 wafer board applied vertically so there
is minimum infiltration. The whole works is covered by vinyl siding.
The shop sees occasional welding and is heated by an airtight wood fired
stove.
You're invited to come see the result of the slight condensation of welding
smoke on the cooler surfaces of the studs. It isn't baloney that causes the
darker marks... it's because the studs conduct more heat out and are colder.
True even though they have some insulation on their exterior surface in
addition to the batts (about R-8). The framing is doing exactly the same
thing to about 10% of the wall's area that happens to the entire surface of
a log wall... it's colder.
George Willer
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Boloney. Many home builders do insulate them with exterior foam insulation
> on the exterior surface. The homes without the exterior foam insulation
> never experience mildew or moisture problems where the wood is.
>
> What is the R factor of a 2x4 or 2x6 piece of spruce or pine lumber on
> edge
> after it has dried for a few years?
>
>
> "George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> If wood was so bad then why do the 6" insulated walls need no insulation
>> where the wood is between the batts?
>
> It's only because it isn't practical to insulate them. It isn't because
> they aren't a greater source of heat loss, because it can be easily
> demonstrated that they are.
>
> If you are prepared for an explanation, I'm prepared to give you a good
> one.
>
> George Willer
>
>
>
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:06:20 -0700, Jim Stewart <[email protected]>
wrote:
>wmbjk wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2005 16:58:01 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Solar Flare <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>28 kWh per day with 1600W solar for about two months this year...
>>>
>>>Do you mean your 1600 nameplate watts of solar panels delivered
>>>28 kWh per day of energy, under 28kWh/1600W = 17.5 hours of sun?
>>>
>>>Nick
>>
>>
>> Hey, Gymmy Bob's imaginary array is "special", just like him.
>> Differently abled as they say. Yeah, that must be it, 'cause a guy
>> with umpteen posting names couldn't possibly be trying to mislead
>> anyone....
>
>They were probably reactive watts....
Well, I did have the same "reaction" as the time he claimed to have
drained "many many" gallons from a 1/2" water pipe in his house. I see
that he's lowered the production estimate to 14 to 18 kWhrs per day,
but included further confusing unspecified improvements. Perhaps he
could get a camera with the Imaginary CCD option to take a picture of
the array.
Wayne
Steve Spence wrote:
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Steve Spence wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>>>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>
>>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
>>> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
>>> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
>>> baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
>> material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
>> 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
>> standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall
>> ( which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall
>> of about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air
>> leakage.
>
>
> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient,
> and if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall.
> Forget R value when talking log.
>
>
Bullshit, log homes always have leakage unless sealed on the exterior or
interior with some other material. Radial shrinkage is the nature of the
beast and nothing you can do will stop it. In northern climates, when
the temperature during a 24-hour period in winter is always well below
the indoor temperature, the mass effect offers almost no benefit, and
the mass-enhanced R-value is nearly identical to the steady-state R-value.
"Lou" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> Besides, chopping wood is a heck of a lot more satisfying than jogging to
>> keep the ol' ticker tuned up.
>>
> I was with you until that last sentence. I haven't heated with wood for
> some 15 years or so, but my recollection is that cutting wood isn't
> "aerobic" in the ticker-tuning sense. But then, I was using power tools -
> maybe cutting down and slicing a tree into usable lengths with a hand
> powered saw instead of a gas or electric chainsaw would qualify.
I have a chain saw but have yet to get around to building a hydraulic
splitter. I use a wedge and sledge. Between humping the chain saw, cutting
the logs, hoisting them into the pickup, unloading, splitting and stacking
it can get the heart pumping pretty good. Then every morning you trudge out
to the wood shed and haul in the day's supply to the crib to jump start it.
:-)
I read somewhere though that as you get older you should bring in the wood
in the evening when your blood pressure is lower.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Victor Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 Sep 2005 15:56:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> >>of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> >>quickly...
> >
> >Thermal mass is not a substitute for insulation, except in very temperate
> >climates! When it's -40 outdoors (or anything less than 60 F), thermal
mass
> >is completely irrelevant in the sense that a house with no mass and a
house
> >with lots of mass will use exactly the same amount of fuel, if they
have
> >the same insulation.
> >
> http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=070401a.xml
> True, when talking about heating. Not true when talking about
> cooling.
> Here's some general guidelines, and correct me if I've misread the
> link above, which fits with my experience of living in both frame and
> masonry homes in different weather environments.
> All points assume the same R-value.
> 1. Where nighttimes are cold and daytimes are hot, thermal mass will
> moderate interior temps. Higher elevations of Southwest fit the bill
> most closely. Heating and cooling costs will be reduced.
Maybe, maybe not. Thermal mass will make the interior temperature fluctuate
out of phase with the exterior temperature, but that doesn't necessarily
mean the total interior fluctuation is reduced. It may mean that the
warmest (or coolest) interior temperature does not occur at the same time as
the warmest (or coolest) exterior temperature. It may be more costly if the
period of highest (during the cooling season) or lowest (during the heating
season) interior temperature occurs during times when the discomfort is most
noticeable (hot when you're trying to sleep, for instance, or cold during
the morning shower) and the heating/cooling plant has to fight the effect of
all that thermal mass.
On 17 Sep 2005 15:56:21 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
>>of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
>>quickly...
>
>Thermal mass is not a substitute for insulation, except in very temperate
>climates! When it's -40 outdoors (or anything less than 60 F), thermal mass
>is completely irrelevant in the sense that a house with no mass and a house
>with lots of mass will use exactly the same amount of fuel, if they have
>the same insulation.
>
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=070401a.xml
True, when talking about heating. Not true when talking about
cooling.
Here's some general guidelines, and correct me if I've misread the
link above, which fits with my experience of living in both frame and
masonry homes in different weather environments.
All points assume the same R-value.
1. Where nighttimes are cold and daytimes are hot, thermal mass will
moderate interior temps. Higher elevations of Southwest fit the bill
most closely. Heating and cooling costs will be reduced.
2. Where winter daytime and nighttime temps are lower than comfortable
interior temps, and summertime cooling is not necessary, thermal mass
offers no benefit, save the meager BTU's it might absorb from a low
sun.
3. Where it normally "hot" night and day, but of course cooler at
night, thermal mass is a benefit, because nighttime cooling is more
efficient than daytime cooling, and the thermal mass will store some
of that efficiency. Cooling costs will be reduced.
Most areas of the U.S. fit somewhere between the examples above, and
will undergo sufficient days of daytime/nightime temperature swing to
make the heating/cooling benefits of thermal mass noticeable.
But thermal mass homes, whether masonry, log, or berm, cost more to
build than stick, and calculating the payback is tricky.
Oddly enough, a log home provides more energy conservation benefit in
south Florida than it does in Alaska. Strange, but true.
--Ripley
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:59:31 -0500, "Jason Quick"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote :
>
>> The City gives away unsplit wood as do some local
>> tree service companies. If trees are abundant in your area
>> a little scouting will probably turn up some sources.
>
>True. There's other sources, too, that people might not have considered .
>You can scrounge the dumpsters of local cabinet and hardwood shops for
>scraps and cutoffs. No shortage there. Another good place to check is
>construction sites, after the flooring guys and trim carpenters have been -
>lots of largish cutoffs of unfinished red oak flooring and oak/poplar
>baseboard, casing, mouldings, etc. All free, and quite burnable. I've got
>tons of the shit stacked up in the shed right now. Your woodstove/fireplace
>doesn't care what shape the wood is.
>
>If you wanted to burn cedar for some reason, you could get plenty of that
>too. Built quite a bit of outdoor furniture, planters, etc. outta scrounged
>cedar.
>
>Jason
>
Lots of free wood in the Gulf area. Gonna be for years.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That's a silly argument. Who knows how you replace the heat lost through
> your walls without seeing your situation? Maybe you burn buffalo dung?
The
> fact remains, if you don't replace the heat escaping through your walls,
the
> interior will cool off. The more that escapes, the more you must replace
to
> be comfortable. That should be (but it won't be) the end of the story.
>
It's not silly at all. It only makes no sense to someone like you who is
predisposed to make an erroneous statement, and then backtracks with
absurdities in vain attempt to save face.
Because you seem to lack even basic deductive skills, I'll give you a little
more info. Four homes within 1/8 of a mile of each other. Two of those
within a literal stone's throw of my home which is a log home - 23 years
old. The three neighboring homes are less than 10 years old and all are 6"
stick built. We all burn fuel oil. We use almost exactly the same amount
of fuel each year in upstate NY where the winters get cold. None of us do
anything more extreme than turning our thermostats to the comfort zone.
Now - go out on another limb and stretch yourself thin as you try to trip me
up. Face it - you're full of bull and you've been called on this one. I'm
not saying my log home is any more efficient than their stick builts, but it
sure isn't any less.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sounds like a lot of fuel to cut, haul, split, stack and burn wood for
heat
> very often.
>
> My heating bill for NG runs about $4-500 dollars per year for 2400 sq ft.
> plus 1200 basement.
If you can heat your house for $400-$500 per year then I'd hate to see your
electric bill for your air conditioning.
>
> This is not to mention all the cleaning products needed to clean soot and
> smoke backup smells from my home either or the chiropractic bills as I get
> older...LOL
>
> Beauty? yes. Money saving? No.
Beauty? Yes. Money saving? Hell yes, up here in the Northeast.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/18/2005 8:29 PM [email protected] mumbled something
about the following:
> Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>
>
>>>Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
>>>their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year :-)
>
>
>
>>...the link contains data from a test done by the National Bureau
>>of Standards for HUD comparing heating and cooling costs between
>>a log home and a standard stick frame.
>
>
> This "data"? :-)
>
> ...In 1981-82, the National Institute of Standards [1] conducted
> a series of tests at its facility outside of Washington DC for
> the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development... over the course of seven
> months using six 20' X 20' buildings that were identical except for
> the construction of the exterior walls, one of which was log...
>
> ...the log home (rated as an R-10 wall) performed as well as the
> insulated wood frame house (R-12 rated wall) during the winter
> heating period. The log home consumed 24% less energy during the
> summer cooling period and 46% less during the transitional spring/fall
> heating period...
>
> 1.) Contact: Mr. Douglas Burch, National Institute of Standards &
> Technology, BR-B 320, Gaithersburg, MD, (301) 975-6433...
>
>
>>No one is claiming that log homes don't require heating or cooling, only
>>that they are not energy inefficient as would be perceived by the R
>>value of wood.
>
>
> OK. I CLAIM log homes are "as inefficient as would be perceived by the
> R-value of wood." Somebody should defend this 300-year old physics :-)
>
> The alleged R10 "home" above may have had less air infiltration than
> the fiberglass "home," so it performed "as well" in wintertime, or
> maybe the fiberglass did contain some moisture. Who knows? But that
> has nothing to do with the log's R-value.
Did you even read it, or just copy it? They said they were IDENTICAL
except for the construction of the exterior walls.
The R-10 log home performed as well as an R-12 framed wall.
I didn't do the tests, I just posted the link to the data performed by a
govt agency.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
What group? You crossposted to at least five!
Vaughn
"Nog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Fuel oil has about 139,000 btu's per gallon.
> Wood will average 20,000,000 btu's per cord or about equal to 143 gallons
> of oil. So if you burned 1000 gallons of oil last year you'll need about
> 7 cord of wood to replace it.
>
I don't know about the present models, but 20 years ago a good stove was
only about 65% efficient, much less than oil burners. That cord of wood is
closer to 100 to 120 gallons from my experience of burning wood.
Lou wrote:
> Maybe, maybe not. Thermal mass will make the interior temperature fluctuate
> out of phase with the exterior temperature, but that doesn't necessarily
> mean the total interior fluctuation is reduced.
If the exterior temperature is cyclical, then increased thermal mass
will always decrease the fluctuation for the interior temperature.
To be clear, when I say temperature fluctuation, I mean the difference
between the lowest and highest temperature, not the time spent near the
peak or anything complicated like that.
The reason is fairly simple: heat transfer increases as temperature
difference increases, and it decreases as temperature difference
decreases. Thus, if the exterior temperature holds constant, the
interior temperature asymptotically approaches the exterior temperature
and technically never even reaches the same level as exterior temperature
(although it may become so close that the difference is negligible).
Now consider what happens if the exterior temperature fluctuates
periodically and stays at a peak only for a limited time: the interior
temperature is lagging behind and approaching that peak asymptotically,
but since the peak only lasts a limited time, the interior temperature
never "catches up", not even to the point where the difference becomes
negligible. Thus, the interior temperature doesn't have peaks as high
or valleys as low as the exterior temperature.
So yes, there are phase effects, but the amplitude of the periodic
function is also reduced. A home with a high thermal mass is a low-pass
filter, just like the bass knob on a piece of audio equipment or like
the part of the crossover that drives the woofer in a 2-way or 3-way
speaker. And such filters do have phase effects, but they also reduce
the amplitude of the signal, and the amplitude is reduced more as the
input signal's frequency increases.
So, having said all that, it seems like a home with a high thermal mass
should offer a couple of benefits. If the weather is moderate so that
it's a little too cool at night and a little too hot in the day, then
in a house with low or negligible thermal mass, you might find that you
want to run your heater at night and your air conditioning in the day
because it's too cold at night and too hot in the day. I could easily
imagine a situation like that in the desert, and in fact it's going to
be similar to that here in Texas in a month or two, where the daytime
temperature will be (only) 85-90F and it will be 60-65F at night. A
home with a high thermal mass would even this all out and make it more
comfortable around the clock. So that's the first benefit.
The other benefit is that having longer cycle times on heaters and air
conditioners is slightly more efficient. High thermal mass is going
to equate to longer cycles because once the temperature is out of the
comfortable range, it takes more work to bring it back into the range.
So that should increase efficiency somewhat, although whether it's a
significant amount is hard to tell since increasing cycle time doesn't
result in dramatic energy savings and it's unclear how much it is
going to increase cycle times anyway.
- Logan
Steve Spence wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important...
>> ...k = 1/r. Which one is "made up"? :-)
>>
>> Would that you learn more basic physics.
> r = k/1
>
> r is a calculated number from k, which is a measured number.
>
> no problem with my physics.
First of all, you have an obvious error in your algebra. Since I'm
feeling generous today, I won't point out what it is, thus leaving
you the opportunity to post a corrected formula and thereby demonstrate
that you are competent at high school level algebra although your post
makes it look like you are not.
Second of all, taking an inverse is not a very complicated thing, and
there is no room for any significant error to creep in. Thus for all
practical purposes, R values and K values are equally good. In fact,
since your exposure to physics appears to be minimal, you might be
interested to know that sometimes in experiments values cannot be
measured directly and other measurements must be taken and used to
calculate the values that are desired. For instance, I might not be
able to measure acceleration, but I can measure the displacement of
a weight with a known mass that's attached to a spring with known
characteristics, and use the displacement to calculate the force on
the spring and the force and the mass to calculate the acceleration.
Or, I might not be able to measure temperature directly, but I can
measure the length of a column of mercury that expands or contracts
as its temperature changes. The fact that I can't make these
measurements directly doesn't make the experiment invalid; instead, if
it is done correctly, I can still get valid and accurate measurements.
And taking the inverse is so simple that it's hard to get invalid
results. The suggestion that it could be a serious problem implies
a lack of knowledge about physics and science in general.
- Logan
JohnM wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>> Nog wrote:
>>
>>> You are right. I have split many a cord with an axe but people are
>>> lazy today. Wood splitters ARE good for twisty grains and knots which
>>> are a pain in the butt with an axe.
>>>
>>
>> I can't imagine splitting with a wood splitter or an axe. My trusty
>> maul does a fine job, and keeps me in shape ...
>>
>>
>
> I use a double-bitted axe on the easier stuff and a splitting axe on the
> tougher stuff. Never had a logsplitter but I helped a friend split wood
> for his dad with one once.. slow, tedious, gotta lift every piece onto
> the thing. I can get more done with an axe.. but I admit it was cool on
> the stuff that you could see would be hard splitting.
>
> John
I use a maul for almost all small logs and nearly all stright-grained
species logs of any size. I use a sledge and wedges for tougher grained
wood species.
Rob
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> TMT
It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of wood
costs $200 a cord and up. Some people collect pallets, saw them up stove
size. They heat nice since many are hardwood. You just have lots of nails
and staples in your ash bin. If you have your own wood lot, a pickup, a
chain say and a wood splitter you're in business. a nice table saw for cord
wood is nice too to saw up those 4 foot logs into stove size. A large
splitter will let you split 4 ft logs, then saw them up stove length. Small
splitters only allow splitting stove length. Have a chain sharpening kit and
plan on sharpening the saw chain often. There is lots of dirt in bark,
especially if you drag your logs to the cutting area. And remember, a chain
saw cuts meat real fast so know what you are doing and take your time.
Fuel oil has about 139,000 btu's per gallon.
Wood will average 20,000,000 btu's per cord or about equal to 143 gallons of
oil. So if you burned 1000 gallons of oil last year you'll need about 7
cord of wood to replace it.
If a cord of wood is 225 a cord the heating season will cost about $1500. A
1000 gallons of fuel oil at $2.99 a gallon will cost $2990.
If your wood is free, the only cost is chainsaw gas, wood splitter gas and
maintenance on all wood preparation equipment and time involved cutting,
splitting, hauling and stacking plus feeding the wood stove and cleaning the
stove, emptying ashes and cleaning the chimney once a year to prevent
chimney fires. Wood is filthy, brings in bugs and things into the house,
coats the chimney with soot and goes cold when not attended to. But if you
were raised in a home with wood heat there is nothing like it and nothing
better.
Christina Peterson wrote:
> Depends on the logs and the construction. Our logs are pretty sizable, 18"
> butts. And the logs are scribed. That is, the top of the log is round, and
> before putting the next log on it, the bottom of it is given a concave
> surface, so the logs nest on top of each other like this -- CCCCC (but
> vertical), with insulation between them.
>
> There used to be some oakum chinking. I don't have and wouldn't want
> PermaChink. I've seen too many houses where it has cracked open. And it
> just looks too plastic to look good with the natural logs.
>
> Tina
we use 12" machined logs, double tongue and groove, two beads of
caulking and a foam strip. You can get the real scoop from hundreds of
folks living in log homes at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Steve Spence wrote:
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>>> That's not how he screwed up, though.. He screwed up by not pouring
>>> that 8" slab over 4" of urethane foam.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't need Foam! I have all that thermal Mass ;~))))))
>
>
> In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor
> heat from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a substitute
> for insulation.
>
>
I know that, in fact I'm the one that brought up that fact about your
log walls ;~)
Boloney. Many home builders do insulate them with exterior foam insulation
on the exterior surface. The homes without the exterior foam insulation
never experience mildew or moisture problems where the wood is.
What is the R factor of a 2x4 or 2x6 piece of spruce or pine lumber on edge
after it has dried for a few years?
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If wood was so bad then why do the 6" insulated walls need no insulation
> where the wood is between the batts?
It's only because it isn't practical to insulate them. It isn't because
they aren't a greater source of heat loss, because it can be easily
demonstrated that they are.
If you are prepared for an explanation, I'm prepared to give you a good one.
George Willer
[email protected] wrote:
> Haven't kept up with the technology but twenty years ago they were
> putting catalytic converters on wood stoves, similar to those
> on motor vehicles. In addition to cleaning the smoke they
> also extacted a more heat by completing the combustion of
> the unburned material in the smoke.
Today's tricks employ secondary combustion chambers.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
[email protected] wrote:
> Huh? Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
> If not, how could it be useful for comparison?
>
R- value isn't all that useful for comparison. It's a calculated, not
measured, value that is based on K, which is biased towards fiber based
insulation in laboratory conditions. Real world performance of solid
materials closely track laboratory values. realworld values for fiber
based material are many times half what the theoretical "r value"
indicates. So a 6" wall using fiberglass is claimed to have a R value of
about 18, but in reality is closer to 9 because of thermal bridges
(studs), moisture, and air infiltration. The 10" log wall has a r value
of over 10, with no moisture or air infiltration problems. This is why I
said that when building a log home, you don't "worry" about what your r
value is. The added benefit is thermal mass, something the stud wall
won't give much of.
measure the U of a finished 10" log wall and compare it to the U of a 6"
stud wall (a bit more than 6" when inside and outside sheathing is
installed and finished), and you will see the log wall outperforms the
stud wall. Our 12" log wall does even better than the 10" we are discussing.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
"Nog" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> That's pretty fast rotting. You sure it ain't termites? Wood still burns
> when it turns brown or grey.
Red oak will start growing that fan shaped fungus on the bark within a few
months if you leave it out in the rain. After about 6 or 7 months you can
see the roots of the fungus 2 or 3" down in the wood. It will burn but it
burns to fast and doesn't give off a lot of heat.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
> "Ford Prefect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> snip-----
>
>>My new shop has 2x6 stud walls with vapour barrier, drywall, 12 inches
>>of insulation in the ceiling and double paned windows. I can heat it
>>with a 10,000 btu heater at minus 20 ;-) The only cold area is the
>>8" concrete slab floor.
>
>
> You screwed up! :-)
>
> Had you chosen hydronic heat, your slab would be warm, as well as your feet.
>
> Harold (who heats hydronically)
>
>
Couldn't afford a hydronic system at the time, might put in a radiant
heat system at some point, but it's super easy to heat as it is.
On 9/18/2005 3:29 PM [email protected] mumbled something
about the following:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Odinn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The R-Value of a log is misleading. An 8" log home will provide better
>>>characteristics of an R-12 stick home, with as much as 30% in savings in
>>>heating and cooling.
>>>
>>>http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>>
>>Thank you. I knew this existed, but forgot where it was.
>
>
> Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
> their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year :-)
>
Obviously you didn't read the link, since the link contains data from a
test done by the National Bureau of Standards for HUD comparing heating
and cooling costs between a log home and a standard stick frame.
No one is claiming that log homes don't require heating or cooling, only
that they are not energy inefficient as would be perceived by the R
value of wood. The one thing that an R value doesn't take into
consideration is humidity, which can cause fiberglass batting to lose up
to 50% of it's R value making an R-15 home an R-8 home in humid
climates, not to mention, that even if the batting is rated R-15, gaps
can and do occur, reducing the overall R-value of the wall in a stick wall.
If one is truly energy conscious, they wouldn't even consider stick
frame or log home, but SIPs or underground.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
On 9/17/2005 12:32 PM Ford Prefect mumbled something about the following:
>
>
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>
>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
>> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
>> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
>> baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>
>>
>
> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
> material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
> 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
> standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall (
> which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall of
> about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air leakage.
Where do you find an R-17 standard stud wall, and how do Canadians build
an R-25 wall? I think you have some numbers mixed up there.
The R-Value of a log is misleading. An 8" log home will provide better
characteristics of an R-12 stick home, with as much as 30% in savings in
heating and cooling.
http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
George Willer wrote:
> Yes, of course the U value and R values are reciprocal of each other... but
> it doesn't matter to a hard head like Steve Spence who doesn't understand
> either one. He's simply got his head up his butt and is unwilling to admit
> he doesn't understand heating requirements. He prefers, instead, to think
> others don't understand. It must be Hell to be delusional!
>
> George Willer
ah, but I do understand, very well. I was just answering the idiots who
think that log homes use a lot more fuel because they have no insulation.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Goedjn wrote:
>>>>My new shop has 2x6 stud walls with vapour barrier, drywall, 12 inches
>>>>of insulation in the ceiling and double paned windows. I can heat it
>>>>with a 10,000 btu heater at minus 20 ;-) The only cold area is the
>>>>8" concrete slab floor.
>>>
>>>
>>>You screwed up! :-)
>>>
>>>Had you chosen hydronic heat, your slab would be warm, as well as your feet.
>
>
> That's not how he screwed up, though.. He screwed up by not pouring
> that 8" slab over 4" of urethane foam.
I don't need Foam! I have all that thermal Mass ;~))))))
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:19:20 +1000, "123" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Logan Shaw <[email protected]> wrote
>> wmbjk wrote
>
>>> I'd summarize the situation like this - if someone *wants* a log
>>> home, and *if* they're willing to pay the premium for the thicker
>>> logs, then they can have a home that overall isn't much less
>>> well-insulated than the cheapest stick-frame spec home. But it will
>>> cost substantially more initially, and appreciably more to maintain.
>>> If they're off-grid and plan on limited heating or cooling, then
>>> they should do their homework to make sure the additional thermal
>>> mass won't be a liability in their climate.
>
>> Why would thermal mass be a liability?
>
>Most obviously when you dont like it to be warm when sleeping.
>
>That is why people sleep on roofs in hot weather, because the
>thermal mass makes it a lot cooler outside the house at night.
>
>> I could see that if there are times when you don't use the home, such as if
>> it's a vacation home or something. It would then take longer to bring the
>> interior temperature to a comfortable level. But other than that, there
>> doesn't seem to be any real reason thermal mass makes a big
>> difference in energy usage.
>
>Not energy useage so much as comfort. Tho if you want
>it to be cool while sleeping, its going to be difficult to cool
>to cool enough if there is a lot of thermal mass.
>
>There is a lot to be said for the alternative approach now,
>very low thermal mass, excellent insulation, so you can
>get the temperature you prefer without much energy usage.
>
>High thermal mass structures were more suitable in the
>days when there wasnt any easy way to cool. There is
>now. You are just pumping out the heat that leaks past
>the good insulation now.
>
my sister built a house a few years ago. it was adobe brick, sheathed
with foam insulation and heated via water tubes in the floor. the mass
of that house was huge. adobe isn't a great insulator, but the
sheathing took care of that. takes a while to warm up, but very stable
temps once it does.
keep the mass inside of the envelope.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> >of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> >quickly...
>
> Thermal mass is not a substitute for insulation, except in very temperate
> climates! When it's -40 outdoors (or anything less than 60 F), thermal mass
> is completely irrelevant in the sense that a house with no mass and a house
> with lots of mass will use exactly the same amount of fuel, if they have
> the same insulation.
In most houses, windows, air leaks and people (especially children)
coming and going dominate the heat loss from a residential building, not
the insulating value of the walls, so one can very easily see the same
oil bills despite differences in construction.
"Lou" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:L1_Ue.23473$hp.14976@lakeread08...
> > I have been using a fireplace insert for almost 25 years.. I am in
> Georgia
> > so it doesn't get as bad as many places but the house is an old hunting
> > lodge with little insulation. We have about 14 acres so when we loose
an
> > oak or pecan during the year I cut and split it and can get through the
> > winter on about a face cord and a half. My neighbor, in a new well
> > insulated house that is about the same size averages $180/month for gas.
> >
> > In the evening I load it up with 3 or 4 logs and bank it down. Keeps
the
> > house warm all night and only takes a quick stoking in the morning to
get
> it
> > going again.
> >
> > Besides, chopping wood is a heck of a lot more satisfying than jogging
to
> > keep the ol' ticker tuned up.
> >
> I was with you until that last sentence. I haven't heated with wood for
> some 15 years or so, but my recollection is that cutting wood isn't
> "aerobic" in the ticker-tuning sense. But then, I was using power tools -
> maybe cutting down and slicing a tree into usable lengths with a hand
> powered saw instead of a gas or electric chainsaw would qualify.
Well, if you're chopping wood with a chainsaw, you're doing it wrong. The
key word here is "chopping" as opposed to "cutting". Chopping implies an
axe and I assure you that using one for a length of time will get the heart
rate up.
todd
wmbjk wrote:
> What proportion of new log homes are 12" thick? The ones I've seen
> locally are more like 8". They were far from tight, and any stick home
> with foam insulation (under the siding or drywall) is likely to be
> tighter and better insulated. I don't see the attraction of logs
> anyway. Nostalgia for the Ponderosa perhaps. But then Ben and the boys
> didn't have surface-mounted conduit running all over the place. :-)
>
>
> Wayne
Most kits I've seen were 8" to 14". Ours was 12". Traditional looking
log homes using machined logs are very popular, and air tight.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:12:27 -0400, Steve Spence
<[email protected]> wrote:
>A 12" log is not affected by humidity, and with no air flow, it's
>resistance to heat transfer is more stable, and it's "R-factor" is more
>realworld. It's also close enough to the "perfect world" performance of
>a 6" fiberglass insulated wall that when building with log, you can
>ignore the R-Factor of the walls, and concentrate on ceilings and floors.
>
>for a reasoned comparison please read
>http://www.loghomes.org/uploads/The%20Energy%20Performance%20of%20Log%20Homes1.PDF
What proportion of new log homes are 12" thick? The ones I've seen
locally are more like 8". They were far from tight, and any stick home
with foam insulation (under the siding or drywall) is likely to be
tighter and better insulated. I don't see the attraction of logs
anyway. Nostalgia for the Ponderosa perhaps. But then Ben and the boys
didn't have surface-mounted conduit running all over the place. :-)
I think this article summarizes the situation fairly
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/ca8.html. Notice
they assign the thermal mass only a very limited advantage per inch,
and only for some climates. I know someone who wishes he'd read that
stuff before choosing a log home. His overnight outdoor temperatures
can be as high as the low 90s for up to 3 months per year. The AC
seemed to be countering that nicely, and he was still thrilled with
his choice of material... right up until the time he got he first
summer power bill. ;-) Considering the cost of the energy, some extra
insulation would be well advised. But it's kinda hard to add that to
logs. I bet he'll be setting the thermostat to a lot higher
temperature next summer.
Wayne
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>
>> Spray the wood pile with an insecticide.
>
> Do you want the fumes from burning insecticide in your home?
Do you EAT? Most fruits and vegetables have been sprayed with insecticide.
Over a short time it will dissipate.
In addition, the smoke goes out the chimney, not into the house.
[email protected] wrote:
> Thermal mass is not a substitute for insulation, except in very temperate
> climates! When it's -40 outdoors (or anything less than 60 F), thermal mass
> is completely irrelevant in the sense that a house with no mass and a house
> with lots of mass will use exactly the same amount of fuel, if they have
> the same insulation.
>
> Nick
>
Then explain why we are comfortable in a log home at -40, without large
fuel bills ......
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems. They
>>were drafty, and had poor heating systems. If those rock walls had been
>>warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the air leaks
>>sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter.
>
>
> As long as you keep the walls at 70 F, which isn't easy, with no insulation.
> That takes LOTS of fuel.
>
> Nick
>
No, it's doesn't take much more fuel. for a given square footage, our
fuel bills were not any higher, and sometimes lower than our neighbors.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
George Willer wrote:
>>R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
>>of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
>>quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient, and
>>if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall. Forget R
>>value when talking log.
>>--
>>Steve Spence
>
>
> Why forget about the loss? Because it upsets the misguided who think log
> homes are a good idea? By your reasoning a medieval castle wouldn't be
> difficult to heat because of the thermal mass. POPPYCOCK!
>
> Next thing you'll be touting earth sheltered homes!
>
> George Willer
>
>
>
R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important, but
unfortunately, the ASTM test for determining k-factor is biased towards
fiber based insulation, and against solids. solids are not affected by
moisture and air infiltration like rockwool and fiberglass batts.
Fiberglass is generally assigned an R-value of approximately 3.5. It
will only achieve that R-value if tested in an absolute zero wind and
zero moisture environment.
A 12" log is not affected by humidity, and with no air flow, it's
resistance to heat transfer is more stable, and it's "R-factor" is more
realworld. It's also close enough to the "perfect world" performance of
a 6" fiberglass insulated wall that when building with log, you can
ignore the R-Factor of the walls, and concentrate on ceilings and floors.
for a reasoned comparison please read
http://www.loghomes.org/uploads/The%20Energy%20Performance%20of%20Log%20Homes1.PDF
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
I have been using a fireplace insert for almost 25 years.. I am in Georgia
so it doesn't get as bad as many places but the house is an old hunting
lodge with little insulation. We have about 14 acres so when we loose an
oak or pecan during the year I cut and split it and can get through the
winter on about a face cord and a half. My neighbor, in a new well
insulated house that is about the same size averages $180/month for gas.
In the evening I load it up with 3 or 4 logs and bank it down. Keeps the
house warm all night and only takes a quick stoking in the morning to get it
going again.
Besides, chopping wood is a heck of a lot more satisfying than jogging to
keep the ol' ticker tuned up.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> TMT
>
Lacustral wrote:
> Burning wood for heat is very polluting, from what I've heard. The
> woodsmoke.
It can be, if you have older, non-epa, inefficient fireplaces and wood
stoves. Modern EPA certified stoves and EPA compliant stoves don't
smoke, and are very efficient and clean burning. Take a look at
http://www.green-trust.org/2005/08/clean-efficient-biomass-fueled-heat.html
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
George Willer wrote:
>>R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
>>of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
>>quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient, and
>>if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall. Forget R
>>value when talking log.
>>--
>>Steve Spence
>
>
> Why forget about the loss? Because it upsets the misguided who think log
> homes are a good idea? By your reasoning a medieval castle wouldn't be
> difficult to heat because of the thermal mass. POPPYCOCK!
>
> Next thing you'll be touting earth sheltered homes!
>
> George Willer
>
>
>
Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems. They
were drafty, and had poor heating systems. If those rock walls had been
warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the air leaks
sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter. Log homes are a good
idea. Lived in one for many years. Low heating bills, and very
comfortable. Not hard to heat at all.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
George Willer wrote:
> Then I'll admit to being wrong on that point... it was a fleeting memory
> anyway.
>
> Thank you for conceding that I was correct on the other, deleted points.
>
> George Willer
I'm not conceding you are right on any points. I will forgive your
ignorance, but not your arrogance.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important...
>>>>
>>>>...k = 1/r. Which one is "made up"? :-)
>>>>
>>>>Would that you learn more basic physics.
>>>
>>>r = k/1
>>>
>>>r is a calculated number from k, which is a measured number.
>>
>>
>> So which one is more important? :-)
>
> If you don't measure your K properly, your R (R is calculated from K, R is
> not a measured value) is going to be meaningless. R of fiberglass and
> rockwool is pretty much meaningless anyway, discount by 50% once you get
> it out of the lab (or your ASHRAE book). I'm more interested in the total
> U of the finished wall.
>
Actually, the poor performance of fiberglass and rockwool is not always this
bad. It suffers a lot in climates with below freezing temperatures, and
when the vapor barrier is compromised. But it can perform up to it's rating
in a lot of installations (just not upstate NY ;-)
daestrom
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>
>> You store your wood outside uncovered????
>
> Of course. I bring it in as needed, but a day or three in advance.
> Covering is nice to keep snow off of it, but does little or nothing to
> help it dry and may even hinder air circulation. Rain does not affect wood
> as much as people think.
Around here if you don't cover it rots. Especially the red oak. If you
split up a pile of red oak in the Spring when you are cleaning up the
woodlot and leave the stack exposed it will be useless by February when you
need it.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Logan Shaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lou wrote:
>> Maybe, maybe not. Thermal mass will make the interior temperature
>> fluctuate
>> out of phase with the exterior temperature, but that doesn't necessarily
>> mean the total interior fluctuation is reduced.
>
> If the exterior temperature is cyclical, then increased thermal mass
> will always decrease the fluctuation for the interior temperature.
> To be clear, when I say temperature fluctuation, I mean the difference
> between the lowest and highest temperature, not the time spent near the
> peak or anything complicated like that.
>
> The reason is fairly simple: heat transfer increases as temperature
> difference increases, and it decreases as temperature difference
> decreases. Thus, if the exterior temperature holds constant, the
> interior temperature asymptotically approaches the exterior temperature
> and technically never even reaches the same level as exterior temperature
> (although it may become so close that the difference is negligible).
>
> Now consider what happens if the exterior temperature fluctuates
> periodically and stays at a peak only for a limited time: the interior
> temperature is lagging behind and approaching that peak asymptotically,
> but since the peak only lasts a limited time, the interior temperature
> never "catches up", not even to the point where the difference becomes
> negligible. Thus, the interior temperature doesn't have peaks as high
> or valleys as low as the exterior temperature.
>
> So yes, there are phase effects, but the amplitude of the periodic
> function is also reduced. A home with a high thermal mass is a low-pass
> filter, just like the bass knob on a piece of audio equipment or like
> the part of the crossover that drives the woofer in a 2-way or 3-way
> speaker. And such filters do have phase effects, but they also reduce
> the amplitude of the signal, and the amplitude is reduced more as the
> input signal's frequency increases.
>
> So, having said all that, it seems like a home with a high thermal mass
> should offer a couple of benefits. If the weather is moderate so that
> it's a little too cool at night and a little too hot in the day, then
> in a house with low or negligible thermal mass, you might find that you
> want to run your heater at night and your air conditioning in the day
> because it's too cold at night and too hot in the day. I could easily
> imagine a situation like that in the desert, and in fact it's going to
> be similar to that here in Texas in a month or two, where the daytime
> temperature will be (only) 85-90F and it will be 60-65F at night. A
> home with a high thermal mass would even this all out and make it more
> comfortable around the clock. So that's the first benefit.
>
> The other benefit is that having longer cycle times on heaters and air
> conditioners is slightly more efficient. High thermal mass is going
> to equate to longer cycles because once the temperature is out of the
> comfortable range, it takes more work to bring it back into the range.
> So that should increase efficiency somewhat, although whether it's a
> significant amount is hard to tell since increasing cycle time doesn't
> result in dramatic energy savings and it's unclear how much it is
> going to increase cycle times anyway.
>
What you've said so far is true. But you don't address the use of
'set-back' thermostats where one deliberately lets the house cool for
several hours of the day/night. By reducing the temperature difference
between the house and outside, a set-back can save energy. But a house with
a high thermal capacitance will maintain the temperature difference longer,
thus losing more heat to the outside.
A house only modest thermal capacitance and a nice 15 degree set-back for
eight hours can save a lot of energy in 32F weather by reducing the delta
temperature inside from 72-32 = 40F deltaT to 57-32 = 25F deltaT. This can
reduce heat loss on the order of 37% for those eight hours. But a home with
high thermal capacitance might only cool 5 degrees in that time, so the
average deltaT would be 69.5-32 = 37.5F. Not as much savings.
So *IF* set-back thermostats are an integral part of your home heating plan,
one might want to reconsider the thermal capacitance issue.
daestrom
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to anything else
>>>better than a tent.
>>>
>>
>>You've never lived in one, so there's no point in discussing this with
>>you. You just don't know.
>
>
> I suggest you try harder to reconcile your experience with physics.
> Lots of people confuse thermal mass and insulation, some deliberately.
> Fewer people confuse capacitors and resistors :-)
>
> Nick
>
I'm not confused. I have 10" of fiberglass batt insulation in the
ceiling, 10" in the floor, and 12" thick log walls, insulated and sealed
between the logs with a foam strip and two beads of caulking on either
side of the T&G's. The logs are machined, and spiked tightly together.
there is no airflow coming through the logs at any point. It's easy to
keep warm, does not use an exorbitant amount of fuel for it's size
compared to modern stick builts, and the walls are not cold, ever.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
The trolls don't care for the facts or opinions, only your emotions, Steve.
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
George Willer wrote:
>>R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
>>of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
>>quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient, and
>>if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall. Forget R
>>value when talking log.
>>--
>>Steve Spence
>
>
> Why forget about the loss? Because it upsets the misguided who think log
> homes are a good idea? By your reasoning a medieval castle wouldn't be
> difficult to heat because of the thermal mass. POPPYCOCK!
>
> Next thing you'll be touting earth sheltered homes!
>
> George Willer
>
>
>
R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important, but
unfortunately, the ASTM test for determining k-factor is biased towards
fiber based insulation, and against solids. solids are not affected by
moisture and air infiltration like rockwool and fiberglass batts.
Fiberglass is generally assigned an R-value of approximately 3.5. It
will only achieve that R-value if tested in an absolute zero wind and
zero moisture environment.
A 12" log is not affected by humidity, and with no air flow, it's
resistance to heat transfer is more stable, and it's "R-factor" is more
realworld. It's also close enough to the "perfect world" performance of
a 6" fiberglass insulated wall that when building with log, you can
ignore the R-Factor of the walls, and concentrate on ceilings and floors.
for a reasoned comparison please read
http://www.loghomes.org/uploads/The%20Energy%20Performance%20of%20Log%20Homes1.PDF
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
[email protected] wrote:
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
>>"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
>>>supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
>>>considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>>>
>>>Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
>>>thought I would ask for your advice.
>>>
>>>I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
>>>and suggestions for installation.
>>
>>
>>1st thing--- unless you're cutting your own wood on your own land, and
>>already have a chainsaw & truck. . . forget about wood. It costs
>>more than propane or fuel oil.
>>
>
>
> Not necessarily. A neighbor does a pretty good job scrounging
> firewood. A couple of years ago he wanted to give me a truckload
> of Chinese elm because it was too hard to split, unlike the black
> walnut he had just finished splitting into firewood befor I
> stopped by. I passed.
>
> The City gives away unsplit wood as do some local
> tree service companies. If trees are abundant in your area
> a little scouting will probably turn up some sources. There is
> no shortage of greenwood locally for bowl turners. Since the
> City mostly takes down dead and diseased some of it is spalted,
>
I usually just go out in the woods in late summer and early fall and
identify trees that have fallen over the last year. I then cut off any
small branches where the tree sits, and then pull in the large logs (up
to around 25 feet in length) with the tractor using a chain. I pull the
large logs to a staging area not too close to the house and then cut the
big logs into stove and fireplace-sized logs. I then load these logs
onto a wagon and drop them in a place for later splitting and stacking.
Rob
"Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Nog wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
>> > supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
>> > considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>> >
>> > Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
>> > thought I would ask for your advice.
>> >
>> > I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
>> > and suggestions for installation.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> >
>> > TMT
>> It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of wood
>> costs $200 a cord and up. Some people collect pallets, saw them up stove
>> size. They heat nice since many are hardwood. You just have lots of nails
>> and staples in your ash bin. If you have your own wood lot, a pickup, a
>> chain say and a wood splitter you're in business. a nice table saw for
>> cord
>> wood is nice too to saw up those 4 foot logs into stove size. A large
>> splitter will let you split 4 ft logs, then saw them up stove length.
>> Small
>> splitters only allow splitting stove length. Have a chain sharpening kit
>> and
>> plan on sharpening the saw chain often. There is lots of dirt in bark,
>> especially if you drag your logs to the cutting area. And remember, a
>> chain
>> saw cuts meat real fast so know what you are doing and take your time.
>>
>> Fuel oil has about 139,000 btu's per gallon.
>> Wood will average 20,000,000 btu's per cord or about equal to 143 gallons
>> of
>> oil. So if you burned 1000 gallons of oil last year you'll need about 7
>> cord of wood to replace it.
>> If a cord of wood is 225 a cord the heating season will cost about $1500.
>> A
>> 1000 gallons of fuel oil at $2.99 a gallon will cost $2990.
>> If your wood is free, the only cost is chainsaw gas, wood splitter gas
>> and
>> maintenance on all wood preparation equipment and time involved cutting,
>> splitting, hauling and stacking plus feeding the wood stove and cleaning
>> the
>> stove, emptying ashes and cleaning the chimney once a year to prevent
>> chimney fires. Wood is filthy, brings in bugs and things into the house,
>> coats the chimney with soot and goes cold when not attended to. But if
>> you
>> were raised in a home with wood heat there is nothing like it and nothing
>> better.
>
> Not a bad post but there are some corrections needed.
>
> 1. All wood has approximately the same btu PER POUND. The BTU per
> cord varies enormously depending on the type of wood.
That's why I gave the average. It varies from 12 million to 35 million btu's
per cord depending on the type. The harder and more dense the wood the more
btu's.
> 2. Wood splitter. Not needed. I do 8-10 cord year and up to a month
> ago split it all by hand for the exercise. I am now retired so have the
> time but I was doing it manually for several years prior to retiring
> from a full time job. My hydraulic splitter had been parked for many
> years and used only occasionally to split a few knotty chunks. I had
> to start using it again as my work area was beaten down into powder
> dust and got too dirty to continue manual splitting.
>
> Harry K
You are right. I have split many a cord with an axe but people are lazy
today. Wood splitters ARE good for twisty grains and knots which are a pain
in the butt with an axe.
Christina Peterson wrote:
>"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Christina Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Depends on the logs and the construction. Our logs are pretty sizable,
>>>18" butts. And the logs are scribed. That is, the top of the log is
>>>round, and before putting the next log on it, the bottom of it is given a
>>>concave surface, so the logs nest on top of each other like this --
>>>CCCCC (but vertical), with insulation between them.
>>>
>>>There used to be some oakum chinking. I don't have and wouldn't want
>>>PermaChink. I've seen too many houses where it has cracked open. And it
>>>just looks too plastic to look good with the natural logs.
>>>
>>>Tina
>>>
>>>
>>we use 12" machined logs, double tongue and groove, two beads of caulking
>>and a foam strip. You can get the real scoop from hundreds of folks living
>>in log homes at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Logically, or maybe intuitively or both, chinked scribed logs will be
>tighter than tongue and groove. Greater area of overlap. Because of
>settling, shifting because of permafrost, and checking, I much prefer round
>logs. I've seen the same kinds of changes in machined logs or 3 sided logs.
>When rounds are not straight, they still look and act good. Not as true
>with flattened logs.
>
>The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
>temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
>thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass. And
>yes, it works. The house isn't very large, about 1K sq ft, but 600 gal is
>plenty to heat our place for a year, without any supplemental heat, and
>keeping it very warm in winter. That's here in interior Alaska, where we
>have some -40 weather every year, and mostly -15 to -25 for at least 4
>months.
>
>Don't worry, I know the real scoop about living in log homes! They are very
>warm, consistent in temperature. In a power outage (before installing the
>wood stove), the house retains its heat 3 or 4 times as long as my friends'
>homes. The logs radiate warmth in the winter and cool in the summer.
>
>Tina
>
>
>
>
And...in every one I've stayed in they seem VERY quiet. Just don't seem
to be hard echoes like standard construction. Yea, it has nothing to do
with heat loss but in reality, the question is livability not whether it
costs a nickle more to heat when calculated by the book.
Koz (who thinks people are debate engineering numbers too much and
forgetting that it's about the "feel", not just the BTUs lost. If we
all built based on the book numbers, we'd live in foam igloos)
George wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of
>>> a material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is
>>> about 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to
>>> equal a standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch
>>> stud wall ( which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a
>>> log wall of about 18", and that's not even taking into account things
>>> like air leakage.
>>
>>
>>
>> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes
>> because of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change
>> temperature that quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to
>> 12" is sufficient, and if properly constructed, there is no air flow
>> through the wall. Forget R value when talking log.
>>
>
> The effect you describe only means something when considering fast
> temperature swings such as a hot afternoon on an otherwise cool day. It
> doesn't mean much (other than sounding neat in the loghome brochures)
> when you have a constant temperature differential such as in the winter
> in northern climates.
>
Appearently you've never lived in a modern log home.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> TMT
Some areas have restrictions on fireplace burning. Would seem a shame to go
to all that work and have a high precentage of days that it could not be
used.
Christina Peterson wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote...
>
>>Christina Peterson <[email protected]> :
>>
>>
>>>The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
>>>temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
>>>thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass.
>>
>>To me, a heat sink is a gadget with fins that clips onto an IC or some
>>other power electronic device to dissipate heat with no heat storage,
>>vs thermal mass, which stores heat with no dissipation. A car radiator
>>is a heat sink, altho it also stores some heat in the coolant.
>
> Thanks for this correction.
Though Nick's definition is commonly used, it is not technically
correct.
...My wife says I am a compulsive nit picker.
In physics there are sinks and sources of energy, and many things
are relative, depending on point of view.
A heat source emits heat and a heat sink absorbs heat.
A mass, including a thermal mass, is a sink when it absorbs heat
and a source when it is emits heat. Moreover, it is possible for
one point on a mass to be a heat source and another point to be a
heat sink. For example, typically a gadget with fins that clips
onto an IC is a heat sink relative to the IC and a heat source
relative to the air. It is also possible for a single point to
alternate between being a sink and source.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no pure heat sink that is
always a heat sink, nor a heat source that is always a heat source.
Thanks for staying awake :)
--
Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do,
we say he is a crank, and that settles it.
I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him." (Mark Twain)
[email protected] wrote:
> Christina Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
>>temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
>>thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass.
<snip>
> The ASHRAE HOF says Hem Fir has 0.74-0.9 Btu-in/h-F-ft^2, ie about R1.2
> per inch, and
<snip>
A 12" thick Hem Fir log wall with R1.2 per inch, has a total of
R14.4 insulation--about that of 2x4 stick wall with fiberglass
insulation.
--
Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do,
we say he is a crank, and that settles it.
I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him." (Mark Twain)
28 kWh per day with 1600W solar for about two months this year. Hot year.
Our NG is the cheapest here. Locally owned and run distribution.
I have a high efficiency pulse furnace and proper insultaion from current
building specs.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Sounds like a lot of fuel to cut, haul, split, stack and burn wood for
> heat
> > very often.
> >
> > My heating bill for NG runs about $4-500 dollars per year for 2400 sq
ft.
> > plus 1200 basement.
>
> If you can heat your house for $400-$500 per year then I'd hate to see
your
> electric bill for your air conditioning.
>
> >
> > This is not to mention all the cleaning products needed to clean soot
and
> > smoke backup smells from my home either or the chiropractic bills as I
get
> > older...LOL
> >
> > Beauty? yes. Money saving? No.
>
> Beauty? Yes. Money saving? Hell yes, up here in the Northeast.
>
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:N6pVe.25157$hp.21057@lakeread08...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You store your wood outside uncovered????
>>
>> Of course. I bring it in as needed, but a day or three in advance.
>> Covering is nice to keep snow off of it, but does little or nothing to
>> help it dry and may even hinder air circulation. Rain does not affect
>> wood as much as people think.
>
> Around here if you don't cover it rots. Especially the red oak. If you
> split up a pile of red oak in the Spring when you are cleaning up the
> woodlot and leave the stack exposed it will be useless by February when
> you need it.
That's pretty fast rotting. You sure it ain't termites? Wood still burns
when it turns brown or grey.
> Glenn Ashmore
>
> I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
> there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
> Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
>
>
Steve Spence wrote:
> Steve Smith wrote:
>
>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
>> than the logs provide.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a log
> home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling and
> floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
> baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>
>
But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall (
which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall of
about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air leakage.
Logan Shaw wrote:
> So, no, he didn't misunderstand what he was reading. What happened is
> that you misunderstood what you were writing, and you got it wrong, and
> you are no claiming that you didn't say what you clearly said.
>
> - Logan
Nope, that's not it at all. What I said was R Value is not all that
important when talking about log. The thickness of the log is
sufficient. The thermal mass makes it comfortable because it level out
the temperature swings, giving an even temperature. The original claims
were that log homes waste energy and are uncomfortable due to their
"poor" r value. Those claims were incorrect for a variety of reasons
which I have explained quite clearly. As more and more misinformation
was posted, I backed up my statements with more details.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Rod Speed wrote:
> Christina Peterson <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>Why would there be a lot of heat loss?
>
> Because the R value of the walls is quite ordinary.
>
>>The vulnerable places are the roof and where the roof meets the walls.
>
> Thats just ONE place that heat is lost.
>
>>Where the roof lies on the walls the logs are flattened and the flat roof is
>>placed on top of them. That's the only place where the structure doesn't
>>overlap deeply.
>
> Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
>
>>The only place where the structure is the same as on a lumber house too.
>
> Irrelevant to the ordinary R value of the walls.
R value of walls is important, but not everything. Other factors
that determine overall heat loss for a house, include its size,
shape, window area, window R values, air leaks, ceiling and floor
insulation.
Arguing that Christina's log house really looses more heat than her
neighbors is pointless unless you know all the facts about all the
houses in her neighborhood.
Take her word for it, her house uses about the same amount of
energy as her neighbors. Higher R values in the walls will reduce
heat loss--no one disagrees and it is true of all houses.
<snip>
--
Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do,
we say he is a crank, and that settles it.
I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him." (Mark Twain)
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Certainly I'm caustic, but far from ignorant.
>
Actually, DOE and NREL have done some studies that show *if* the vapor
barrier is compromised, in really cold climates moisture leaking out with
the air will develop a 'frost line' inside the fibreglass insulation. This
effectively reduces the 'working thickness' of the fiberglass.
Of course, the obvious solution is to make sure the vapor barrier isn't
compromised. The traditional paper facing material that is still used often
will not help if the outside temperature is consistently below freezing as
vapor will eventually work through the paper. But PE sheeting, with good
taping at the seams appears to be a reliable method of sealing.
Loose fill fiberglass can have some problems if it is too loose. Thermal
currents within the gaps in the fill can be a problem. But that's a
different story.
daestrom
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> rec.crafts.metalworking removed from distribution as this is off-topic
> there.
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >> Huh? Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
>>
>> It seems more accurate to say thermal diffusivity (1/RC) depends on
>> R-value,
>
> Not if the other poster, who wrote that R = t/k, where t is thickness
> and k is thermal conductivity, is correct.
>
> If so, R-value is independant of the specific heat, therefor there
> is no direct correspndence between thermal diffusivity and R-value.
> Two materials with the same thickness nd same R-value can have
> different thermal diffusivities.
>
This is right on target. The 'k' is thermal conductivity of a material, not
thermal diffusivity.
>>
>> >R- value isn't all that useful for comparison.
>>
>> Wrong. Open your brain a bit, Steve :-) Even George Ghio admits mistakes.
>> Your stubbornness is giving you and alternative energy a bad reputation.
>
> I think he's right. You really should be comparing thermal
> diffussivities.
>
If you are modeling the steady-state behavior of a wall, the thermal
diffusivity is irrelevant. A higher thermal diffusivity merely means the
wall structure reaches equilibrium temperature distribution sooner when a
new inside/outside temperature are applied.
In a passive solar system, the diffusivity of building structure can be
important for 'evening out' the diurnal temperature swings. But that gets
into the whole discussion about the use of large thermal capacitance and
whether it can be used to save energy.
daestrom
Steve Spence wrote:
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
>> material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
>> 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
>> standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall
>> ( which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall
>> of about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air
>> leakage.
> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient,
> and if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall.
> Forget R value when talking log.
I could, but in order to get a computer science degree, I had to take a
few physics and math classes (and I chose to take a couple of chemistry
classes), so I know that thermal mass never makes heat loss irrelevant.
Saying that heat loss is unimportant and that thermal mass is irrelevant
is the same kind of fallacy as believing that because your car is heavy,
it doesn't matter that it's not aerodynamic. The fact is, when you're
cruising down the highway, the aerodynamic drag takes a certain amount
of energy away from your car each second. It's true that if two cars are
identical except for weight, then the heavier car will slow down less
easily due to aerodynamic drag than the lighter one. But once the heavier
car has slowed to a certain speed, it takes more energy to get it back up
to speed than a lighter car would take, so where is the savings? The fact
is, if you have 100 newtons of aerodynamic drag, it doesn't matter whether
your car's mass is 1 kg or 1,000 kg or 1,000,000 kg -- you still to exert
100 newtons of force to offset that drag and maintain your speed.
It's the same way with heat and heat loss. If you are losing heat at a
rate of 500 watts, then you need 500 watts of heat generation to offset
that, or your temperature will drop. Yes, in house with high thermal
mass, your temperature will drop more slowly if you don't match the
heat loss with heat generation. But you also have to put more energy
into raising the temperature once it gets too low than you would in a
house with lower thermal mass, so the positive and negative effects of
high thermal mass cancel each other out.
- Logan
[email protected] wrote in news:dg3vs1
[email protected]:
> George <George@least> wrote:
>
>>"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I don't know about the present models, but 20 years ago a good stove
was
>>> only about 65% efficient...
>>
>>"Efficiency" is a matter of how long you can keep the warmed air in the
>>space to be heated.
>
> You are talking about something different. We might say that a heater's
> efficiency is the ratio of the amount of heat released to the house to
> the total amount of heat released when the fuel is completely burned and
> the combustion products are cooled to room temperature.
>
> Nick
>
>
"Combustion efficiency: (actual heat produced by combustion) divided by
(total heat potential of the fuel consumed)"
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/faqs/glossary.html
This is a very good resource about bioenergy.
[email protected] wrote in news:dg4g4s$qr7
@acadia.ece.villanova.edu:
> Sheldon Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> ...We might say that a heater's efficiency is the ratio of the amount
>>> of heat released to the house to the total amount of heat released
>>> when the fuel is completely burned and the combustion products are
>>> cooled to room temperature.
>>"Combustion efficiency: (actual heat produced by combustion) divided by
>>(total heat potential of the fuel consumed)"
> That doesn't count how much heat goes up the chimney, vs into the house.
That's correct. Combustion effiency is step one to consider, then comes
the efficiency of the heat exchange system (furnace/stove/what-have-you.)
To get the whole picture that whoever it was who wrote the top paragraph
then there's the thermal loss (another form of efficiency though it usually
isn't called that) of the house itself.
The 80% of 80% of 80% starts to yield a pretty small number when all the
losses are considered. Someone else has written about how many BTU's a
cord of wood has, but that doesn't begin to address the compounding
effects of all the losses due to efficiency less than 100%.
A recuperative (condensing) gas furnace has an efficiency ranging in the
low 90% range and if kept clean maintains that efficiency over long
periods (years.) Wood burning and coal burning equipment efficiency
drops, in most cases, quite fast. Comparing prices further requires
the costs (that wood doesn't get itself into the burner free, nor
do the ashes get themselves out of the basement free....) of handling
all winter long where gas can be automated requiring no attention
over the heating season.
Total costs end up being quite a lot higher than the raw costs for the
wood, although I am certain most folks only consider raw fuel prices
when they calculate their heating costs. If it works for them, fine.
For me, with my really bad back, propane is the only reasonable option.
"Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> There are very few absolutes in this world.
Realistically, none, in the universe.
"Logan Shaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Spence wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important...
>
>>> ...k = 1/r. Which one is "made up"? :-)
>>>
>>> Would that you learn more basic physics.
>
>> r = k/1
>>
>> r is a calculated number from k, which is a measured number.
>>
>> no problem with my physics.
>
> First of all, you have an obvious error in your algebra. Since I'm
> feeling generous today, I won't point out what it is, thus leaving
> you the opportunity to post a corrected formula and thereby demonstrate
> that you are competent at high school level algebra although your post
> makes it look like you are not.
>
<snip>
One of the main reasons for 'making up' the R value is to ease the
calculations when combining different materials into an overall heat
transfer calculation. Certainly many texts will yield the thermal
conductivity of various materials, in units of Wm/K.
When combining several layers of different materials, it is necessary to
calculate the conductance of each material layer by multiplying by area and
dividing by thickness. Then the reciprical of each layers conductance is
needed so they may be combined (since the heat transfers through them in
series). If each layer's R-value is known instead, they may be added
directly to arrive at the 'total R-value' of the combination quite easily.
But alas, for parallel flow paths, such as the studs in a wall combined with
the fiberglass batts between the studs, the R-values are not so easily
combined. In such cases, it can be easier to use the relative flow areas
and thermal conductivities.
So neither expression of a material's thermal properties is universally
easier to work with.
daestrom
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I wash my fruits and veggies before I eat them on the rare occasion I buy
> them from the store. You must have an airtight stove ......
I do have an airtight. Residual insecticide is washed off in the rain long
before the wood is brought into the house. Bugs stay outside rather than in
the furniture.
Steve Spence wrote:
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>> Steve Spence wrote:
>>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>>>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>>
>>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
>>> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
>>> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
>>> baseboard heat.
>>
>> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
>> material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
>> 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
>> standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall
>> ( which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall
>> of about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air
>> leakage.
>
> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient,
> and if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall.
> Forget R value when talking log.
I would think that 12" walls are not uncommon in a log home. Therefore a
log home would have the same R value as a standard stud wall. I would
also imagine that traditional style log homes are built in areas that
have a lot of wood so heating with wood would not be very costly. What
would it matter if the walls are only R16 if your fuel is very cheap?
The "flywheel" effect of having so much thermal mass would also mean
that you could burn a load of wood and the heat wouldn't immediately
cook you and it would remain comfortable for several hours after the
fire.
Anthony
Come here with a big truck and pick-up a lifetime's supply of free
kiln-dried hardwood.
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> TMT
>
check out www.hydrofire.com it's a great way to go. all the wood and
ash etc. is outside and away form the house. i heat my house, shop dry
kiln ad domestic hot water with mine. here in minnesota gets real nasty
cold but the hydofire takes care of it all, i use between 12 & 14 cord a
winter using junk wood bass or aspen during the early and late season
save the maple and oak for the harsh cold, also makes no diff if the
wood is totally dry infact some kinds do better length of burn time if a
little green. with good hardwood i will get 18 hours of burn time with a
full charge of green hard maple.
ross
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
My dad heated his home with wood, and I've heated mine with wood for the
last 30 years. Be aware that cutting your own firewood is a bit of hard
work. Myself, I've gotten lazy sence the kid left home. I buy logger cords
of oak delivered - 10 to 15 foot lengths of 1' to 3' diameter logs.
Available from most any landscaper.
A bunch of people burnt their house down in the '70s during the last "burn
wood" fad. The secret is to only use dry wood and a hot fire. The insurance
companies have jumped on this problem and made it tuff to install wood
burners in many areas.
If you're wanting to build your own unit, go look at all the stores and copy
the nicest one you see. They are just a steel box with provision for ash
removal and a plenum around them.
Outside wood boilers are another nice alternative - keep the mess outside.
Burn old pallets etc. A freind burns tires after dark.
Myself, I love my outside air source fireplace. Heats the whole home and I
love sitting by the fire after freezing my ass off outside all day
(Minnesota).
Once you kind of narrow down what you'd like to do, ask again.
I'm looking into corn stoves. You can buy corn cheaper than firewood and way
less work too.
Karl
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:41:11 -0400, Steve Spence
<[email protected]> wrote:
>,;Nog wrote:
>,;
>,;> It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of wood
>,;> costs $200 a cord and up.
>,;>
>,;
>,;Fortunately for the Northeast, wood is more like $36 / face cord, or
>,;about $100 for a full cord. 18" slabwood is $5 a pickup truck load at
>,;the local Amish sawmill.
Here in the northern Minnesota I pay $53 for a full cord. No one who
is serious about heating with wood buys "face cords". I get eight foot
logs which I block and split. Eight to ten cords per winter.
Nog wrote:
> You are right. I have split many a cord with an axe but people are lazy
> today. Wood splitters ARE good for twisty grains and knots which are a pain
> in the butt with an axe.
>
>
I can't imagine splitting with a wood splitter or an axe. My trusty maul
does a fine job, and keeps me in shape ...
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Nog wrote:
> It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of wood
> costs $200 a cord and up.
>
Fortunately for the Northeast, wood is more like $36 / face cord, or
about $100 for a full cord. 18" slabwood is $5 a pickup truck load at
the local Amish sawmill.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Lou wrote:
> "Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:L1_Ue.23473$hp.14976@lakeread08...
>
>>I have been using a fireplace insert for almost 25 years.. I am in
>
> Georgia
>
>>so it doesn't get as bad as many places but the house is an old hunting
>>lodge with little insulation. We have about 14 acres so when we loose an
>>oak or pecan during the year I cut and split it and can get through the
>>winter on about a face cord and a half. My neighbor, in a new well
>>insulated house that is about the same size averages $180/month for gas.
>>
>>In the evening I load it up with 3 or 4 logs and bank it down. Keeps the
>>house warm all night and only takes a quick stoking in the morning to get
>
> it
>
>>going again.
>>
>>Besides, chopping wood is a heck of a lot more satisfying than jogging to
>>keep the ol' ticker tuned up.
>>
>
> I was with you until that last sentence. I haven't heated with wood for
> some 15 years or so, but my recollection is that cutting wood isn't
> "aerobic" in the ticker-tuning sense. But then, I was using power tools -
> maybe cutting down and slicing a tree into usable lengths with a hand
> powered saw instead of a gas or electric chainsaw would qualify.
>
>
We have a "Tile Fire" in the lounge and it heats the whole house. Shut
down the damper when we go to bed, open it again in the morning, stir
the coals with a poker and chuck on some logs and away she goes.
We'd go through about 2 - 3 ton of wood in a winter.
Bugger splitting logs, I cut trunks about 6" to 8" diameter between 12
and 18" long with the chain saw. Just chuck them in. Mind you it's not
easy to find larger stuff where we live. The timber is rock hard, burns
slow and with a fierce heat.
Must have forgot how to read today. George - I thought you had replied to
my message and was astounded by such a response. I apologize for my error.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > That's a silly argument. Who knows how you replace the heat lost
through
> > your walls without seeing your situation? Maybe you burn buffalo dung?
> The
> > fact remains, if you don't replace the heat escaping through your walls,
> the
> > interior will cool off. The more that escapes, the more you must
replace
> to
> > be comfortable. That should be (but it won't be) the end of the story.
> >
>
> It's not silly at all. It only makes no sense to someone like you who is
> predisposed to make an erroneous statement, and then backtracks with
> absurdities in vain attempt to save face.
>
> Because you seem to lack even basic deductive skills, I'll give you a
little
> more info. Four homes within 1/8 of a mile of each other. Two of those
> within a literal stone's throw of my home which is a log home - 23 years
> old. The three neighboring homes are less than 10 years old and all are
6"
> stick built. We all burn fuel oil. We use almost exactly the same amount
> of fuel each year in upstate NY where the winters get cold. None of us do
> anything more extreme than turning our thermostats to the comfort zone.
>
> Now - go out on another limb and stretch yourself thin as you try to trip
me
> up. Face it - you're full of bull and you've been called on this one.
I'm
> not saying my log home is any more efficient than their stick builts, but
it
> sure isn't any less.
>
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to anything else
> better than a tent.
>
>
Then you'd have to explain to me why my heating bills are no bigger than my
neighbors with 6" insulated stick built homes.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"George Willer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Who knows? Maybe one of you is lying? Maybe they have shoddy
construction?
> Maybe your comfort level is lower? Here's a flash for you... trade homes
> with them and you could lower your expenses even further.
George - you really need to try less hard to prove(?) a point that you just
can't prove. As you said - "who knows?". Maybe we don't suffer any of
those possibilities. Maybe you're just wrong. We're a pretty good test of
insulation and comfort here in Central NY as our winters are pretty cold.
Here's a flash for you - I've owned a stick built home and I know the
comparison.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
>supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
>considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
>Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
>thought I would ask for your advice.
>
>I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
>and suggestions for installation.
1st thing--- unless you're cutting your own wood on your own land, and
already have a chainsaw & truck. . . forget about wood. It costs
more than propane or fuel oil.
Jim
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:10:56 -0800, "Christina Peterson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>My husband is doing a small log job. Nice Aspen. We also are interested in
>putting up a structure on an adjoining lot. So Pete was looking for a book
>he used to have, Short Log and Timber Building, by James Mitchell. It's
>out of print so we got the new book by Mitchell, The Craft of Modular Post
>and Beam.
>
>Our house is log. Two big benefits. The logs store a lot of temp (heat in
>winter, cool in summer). Also, log houses are alive; always adapting and
>adaptable. Living on ice lens (frozen water vs frozen dirt/muck in
>Permafrost) at a time of global warming, the structural flexibility is an
>asset.
>
>Since we have the (free) logs, and the lot, milling seems like a good idea.
>My husband has worked with trees all his life, though an injury and age are
>slowing him down. We're looking at the mill, as a way to help build the
>house, a source of lumber for bolted furniture to sell, and as a possible
>asset we can possibly lease out.
>
>Here in Interior Alaska, we don't have to worry about monster trees.
>
>Thanks for all the information. I am, of course, passing it on the Pete.
>He's currently looking at the Wood Miser LT15 series.
>
>By the way, it sounds like your Logosol is light enough that the shipping
>wouldn't be prohibitive, too.
>
>Tina
Dont forget a planer either....
http://cgi.ebay.com/Like-new-Powermatic-wood-planer_W0QQitemZ7546719127QQcategoryZ57121QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Or similar.
Gunner
>
>
>
>
>"Archangel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Christina Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>How does the M7 mill compare to the Wood Miser, and Lucas? Do you use it
>>>with a band saw?
>>>
>>
>> I'm currently using mine in the "classic" configuration with a Stihl 066
>> gas chainsaw and ripping chain. Once I've got our house built I intend to
>> look into adding the electric bandsaw to it.
>>
>> I've never used the Lucas but it always struck me as having the all the
>> limitations of the Wood Mizer and all the limitations of the Logosol M7
>> rolled up in a really cool design that lets you do specialty cuts. I'd
>> love
>> to play with one.
>>
>> The Logosol M7 wins hands down for portability, I can pick up the fully
>> assembled M7, walk into the woods, plop in on that monster tree*, attach
>> the saw and go. *If the tree is to big to load on the mill, the mill can
>> be
>> inverted onto the tree. It's also better at handling small diameter
>> logs.
>> It beats Lucas and the Wood Mizers in, ease of use, width and depth
>> of cut. The cut is smoother than the Lucas and nearly as smooth as the
>> cheaper Wood Mizers (probably smoother with the bandsaw head).
>> The M7 has a great log bed design so you can get just the right board
>> or maximize your BF output.
>> It also costs about half what the "cheaper" Wood Mizers and Lucases do.
>>
>> The down side is cut speed and kerf loss; the electric chainsaws cut
>> about twice as fast as my 066, about 15Hp. Lucas speeds, but slower than
>> a 15Hp bandsaw.
>> At 1/4" the kerf loss is as bad as it gets, it's zero when I square
>> timbers
>> for framing (my primary focus), but I've also been milling my own 1/2"
>> siding and standing ankle deep in the boards I'm losing. I've found
>> many creative uses for saw dust thanks to my mill ;-)
>> The new electric bandsaw will eliminate that (and give it a speed boost),
>> it's so new (in the US) they haven't posted the price on it yet.
>>
>> With the M7 it's a little more important to look at what log length
>> you'll
>> be cutting before you buy. Logs under 7' are inconvenient on the standard
>> 16' mill. If I had to replace my mill I'd probably buy the little wood
>> workers
>> model and add a half mill to get back to my current length.
>> This is a combination that is still below the cost of the Lucas and Wood
>> Mizer,
>> in fact adding the bandsaw should bring the total investment up to the
>> price
>> of the base model 12' Wood Mizer and you'ld have a far superior mill.
>>
>> I really like Wood Mizers and if money wasn't a factor I'd own one,
>> unfortunately
>> money is a factor and the Wood Mizer that gives me what I want is pushing
>> $30K.
>> If you want to crank out dimensional lumber the Wood Mizer is the way to
>> go.
>> Everyone I've talked has a little different experience, but the general
>> concensus is
>> that you need at least 24Hp before you can quickly turn out perfect boards
>> and
>> timbers on every species of wood, but even the little 12' hand pushed guy
>> can
>> cut
>> very smooth boards given a sharp blade the right touch.
>>
>> --
>> Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some...
>>
>> Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages:
>> http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/
>>
>> remove the REM... (sleep is over rated)
>>
>>
>
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> 1st thing--- unless you're cutting your own wood on your own land, and
> already have a chainsaw & truck. . . forget about wood. It costs
> more than propane or fuel oil.
>
> Jim
Now that's not a very solid statement to make. It may be true in you
community, but is most definitely false in many others. Wood happens to
be cheaper than fuel oil, propane, and electric in many parts of the
country.
at over 24 million BTU per cord, often less than $100, that compares
favoribly with fuel oil at 140k BTU / gallon. $100 of fuel oil at $2 /
gallon buys you 7 million btu. Where you going to find fuel oil at $2 /
gallon?
1 gallon of propane contains 91k BTU. At $2 / gallon, that $100 buys you
4.5 million btu. Even less of a bargain.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
George <George@least> wrote:
>"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I don't know about the present models, but 20 years ago a good stove was
>> only about 65% efficient...
>
>"Efficiency" is a matter of how long you can keep the warmed air in the
>space to be heated.
You are talking about something different. We might say that a heater's
efficiency is the ratio of the amount of heat released to the house to
the total amount of heat released when the fuel is completely burned and
the combustion products are cooled to room temperature.
Nick
Sheldon Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...We might say that a heater's efficiency is the ratio of the amount
>> of heat released to the house to the total amount of heat released
>> when the fuel is completely burned and the combustion products are
>> cooled to room temperature.
>
>"Combustion efficiency: (actual heat produced by combustion) divided by
>(total heat potential of the fuel consumed)"
That doesn't count how much heat goes up the chimney, vs into the house.
Nick
By having your outdoor fire below your floor level, you can use the hot
water rising to circulate the hot water even without power, and you can use
an outside water tank to soak up any extra heat once the floor is at a high
enough temperature by simply adding a couple of taps to the pipes. This will
give a reserve of hot water that could be pumped later when the fire is out.
If the top of the water tank is fitted with a riser pipe or pressure relief
valve, you can't get to much pressure in the system. Depends on what water
pressure you want to feed your system with. If it is just topped up to a
level, you can use a simple outlet at the top of the system to relieve
pressure, maybe that is an ideal place for a float valve to auto-top-up.
Even just a run of stainless pipe through a fireplace would get warm, a
number of runs through could extract quite a bit of heat. I'm planning on
using a 5 gallon (UK) beer keg as a low pressure boiler in my next project
and a large drill and a 3/4 inch BSP tap to add an off the shelf, waterpipe
fitting to the keg will allow me to use it..... (I'm in Australia, therefore
the strange measurements! ;<)
I currently use hot water circulation to run my water heating from both wood
stove and 200 meters of 2" poly pipe out in the paddock below the house to
give me solar heating and it also has an electric boost for those days when
I want more hot water. To add in my floor heating will be a simple pump and
thermostat to push the water down the 5 feet from the tank level to floor
level.
Hope this helps,
Peter
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve. I am thinking of partial hydronic heat for another house I want to
> build.
>
> Have you seen plans for an outdoor fireplace or fire pit with heat
exchange
> tubing around it for hot water extraction? I figure if I can have "camp
> fires" I may as well extract some basement floor heat or heat my
reservoir.
> There must be some saftey issues around this also with boiling water ans
> steam if the system pump shuts down.
>
> I thought you would be the one to ask on this but other welcomed too.
>
> TIA
>
> "Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Haven't kept up with the technology but twenty years ago they were
> > > putting catalytic converters on wood stoves, similar to those
> > > on motor vehicles. In addition to cleaning the smoke they
> > > also extacted a more heat by completing the combustion of
> > > the unburned material in the smoke.
> >
> > Today's tricks employ secondary combustion chambers.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Spence
> > Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> > Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> > http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
>
>
>
Solar Flare <[email protected]> wrote:
>28 kWh per day with 1600W solar for about two months this year...
Do you mean your 1600 nameplate watts of solar panels delivered
28 kWh per day of energy, under 28kWh/1600W = 17.5 hours of sun?
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
>of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
>quickly...
Thermal mass is not a substitute for insulation, except in very temperate
climates! When it's -40 outdoors (or anything less than 60 F), thermal mass
is completely irrelevant in the sense that a house with no mass and a house
with lots of mass will use exactly the same amount of fuel, if they have
the same insulation.
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems. They
>were drafty, and had poor heating systems. If those rock walls had been
>warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the air leaks
>sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter.
As long as you keep the walls at 70 F, which isn't easy, with no insulation.
That takes LOTS of fuel.
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Thermal mass is not a substitute for insulation, except in very temperate
>> climates! When it's -40 outdoors (or anything less than 60 F), thermal mass
>> is completely irrelevant in the sense that a house with no mass and a house
>> with lots of mass will use exactly the same amount of fuel, if they have
>> the same insulation.
>
>Then explain why we are comfortable in a log home at -40, without large
>fuel bills ......
Not my job. Perhaps you burn large amounts of wood.
You are arguing with 300-year old settled physics.
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems. They
>>>were drafty, and had poor heating systems. If those rock walls had been
>>>warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the air leaks
>>>sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter.
>>
>> As long as you keep the walls at 70 F, which isn't easy, with no insulation.
>> That takes LOTS of fuel.
>>
>No, it's doesn't take much more fuel.
You live in a stone castle? :-)
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Log homes may indeed be a good idea, except when compared to anything else
>> better than a tent.
>>
>You've never lived in one, so there's no point in discussing this with
>you. You just don't know.
I suggest you try harder to reconcile your experience with physics.
Lots of people confuse thermal mass and insulation, some deliberately.
Fewer people confuse capacitors and resistors :-)
Nick
Christina Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
>The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
>temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
>thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass.
To me, a heat sink is a gadget with fins that clips onto an IC or some
other power electronic device to dissipate heat with no heat storage,
vs thermal mass, which stores heat with no dissipation. A car radiator
is a heat sink, altho it also stores some heat in the coolant.
And it may feel like the logs take all summer to warm from winter temps,
but a log that starts the summer at 30 F and warms to 70 in 3 80 F months
might look something like this, viewed in a fixed font like Courier:
/ Rw
80 ---/ ---www-------- 30->70
|
|
--- C 70 = 30+(80-30)e^(-90/RC)
---
| makes RC = -90/ln(40/50) = 403 days,
|
_ ie 9672 hours.
The ASHRAE HOF says Hem Fir has 0.74-0.9 Btu-in/h-F-ft^2, ie about R1.2
per inch, and its density is 24.5-31.4 lb/ft^3 and its specific heat is
0.39Btu/lb-F, so C = 0.9 Btu-in/F-ft^2, ie about 1 Btu/F per board foot,
like drywall.
If we separate R and C and figure an L inch thick log is heated with 80 F
air on both sides, RC = 9672 = RwC/4, so RwC = 38688 = 1.2Lx0.9L, which
makes L = 189 inches, ie a log home with walls 16 feet thick.
"Coziness" is harder to quantify :-)
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>Odinn wrote:
>
>> The R-Value of a log is misleading. An 8" log home will provide better
>> characteristics of an R-12 stick home, with as much as 30% in savings in
>> heating and cooling.
>>
>> http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>
>Thank you. I knew this existed, but forgot where it was.
Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year :-)
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Lots of people confuse thermal mass and insulation, some deliberately.
>> Fewer people confuse capacitors and resistors :-)
>
>I'm not confused...
I disagree.
Nick
Odinn <[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>> Sounds like these guys SELL log homes, like Enertia, who claim
>> their homes need NO HEAT ENERGY AT ALL (at certain times of year :-)
>...the link contains data from a test done by the National Bureau
>of Standards for HUD comparing heating and cooling costs between
>a log home and a standard stick frame.
This "data"? :-)
...In 1981-82, the National Institute of Standards [1] conducted
a series of tests at its facility outside of Washington DC for
the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development... over the course of seven
months using six 20' X 20' buildings that were identical except for
the construction of the exterior walls, one of which was log...
...the log home (rated as an R-10 wall) performed as well as the
insulated wood frame house (R-12 rated wall) during the winter
heating period. The log home consumed 24% less energy during the
summer cooling period and 46% less during the transitional spring/fall
heating period...
1.) Contact: Mr. Douglas Burch, National Institute of Standards &
Technology, BR-B 320, Gaithersburg, MD, (301) 975-6433...
>No one is claiming that log homes don't require heating or cooling, only
>that they are not energy inefficient as would be perceived by the R
>value of wood.
OK. I CLAIM log homes are "as inefficient as would be perceived by the
R-value of wood." Somebody should defend this 300-year old physics :-)
The alleged R10 "home" above may have had less air infiltration than
the fiberglass "home," so it performed "as well" in wintertime, or
maybe the fiberglass did contain some moisture. Who knows? But that
has nothing to do with the log's R-value.
Nick
Harold and Susan Vordos <[email protected]> wrote re:
>...The advantage of heating concrete slabs hydronically.
>Temperature changes occur very slowly.
And you open windows on warm winter days,
and night setbacks save little energy.
Nick
Harold and Susan Vordos <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >...The advantage of heating concrete slabs hydronically.
>> >Temperature changes occur very slowly.
>>
>> And you open windows on warm winter days,
>> and night setbacks save little energy.
>
>Nope. Not here. I've *never* had to open a window, and the boiler runs
>only once per day, if that, right now. Our temps are in the mid 60's during
>the day time and mid 40's at night.
That's hard to believe, if "Temperature changes occur very slowly."
Nick
Harold and Susan Vordos <[email protected]> wrote:
>What I meant was temperature changes *inside* occur very slowly.
>The concrete slab (42 yards of concrete, 6-1/4" thick) doesn't get hot,
>just warm. It slowly radiates it's heat through the course of the day
>and night... it takes hours for the slab to warm up, and, likewise,
>cool down, so you don't experience wide, rapid temperature swings.
So... if it's comfy inside on a 30 F morning, and the outdoor temp rises
to 50 by afternoon, you might have to sweat or take off your coat or
open a window. And setting the thermostat back at night wouldn't save
much energy, because the slab temp and the indoor air temp wouldn't
decrease much overnight.
Nick
George <George@least> wrote:
>"Harold and Susan Vordos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>The concrete slab (42 yards of concrete, 6-1/4" thick) doesn't get hot,
>just warm. It slowly radiates it's heat through the course of the day
>and night, dropping the ambient temperature (in the structure) only
>a degree or so...
>Sheetrock works the same way.
The slab above has about 42x27x25 = 28350 Btu/F of heat capacity,
like 56700 square feet of 1/2" drywall, eg a 100' hollow cube :-)
Nick
Christina Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ed Earl Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > <[email protected]> wrote...
>> >>>The description Pete uses to describe the way our house conserves
>> >>>temperature (it's cooler in summer too, though by Fall the logs are
>> >>>thoroughly warm) is "heat sink". What you are calling thermal mass.
>> >>
>> >>To me, a heat sink is a gadget with fins that clips onto an IC or some
>> >>other power electronic device to dissipate heat with no heat storage,
>> >>vs thermal mass, which stores heat with no dissipation. A car radiator
>> >>is a heat sink, altho it also stores some heat in the coolant...
>> Though Nick's definition is commonly used, it is not technically correct.
A sentence beginning "To me" cannot be incorrect :-)
To most engineers, a heat sink dissipates energy.
>> A heat source emits heat and a heat sink absorbs heat.
A stiff voltage source, in a thermodynamic context. Do we "absorb" via
storage or dissipation? This thermodynamic definition implies storage
in an infinite lake.
>So the logs in my house are a heat sink when they absorb heat (from the sun
>in summer, from the fire in winter), and a heat source at other times. And
>can be both when there are fluctuations in temperature. Also walls are a
>heat sink inside the house and a heat source outside in winter. Just like
>rocks absorb heat from the sun, and are later warm under foot.
That's an accurate energy flow description, but I wouldn't use the words
"heat sink" in this case. What matters is the nature of energy flow, vs
the nomenclature.
>So what is the difference between "heat sink" and "thermal mass"?
Heat sinks dissipate energy and thermal masses store and release energy,
like resistors and capacitors, from an engineer's point of view. People
who understand physics talk about heat sources and sinks differently,
eg in a Carnot context, but they agree on the basic energy flows.
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important...
...k = 1/r. Which one is "made up"? :-)
Would that you learn more basic physics.
Nick
Solar Flare <[email protected]> wrote:
>Many of the installers and manufacturers recommend not insulating the ground
>closer than 8 feet from the outside walls...
"Farther" would make more sense than "closer."
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important...
>>
>> ...k = 1/r. Which one is "made up"? :-)
>>
>> Would that you learn more basic physics.
>
>r = k/1
>
>r is a calculated number from k, which is a measured number.
So which one is more important? :-)
>no problem with my physics.
Beeg problems with your physics...
Nick
George Willer <[email protected]> wrote:
>Infiltration on a well constructed frame wall???
A "well-constructed" US house might leak 0.5 air changes per hour, and
fiberglass insulation loses R-value if that air moves through vs around
it, and it loses about half its R-value when it contains 2% moisture
by weight, which can happen over a cold winter with an imperfect vapor
barrier as humid house air moves through and condenses water inside
the fiberglass, and it can lose half its R-value on a very cold day
(-10 F and below) when air begins to circulate within it, even with
perfect wind and vapor barriers. This doesn't happen with cellulose,
which is denser and has more resistance to internal airflow.
And stud walls have lower stud resistances (eg R1/inch "thermal bridging")
in parallel with the insulation resistance, and drywall and sheathing
act as stud fins for heat collection and distribution. This 2-dimensional
fin heatflow further lowers the overall R-value.
Ignoring the fins, we can look at a 10.67 ft^2 16"x8' wall section with R13
insulation framed with R1 per inch 2x4s on all edges as a "stud conductor"
with (16/12+8)1.5/12 = 1.17 ft^2 of stud surface in parallel with a
10.67-1.17 = 9.5 ft^2 "insulation conductor." The studs have a 1/(R1x3.5")
= US U0.286 U-value and the insulation has 1/R13 = U0.0769. The combined
conductance is 1.17x0.286+9.5x0.0769 = 1.07 Btu/h-F, for an effective US
R-value of 10.67ft^2/1.07 = US R10.0, vs R13, without the studs.
Nick
Logan Shaw <[email protected]> wrote:
>...people who build walls with sound isolation in mind often use
>staggered studs... they alternate which sides the studs connect to,
>leaving a gap of air between the stud and one or the other side
>in all cases. Like this:
>
> ----------------------------------------
> | | | |
> | | | | | | | |
> | | | |
> -----------------------------------------
>
>This requires more studs and requires the walls to be thicker, but it
>seems like building a wall this way could reduce the thermal losses that
>you're talking about...
Sure. SIPs (glued plywood-foam-plywood sandwiches) are another solution.
ME Tim Eggen builds house walls with 9" TGIs (2x3s with a plywood web)
and cellulose fill in Connecticut.
Wood is BAD insulation.
Nick
Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Huh? Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
It seems more accurate to say thermal diffusivity (1/RC) depends on R-value,
and it's irrelevant to fuel bills unless indoor and outdoor temps overlap.
Thickness matters, US R1.2 per inch for wood, vs 3.5 for loose-fill cellulose
and 2.5 for loose-fill fiberglass. What's the thermal resistance of 9.25" of
cellulose with 1/2" plywood "studs" on 2' centers?
>R- value isn't all that useful for comparison.
Wrong. Open your brain a bit, Steve :-) Even George Ghio admits mistakes.
Your stubbornness is giving you and alternative energy a bad reputation.
Nick
FOAM-TECH: Building Envelope Theory - R-Value Drift
It is common knowledge in the building science industry that all
insulation systems perform at different levels depending on environmental
conditions. R-value performance can actually change as much as 50% or more.
Because Vermont, with its cold winters, is at the extreme end of this
variation in thermal performance, the impact of climate cannot be ignored.
While all insulation materials have published R-values determined by
laboratory testing, many of the materials we are using in our buildings
have published R-values that apply to other climates, not Vermont.
For example: if a particular insulation material or system performs
at R=19 in a moderate southern climate, but at 9.5 in a cold Vermont
climate, twice as much of that type of insulation should be used in
Vermont if the code requires a real-world performance equaling R-19.
The test results from the U.S. Department of Energy verify that Fiberglas
R-values are compromised when a 25 F temperature difference exists
between the inside (70 F) and the outside (45 F.) When the test conditions
reached an outside temperature of -18 F the R-values of the fiberglass
insulation (both blown in and batts) decreased to less than 50% of the
manufacturer's stated R-value.
Cellulose R-values, on the other hand, went up. The R-value of Cellulose
insulation began to rise when a 25 F temperature difference existed between
the inside (70F) and the outside (45F). When the test conditions reached
the outside temperature of -18 F the R-values of the Cellulose Insulation
continued to rise above the manufacturer's stated installed R-value.
It was so determined that cellulose insulation improves in R-value
any time a temperature difference of 25 F or more exists
U.S. Department of Energy Test Results
Loose Fill Fiberglass
Chamber (F) Climate (F) R-Value
70 44.6 17.8
70 32 16.1
70 26.8 14.1
70 8.6 12
70 -4.0 10.6
70 -18.4 9.2
Loose Fill Cellulose (Settled)
Chamber (F) Climate (F) R-Value
70 40 18
70 20 18.8
70 8 19.4
70 -5 19.6
70 -18 20.3
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
>>
>> It seems more accurate to say thermal diffusivity (1/RC) depends on R-value,
>
>Not if the other poster, who wrote that R = t/k, where t is thickness
>and k is thermal conductivity, is correct.
You might enjoy looking up thermal diffusivity vs conductivity.
Nick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>...Doesn't the R-value depend on thermal diffusivity and thickness?
>>
>>...thermal diffusivity (1/RC) depends on R-value
>
> Not if the other poster, who wrote that R = t/k, where t is thickness
> and k is thermal conductivity, is correct.
You seem to be confusing conductance and diffusivity.
R is the thermal resistance (a wall property), k is the conductivity
(a material properrty), 1/R is the conductance, (a wall property), and
1/RC is thermal diffusivity (a largely irrelevant material property,
in constantly cold weather.) Generally, words ending with "-ivity" are
bulk material properties and words ending with -ance" are properties
of a particular chunk of material.
Nick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>R-value is not a generally useful concept in heat transer work.
I'd say it's very useful :-) Diffusivity seems less useful.
>It is a very useful concept for builders.
It could be, but most builders seem to have little interest in heatflow.
They just look at the drawing and the building inspector and figure out
what they can get away with before they shoot themselves in the leg with
a nailgun or declare bankruptcy and leave town with pocketfuls of money.
Nick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >R-value is not a generally useful concept in heat transer work.
>>
>> I'd say it's very useful :-) Diffusivity seems less useful.
>
>I worked in industry for several years doing, among other things,
>heat transfer, and never even saw a definition for R-value at
>work or in heat-transfer and solar energy utilization classes.
You "did heat transer work" for several years and never ran into
an R-value, and then confused conductance with diffusivity? :-)
>> >It is a very useful concept for builders.
>>
>> It could be, but most builders seem to have little interest in heatflow.
>> They just look at the drawing and the building inspector and figure out
>> what they can get away with...
>
>That's what makes R-value a useful concept to them. They can
>just add up the R-values to meet spec (code perhaps) and not
>worry about what the actual energy losses/costs are going to be.
They could... Then again, my brother (a mechanical engineer) bought
an expensive new house on paper in a development near Philadelphia.
When he noticed the foundation was rotated 180 degrees, ruining his
plans to add on a solarium, the builder said "Read the fine print
in the contract. It's our choice."
Then he visited after work every day as the house went up, kicking out
twisted studs which were often replaced with better studs the next day.
When he noticed carpenters building a first floor ceiling in his
2-story cathedral entrance hall, they told him that was easier.
After some negotiation, they removed the ceiling...
Time passes. The builder's corp goes bankrupt 3 months after selling
the last house, a standard practice around here. And 12 years later,
the bathroom ceiling collapses, because there's no insulation or vapor
barrier in the wall. My brother checks the rest of the walls and finds
lots of similar problems and tears out the drywall and fixes the walls.
And he discovers that all of the windows are rotting because
of insulation and vapor barrier problems, so he replaces them.
Then he finds a job in Detroit and sells the house for about the same
price as the other hundred development houses... The new owner gots
a good bargain, comparatively.
Nick
I stand corrected "Further"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Solar Flare <[email protected]> wrote:
>Many of the installers and manufacturers recommend not insulating the
ground
>closer than 8 feet from the outside walls...
"Farther" would make more sense than "closer."
Nick
Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>
>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
>> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
>> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
>> baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
>>
>>
>
> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
> material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
> 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
> standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall (
> which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall of
> about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air leakage.
R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient,
and if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall.
Forget R value when talking log.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
wmbjk wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 16:58:01 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Solar Flare <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>28 kWh per day with 1600W solar for about two months this year...
>>
>>Do you mean your 1600 nameplate watts of solar panels delivered
>>28 kWh per day of energy, under 28kWh/1600W = 17.5 hours of sun?
>>
>>Nick
>
>
> Hey, Gymmy Bob's imaginary array is "special", just like him.
> Differently abled as they say. Yeah, that must be it, 'cause a guy
> with umpteen posting names couldn't possibly be trying to mislead
> anyone....
They were probably reactive watts....
"Solar Flare" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What was that bullshit you used before? "I will go by facts and science
> not
> somebody's opinion"
>
Here are some facts for you Gymmy,
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/research/detailed_papers/Whole_Wall_Therm/index.html
Wood has about three times the thermal conductivity as fiberglass batts. If
the wall is 14.5 inches across of fiberglass for every 1.5 inches across of
wood (2x6 on 16" centers), that works out to about 18% more heat loss than
if the whole wall was just fiberglass.
That link also discusses different stud spacings, and has some related links
to nice calculators and such.
daestrom
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:00:54 -0700, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Good question. There's insulation under the 'crete, although I screwed up
>and used only an inch (R5). I should have used two. The more, the
>better, of course.
Does anybody have a link to a website explaining what these R-numbers
actually means in relation to fiberglass insulation thickness and such
?
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:42:18 GMT, Logan Shaw
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does anybody have a link to a website explaining what these R-numbers
>> actually means in relation to fiberglass insulation thickness and such
>> ?
>
>Here's a good site:
>
> http://www.roofhelp.com/Rvalue.htm
Thanks. Some of my walls have 6 inches of fiberglass insulation,
inside air film and about half an inch of wood on the inside, this
seems to equal about R-25. The rest of the walls have 10 inches of
fiberglass insulation, making them R-40. I can see why a log wall with
a R-10 or R-12 value would be very inefficient in comparisation.
<[email protected]> wrote :
> The City gives away unsplit wood as do some local
> tree service companies. If trees are abundant in your area
> a little scouting will probably turn up some sources.
True. There's other sources, too, that people might not have considered .
You can scrounge the dumpsters of local cabinet and hardwood shops for
scraps and cutoffs. No shortage there. Another good place to check is
construction sites, after the flooring guys and trim carpenters have been -
lots of largish cutoffs of unfinished red oak flooring and oak/poplar
baseboard, casing, mouldings, etc. All free, and quite burnable. I've got
tons of the shit stacked up in the shed right now. Your woodstove/fireplace
doesn't care what shape the wood is.
If you wanted to burn cedar for some reason, you could get plenty of that
too. Built quite a bit of outdoor furniture, planters, etc. outta scrounged
cedar.
Jason
[email protected] wrote:
> George Willer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Infiltration on a well constructed frame wall???
> And stud walls have lower stud resistances (eg R1/inch "thermal bridging")
> in parallel with the insulation resistance, and drywall and sheathing
> act as stud fins for heat collection and distribution. This 2-dimensional
> fin heatflow further lowers the overall R-value.
Not that most stud walls are built this way, by any stretch of the
imagination, but people who build walls with sound isolation in mind
often use staggered studs. That means they alternate which sides the
studs connect to, leaving a gap of air between the stud and one or
the other side in all cases. Like this:
-----------------------------------------
| | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | |
-----------------------------------------
This requires more studs and requires the walls to be thicker, but it
seems like building a wall this way could reduce the thermal losses that
you're talking about in that paragraph, and the expense would not be
that much higher.
(That does not, of course, mean that a "well constructed frame wall"
implies staggered stud.)
- Logan
Christina Peterson wrote:
> So what is the difference between "heat sink" and "thermal mass"?
All mass mediates temperature near itself. In other words, any mass
absorbs heat when the nearby environment is warmer and emits heat
when the nearby environment is cooler.
A mass is called a thermal mass when that characteristic of a mass
is important to someone, for example log, adobe or rock walls of a
building. Trees, dirt and boulders in a field also mediate
temperature, but no one cares enough to call them a thermal mass.
A mass is called a heat sink when it absorbs heat, and is called a
heat source when it emits heat.
--
Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do,
we say he is a crank, and that settles it.
I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him." (Mark Twain)
> I am about getting a wood boiler like this installed. With heat
> storage tanks and domestic hot water. I'm afraid it's going to cost me
> around 10,000 euros, that's about $12,000.
>
> Henk
That's a lot of cash. Are you confident of the reliability of this
(Lambda??) technology? If you have access to free wood the payback
probability is high unless expensive maintenance is regular thing.
If the company is confident of product they offer good FULL warantee.
"Jim Elbrecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 1st thing--- unless you're cutting your own wood on your own land, and
> already have a chainsaw & truck. . . forget about wood. It costs
> more than propane or fuel oil.
>
> Jim
Not in my area. Wood varies from $140 to $200 in the more rural areas (NE
CT) to but as you get closer to the big cities it can top $400.
>> >What I meant was temperature changes *inside* occur very slowly.
>> >The concrete slab (42 yards of concrete, 6-1/4" thick) doesn't get hot,
>> >just warm. It slowly radiates it's heat through the course of the day
>> >and night... it takes hours for the slab to warm up, and, likewise,
>> >cool down, so you don't experience wide, rapid temperature swings.
>>
>> So... if it's comfy inside on a 30 F morning, and the outdoor temp rises
>> to 50 by afternoon, you might have to sweat or take off your coat or
>> open a window. And setting the thermostat back at night wouldn't save
>> much energy, because the slab temp and the indoor air temp wouldn't
>> decrease much overnight.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
>It doesn't appear to work that way. Our walls are an R25, and there are few
>windows. Only on extremely hot days (80+)do we have much influence on
>inside temps. When that occurs, the boiler never runs. When it's in
>the 60's, the boiler runs only infrequently. Our daily activities (lights,
>stereo, computer, etc.) appear to be enough to keep the structure warm.
>
>The only time we open a window is in the evening, after a hot day.
>
>Harold
>
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> You store your wood outside uncovered????
Of course. I bring it in as needed, but a day or three in advance.
Covering is nice to keep snow off of it, but does little or nothing to help
it dry and may even hinder air circulation. Rain does not affect wood as
much as people think.
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems. They
>>>>were drafty, and had poor heating systems. If those rock walls had been
>>>>warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and all the air leaks
>>>>sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter.
>>>
>>>As long as you keep the walls at 70 F, which isn't easy, with no insulation.
>>>That takes LOTS of fuel.
>>>
>>
>>No, it's doesn't take much more fuel.
>
>
> You live in a stone castle? :-)
>
> Nick
>
I used to rent the equivalent, a old stone blacksmith shop with stone
walls three feet thick and no insulation. During the winter the 120,000
btu oil furnace ran steady all day just to keep 800 sq ft at a workable
65 degrees. The walls never warmed up and were like cold radiators to touch.
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
Just some observations from my own experience burning wood. Some may not
apply completely in your case, but still may be of some help.
Wood stove get nice and hot, but they do not circulate air very well. I
hung a 10" fan in the top of the doorway of the family room (lower level)
and aimed to towards the stair. This helped move a lot of heat to other
parts of the house.
Make your installation in such a way that you can easily remove the stove
pipe in the house. While the chimney needs to be cleaned once or twice a
year, most of the creosote in my setup is in the first couple of feet above
the thimble. I could let the fire go out, remove the pipe and clean 80% of
the buildup in a few minutes from in the house.
Crank up the heat at least once, preferably twice a day to reduce creosote
buildup. When burning slow it is more likely to deposit it on the linings.
Make a wood box in the house big enough to hold a few days supply of wood.
Fill it up before a big snow or rain. The wood in the house will dry out a
bit more even in a couple of days and will burn longer than the seasoned
wood that has been stacked for six months outside.
Spray the wood pile with an insecticide.
Build a fire slowly. If you put in too much wood right off, it will take a
lot of effort to get going. Newspaper, small kindling, larger kindling.
Once started, a couple of small pieces of wood, about 1" to 1 1/2" diameter.
When they start burning add the larger wood.
Get a metal trash can with lid and handle for cleaning the ashes. It can
take 2 days for them to die out completely, even in cold weather. Don't
just toss ashes on the lawn or on the snow. They will still be there come
spring.
Pallet wood is readily available, but can be a PITA to cut up.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:07:17 GMT, "Vaughn"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
>> thought I would ask for your advice.
>>
> What group? You crossposted to at least five!
>
>Vaughn
>
At least they were all appropriately selected.
Ford Prefect wrote:
>> That's not how he screwed up, though.. He screwed up by not pouring
>> that 8" slab over 4" of urethane foam.
>
>
> I don't need Foam! I have all that thermal Mass ;~))))))
In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor
heat from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a substitute
for insulation.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
LCT Paintball wrote:
>>I've heated by other means in my years, but nothing comes close to the
>>comfort of hydronic. I'm stuck with oil, which I hate.
>>
>>Harold
> How do you keep from loosing vast amounts of heat into the ground?
>
>
typically there is insulation between the concrete slab and the ground.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>R-factor is a made up term. K-factor's are much more important...
>
>
> ...k = 1/r. Which one is "made up"? :-)
>
> Would that you learn more basic physics.
>
> Nick
>
r = k/1
r is a calculated number from k, which is a measured number.
no problem with my physics. you are trying to apply lab results to the
real world. fiber based insulation degrades from theory in the real
world much faster than solids.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Unknown <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:41:11 -0400, Steve Spence
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>,;Nog wrote:
>>,;
>>,;> It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of wood
>>,;> costs $200 a cord and up.
>>,;>
>>,;
>>,;Fortunately for the Northeast, wood is more like $36 / face cord, or
>>,;about $100 for a full cord. 18" slabwood is $5 a pickup truck load at
>>,;the local Amish sawmill.
>
>Here in the northern Minnesota I pay $53 for a full cord. No one who
>is serious about heating with wood buys "face cords". I get eight foot
>logs which I block and split. Eight to ten cords per winter.
Holy sawdust Batman! In the Schenectady/Saratoga area of NY it runs
about $50 a face cord. I haven't bought wood in 6-8 years, but I
remember asking how much a full cord was once & the seller said 'Do
the math--- 3 face cords in a full cord.'
I switched to a propane stove years ago. Cheaper, cleaner, easier.
Jim
George Willer wrote:
> Look, Sonny... I do understand the difference. I was working with this
> stuff when you were still pooping yellow. I have no difficulty reading and
> understanding... my only difficulty is making sense of your flawed position.
> I don't know whether or not there are any studies regarding moisture's
> effects on the poor insulating value of solid wood, but the smart money
> would bet that it's not good for your hypothesis.
>
> If you were a little smarter you would have quit while you were ahead.
> You're still wrong.
>
> Infiltration on a well constructed frame wall???
>
> George Willer
you are as caustic as you are are ignorant. I built my first log home 20
years ago, so maybe technology has passed you by, being ancient and all.
fiberglass batt walls are subject to both moisture (even with a vapor
barrier) and air infiltration. That derates the laboratory calculated
r-value of the fiberglass by up to 50%, making the effective U value of
the wall worse than solid log.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:09:52 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>
>> You store your wood outside uncovered????
>
>Of course. I bring it in as needed, but a day or three in advance.
>Covering is nice to keep snow off of it, but does little or nothing to help
>it dry and may even hinder air circulation. Rain does not affect wood as
>much as people think.
>
Most folks around here put it under a wooden awning of some sort. Once it has
seasoned they cover it with a tarp if it is not under an awning.
"Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>And running a chainsaw ain't exactly featherbedding either. Just
>returned with another load. Time you cut, load, unload, stack, move to
>the stove you have some significant physical activity going. Note that
>I even left the 'splitting' part of the work out.
>
>Harry K.
>
I notice that everyone is leaving out the part where you cleanup
the brush which if harvesting with powertools is probably the most
aerobic of the activities involved. Depending on where the tree's
are located brush must be dragged to piles or to a chipper.
I've pretty much minimised the splitting to once in half with an axe
as I'm turning trees into lumber these days. All those pieces I used
to hate because they were a bear to split I now love as they mill into
the most decorative of panels. I'm also a landscaper so at times I'm
getting paid to haul the tree away which means "free" heat that pays
me cash and lumber.
I'm currently building our new house which has been designed to
work with a central heat source, in our case an 18" cylinder stove
from the 1890s. Stoves are like most hand tools in that the best
ones are either really old or quite recent and really expensive.
My father's house which I'm living in at the moment was built by my
Grandfather in 1967-68 (a former electric co. engineer) has electric
baseboard heat and has been heated by a single wood stove since
the early 70s. There are a few cold corners downstairs but upstairs
(especially in the office where computers heat the room) the trick
is to keep things cool enough to be comfortable. The house adjoins
90+ acres of family owned land.
In my previous house I had a hybrid wood/oil furnace used for heat
only and a large portion of the basement devoted to cord wood. The
coldest year we lived there (also the year with the highest oil prices)
I burned 135 gallons of fuel oil all year, most of it in the early fall when
wood produced more heat than we wanted and spring when the wood
ran out.
My experience is that wood is a viable source of heat especially when
obtained with pure sweat equity and a chainsaw.
--
Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some...
Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages:
http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/
remove the REM... (sleep is over rated)
Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>> Ford Prefect wrote:
>>
>>>> That's not how he screwed up, though.. He screwed up by not pouring
>>>> that 8" slab over 4" of urethane foam.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't need Foam! I have all that thermal Mass ;~))))))
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor
>> heat from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a
>> substitute for insulation.
>>
>>
>
> I know that, in fact I'm the one that brought up that fact about your
> log walls ;~)
But it isn't necessary to "insulate" a 10" or 12" log wall, because the
R Value is close enough to the real world performance of 6" of batt
insulation.That was the point you missed. In a concrete slab with
radiant piping, that thermal disconnect from the ground is required. You
are comparing apples to oranges. Look up the U factor of a 4" to 6"
concrete slab compared to a 12" log wall.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
On 13 Sep 2005 16:58:01 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>Solar Flare <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>28 kWh per day with 1600W solar for about two months this year...
>
>Do you mean your 1600 nameplate watts of solar panels delivered
>28 kWh per day of energy, under 28kWh/1600W = 17.5 hours of sun?
>
>Nick
Hey, Gymmy Bob's imaginary array is "special", just like him.
Differently abled as they say. Yeah, that must be it, 'cause a guy
with umpteen posting names couldn't possibly be trying to mislead
anyone....
Wayne
Odinn wrote:
>
> The R-Value of a log is misleading. An 8" log home will provide better
> characteristics of an R-12 stick home, with as much as 30% in savings in
> heating and cooling.
>
> http://www.loghomesnetzine.com/vol2iss1/technotes.html
>
Thank you. I knew this existed, but forgot where it was.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Many of the installers and manufacturers recommend not insulating the ground
closer than 8 feet from the outside walls. This apparently takes a few days
to warm up the ground and then becomes part of the thermal mass.
They do, however, say it takes longer to change temperatures in the house.
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
LCT Paintball wrote:
>>I've heated by other means in my years, but nothing comes close to the
>>comfort of hydronic. I'm stuck with oil, which I hate.
>>
>>Harold
> How do you keep from loosing vast amounts of heat into the ground?
>
>
typically there is insulation between the concrete slab and the ground.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
I built a pallet-fueled wood-burning outdoor woodstove to provide heat for
my shop. This is a plans-only design from this place:
http://www.deb-design.com/
You can pretty much load up anything into it that you can physically lift. I
burn a lot of (free) full-sized wood pallets from the tractor dealership,
old damaged (free) apple boxes, and (free) stumps, rounds, and other scrappy
wood that nobody wants to split. This thing works great here in upstate NY,
it burns for 3 days or more with a full load even in very cold weather
(longer with dense stump wood, shorter with 100% pallets and junk). I
replace the galvanized steel chimney every year though, due to massive
creosote buildup and corrosion from green junk wood. The good point is that
the firebox is located remotely from the structures they are heating, and it
is mainly steel, so even if it goes up in a giant creosote inferno it is not
really a big deal other than blistered paint. I have never had a chimney
fire with my unit, though. I did design my own control system using an
electronic PID temperature control from Omega Engineering, and welded up my
own damper control with an acme screw and reversible AC motor to drive the
damper door, as opposed to the parts shown in the original design (details,
wiring diagram, and photos are available if you contact me off-list).
If you're handy with a welder and have some beefy helpers (or hydraulic
assistance, I have a backhoe for stuff like this), its a sweet setup. I have
two truck radiators and a large salvaged squirrel cage blower located in a
plenum in the shop to provide hot forced air heating. A radiant floor heat
system would be fantastic with this system, although a bunch of hot water
baseboard heater units would be very good too. It has faithfully heated my
30x40 polebarn shop for 2 years. This spring I am planning to run some lines
to the house and start using it to heat the house as well by using a heat
exchanger in the plenum of the furnace (like that used for central air).
If you're not confident of being able to weld up a leak-free water jacket,
these types of units are commercially available from many sources as well.
Do a google search on "outdoor wood bolier". As a point of reference, I
burned up 60 pounds of rod on this project.
I have no business interest in Deb Design, just a satisfied customer.
Al
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> TMT
>
Jens Kr. Kirkebø wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:00:54 -0700, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Good question. There's insulation under the 'crete, although I screwed up
>>and used only an inch (R5). I should have used two. The more, the
>>better, of course.
>
>
> Does anybody have a link to a website explaining what these R-numbers
> actually means in relation to fiberglass insulation thickness and such
> ?
Here's a good site:
http://www.roofhelp.com/Rvalue.htm
The R-value and the C-value are the reciprocal of each other.
Apparently the reason R-values are used is that they can be added
directly. The above web site says that C is related to a constant,
k, which is the thermal conductivity per inch of a given material.
The relationship is the following:
C = k/thickness
If you double the thickness, you will thus halve the C value. But
since C and R are reciprocals, you have this:
R = thickness/k
This means that if you double the thickness, you double the R-value.
You can also add R-values of two different layers of stuff, even if
it's different kinds of stuff. If you wanted to use the C-value for
two different layers of stuff and come up with a combined value, you'd
have to take the inverse of each of the C-values, then add, then take
the inverse again. So, the R-value seems a lot more convenient for
that reason.
By the way, here's a calculator that based on (the first three digits
of) your zip code can tell you what R-value is recommended for your
home:
http://www.jm.com/insulation/technical_info/3001.htm
This site thinks I should have R-values of 13-19 in my walls and
30-49 in my attic. I can virtually guarantee the apartment I live
in is nowhere near that, which could explain my electric bills...
- Logan
I just installed their wood /oil combination boiler and this will heat my in
floor radiant heating system as well as my domestic water and it will work
when power is out by gravity feed circulation of the water. It is new to me
so I don't really have much to say about how I like it yet. They also sell a
wood/oil fired hot air furnace.
http://www.benjaminheating.com/products.htm
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Considering the projected high cost of heating this winter and to
> supply an alternate heat source in case of fuel/electricity loss, I am
> considering installing supplemental heating fueled by wood.
>
> Since in the past this group has been a fountain of good information, I
> thought I would ask for your advice.
>
> I would like to hear of your experiences, recommendations for suppliers
> and suggestions for installation.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> TMT
>
"Glenn Ashmore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:L1_Ue.23473$hp.14976@lakeread08...
> I have been using a fireplace insert for almost 25 years.. I am in
Georgia
> so it doesn't get as bad as many places but the house is an old hunting
> lodge with little insulation. We have about 14 acres so when we loose an
> oak or pecan during the year I cut and split it and can get through the
> winter on about a face cord and a half. My neighbor, in a new well
> insulated house that is about the same size averages $180/month for gas.
>
> In the evening I load it up with 3 or 4 logs and bank it down. Keeps the
> house warm all night and only takes a quick stoking in the morning to get
it
> going again.
>
> Besides, chopping wood is a heck of a lot more satisfying than jogging to
> keep the ol' ticker tuned up.
>
I was with you until that last sentence. I haven't heated with wood for
some 15 years or so, but my recollection is that cutting wood isn't
"aerobic" in the ticker-tuning sense. But then, I was using power tools -
maybe cutting down and slicing a tree into usable lengths with a hand
powered saw instead of a gas or electric chainsaw would qualify.
Steve Smith wrote:
> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better insulation
> than the logs provide.
>
> Steve
>
logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a log
home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling and
floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
baseboard heat. Chat with other log home owners at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loghometalk/
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
If wood was so bad then why do the 6" insulated walls need no insulation
where the wood is between the batts?
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>> Ford Prefect wrote:
>>
>>>> That's not how he screwed up, though.. He screwed up by not pouring
>>>> that 8" slab over 4" of urethane foam.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't need Foam! I have all that thermal Mass ;~))))))
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor
>> heat from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a
>> substitute for insulation.
>>
>>
>
> I know that, in fact I'm the one that brought up that fact about your
> log walls ;~)
But it isn't necessary to "insulate" a 10" or 12" log wall, because the
R Value is close enough to the real world performance of 6" of batt
insulation.That was the point you missed. In a concrete slab with
radiant piping, that thermal disconnect from the ground is required. You
are comparing apples to oranges. Look up the U factor of a 4" to 6"
concrete slab compared to a 12" log wall.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:06:01 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I wash my fruits and veggies before I eat them on the rare occasion I buy
>> them from the store. You must have an airtight stove ......
>
>I do have an airtight. Residual insecticide is washed off in the rain long
>before the wood is brought into the house. Bugs stay outside rather than in
>the furniture.
>
You store your wood outside uncovered????
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> Holy sawdust Batman! In the Schenectady/Saratoga area of NY it runs
> about $50 a face cord. I haven't bought wood in 6-8 years, but I
> remember asking how much a full cord was once & the seller said 'Do
> the math--- 3 face cords in a full cord.'
>
> I switched to a propane stove years ago. Cheaper, cleaner, easier.
>
> Jim
>
How is even $50 / face cord cheaper than propane?
$150 per full cord, 24 million btu = $0.00000625 / btu
24m btu / 91k btu = 264 gallons of propane
Where do you get propane for $0.56 / gallon?
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
George Willer wrote:
> Bingo!!!!
>
> Steve the great has just admitted the flaw in his previous ~contributions.
>
> "In this case, you need additional insulation to prevent your in floor
> heat from being absorbed by the ground. Thermal mass is not a substitute
> for insulation.
>
> In this case there is no difference except one between the ground under the
> slab and the great outdoors on the other side of his famous insulating logs.
> His logs are subject to the effects of wind blowing the insulating boundary
> layer away.
>
> Some folks will never get it!
>
> He's arguing with himself.
>
> George Willer
>
>
No, you just don't get the difference between the "theoretical" R-Value
of batt insulation vs. realworld performance of a solid wood wall. Open
your eyes and ears, so that you may understand. Read up on U and K
factors, and the effects of moisture and air infiltration on fiber based
insulations.
There was no flaw, you just didn't understand what you were reading.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Red oak lasts -much- longer here in New England. The bark falls off
> within a year or two, then the tree will stand for 10 years or so until
> the roots rot. Standing dead red oak dries so well it can be cut and
> burned the same day, even after a long rain storm.
>
> White oak rots fast here, from the top down.
Could be because you get snow all winter and we get rain.
We have to import our white oak from New England. :-)
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
Steve Spence wrote:
>>
>> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
>> material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
>> 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
>> standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall
>> ( which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall
>> of about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air
>> leakage.
>
>
> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient,
> and if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall.
> Forget R value when talking log.
>
The effect you describe only means something when considering fast
temperature swings such as a hot afternoon on an otherwise cool day. It
doesn't mean much (other than sounding neat in the loghome brochures)
when you have a constant temperature differential such as in the winter
in northern climates.
[email protected] wrote:
> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>>Lots of people confuse thermal mass and insulation, some deliberately.
>>>Fewer people confuse capacitors and resistors :-)
>>
>>I'm not confused...
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> Nick
>
so disagree.
I also am quite familiar with resisters and capacitors.
I also lived in a log home, built it, and know what my fuel usage was,
as well as the comfort levels.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Sounds like a lot of fuel to cut, haul, split, stack and burn wood for heat
very often.
My heating bill for NG runs about $4-500 dollars per year for 2400 sq ft.
plus 1200 basement.
This is not to mention all the cleaning products needed to clean soot and
smoke backup smells from my home either or the chiropractic bills as I get
older...LOL
Beauty? yes. Money saving? No.
"Arnold Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:41:11 -0400, Steve Spence
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >,;Nog wrote:
> > >,;
> > >,;> It would only pay off it you don't have to buy your wood. A cord of
> wood
> > >,;> costs $200 a cord and up.
> > >,;>
> > >,;
> > >,;Fortunately for the Northeast, wood is more like $36 / face cord, or
> > >,;about $100 for a full cord. 18" slabwood is $5 a pickup truck load at
> > >,;the local Amish sawmill.
> >
> > Here in the northern Minnesota I pay $53 for a full cord. No one who
> > is serious about heating with wood buys "face cords". I get eight foot
> > logs which I block and split. Eight to ten cords per winter.
> >
> >
> That's were a tractor powered rail splitter comes in handy.
> And a bunching saw cradle as well.....
> Split your rails on the tractor,then load cradle to cut about a rick of
wood
> per pass with saw.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
Steve. I am thinking of partial hydronic heat for another house I want to
build.
Have you seen plans for an outdoor fireplace or fire pit with heat exchange
tubing around it for hot water extraction? I figure if I can have "camp
fires" I may as well extract some basement floor heat or heat my reservoir.
There must be some saftey issues around this also with boiling water ans
steam if the system pump shuts down.
I thought you would be the one to ask on this but other welcomed too.
TIA
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Haven't kept up with the technology but twenty years ago they were
> > putting catalytic converters on wood stoves, similar to those
> > on motor vehicles. In addition to cleaning the smoke they
> > also extacted a more heat by completing the combustion of
> > the unburned material in the smoke.
>
> Today's tricks employ secondary combustion chambers.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
JohnM wrote:
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Spence <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Stone castles aren't a bad idea when you have no airflow problems.
>>>>>> They were drafty, and had poor heating systems. If those rock
>>>>>> walls had been warmed up to 70 degrees, no open fireplaces, and
>>>>>> all the air leaks sealed, they would have been comfy in the winter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you keep the walls at 70 F, which isn't easy, with no
>>>>> insulation.
>>>>> That takes LOTS of fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's doesn't take much more fuel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You live in a stone castle? :-)
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>> I used to rent the equivalent, a old stone blacksmith shop with stone
>> walls three feet thick and no insulation. During the winter the
>> 120,000 btu oil furnace ran steady all day just to keep 800 sq ft at a
>> workable 65 degrees. The walls never warmed up and were like cold
>> radiators to touch.
>
>
> Gee, imagine how bad it woulda been without all that thermal mass..
>
> John
My new shop has 2x6 stud walls with vapour barrier, drywall, 12 inches
of insulation in the ceiling and double paned windows. I can heat it
with a 10,000 btu heater at minus 20 ;-) The only cold area is the
8" concrete slab floor.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Spray the wood pile with an insecticide.
>>
>>Do you want the fumes from burning insecticide in your home?
>
>
> Do you EAT? Most fruits and vegetables have been sprayed with insecticide.
> Over a short time it will dissipate.
>
> In addition, the smoke goes out the chimney, not into the house.
>
>
I wash my fruits and veggies before I eat them on the rare occasion I
buy them from the store. You must have an airtight stove ......
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
"Anthony Matonak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Steve Spence wrote:
> Ford Prefect wrote:
>> Steve Spence wrote:
>>> Steve Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> We live in a log house in Maine. We sure wish we had better
>>>> insulation than the logs provide.
>>>
>>> logs of sufficient thickness have great thermal mass. We lived in a
>>> log home for years in -40 winter weather. Insulation in the ceiling
>>> and floor, but not the walls. We stayed nice and cozy with wood fired
>>> baseboard heat.
>>
>> But the R values suck. An R-value (Btu/ft2/hour/oF) is the rating of a
>> material's resistance to heat flow. The R-value for softwoods is about
>> 1.41 per inch. You'd need a log wall of over 12" thick just to equal a
>> standard stud wall, to equal a fiberglass insulated six inch stud wall
>> ( which is becoming standard in much of Canada you'd need a log wall
>> of about 18", and that's not even taking into account things like air
>> leakage.
>
> R values are less important when you are talking about log homes because
> of the greater thermal mass. The logs just don't change temperature that
> quickly. Slow to heat up, slow to cool down. 10" to 12" is sufficient,
> and if properly constructed, there is no air flow through the wall.
> Forget R value when talking log.
I would think that 12" walls are not uncommon in a log home. Therefore a
log home would have the same R value as a standard stud wall. I would
also imagine that traditional style log homes are built in areas that
have a lot of wood so heating with wood would not be very costly. What
would it matter if the walls are only R16 if your fuel is very cheap?
The "flywheel" effect of having so much thermal mass would also mean
that you could burn a load of wood and the heat wouldn't immediately
cook you and it would remain comfortable for several hours after the
fire.
Anthony
Gotta' love that bottom posting confusion....LOL
Steve, Take the hook out of your mouth.
The guy obviously doesn't want to discuss on-topic here. Only to troll you
with personal, sensitive issues to you. Somebody else will be next.
All the best Davy Crockette ....LOL
"Steve Spence" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
George Willer wrote:
> Then I'll admit to being wrong on that point... it was a fleeting memory
> anyway.
>
> Thank you for conceding that I was correct on the other, deleted points.
>
> George Willer
I'm not conceding you are right on any points. I will forgive your
ignorance, but not your arrogance.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html