Lost techniques for dealing with the heat.

[squall_line]

Minimum code for insulation, vapor handling, etc. is all increasing pretty quickly in North America.  I think [member=44099]Cheese[/member] found a lot of this when he was researching his garage build and reading/watching stuff by Matt Risinger and other building science guys.  It's pretty amazing how different the philosophies are from just 20 or so years ago as far as water/vapor control, air tightness, insulation, etc.

To which I say "that's great! sounds wonderful and amazing!"

And then I say "what about the 95% of extant housing stock?"

I believe the UK is going through a lot of that right now with retrofitting houses and such, but there's also only so much you can do without tearing a structure down to the framing and starting over (and even some of the techniques still wouldn't be applicable).  My understanding is that the EU mainland has a lot of thick-walled stone structures that negate a lot of this need due to sheer thermal mass of the walls; the window and door openings are still an issue, but to a different degree (no pun intended).

As much as I'd love to put in tilt-n-turn triple pane windows, lift-and-slide doors/walls, etc, the cost to retrofit some of that stuff just doesn't make sense, or you get to the point where you're in it as much as a new build would cost.  Then the question is, "how much do you like your current location and how much of a white elephant do you want on your block?"

 

[Packard]

I get arguments every time I bring this up.

Log cabins are not insulated by the logs.  The logs are “slow conductors” of heat or cold, not insulators. 

It is like holding a 3 foot long by 1 inch thick steel bar at one end, and applying a flame at the other end.  For quite a while the end where you are holding it feels cold or cool.  It will eventually get hot and stay hot long after the flame is removed.

So a slow conductor of heat/cold, not an effective insulator.

It also acts as a heat sink.  The sun that warms the logs in the morning will warm the house in the evening.  But still, a paltry insulator.

 

[Ron B]

I get arguments every time I bring this up.

Just shoot down their argument by reminding them that Eskimos build igloos out of ice blocks and if that did not work, Eskimos would have disappeared a long time ago. 

 

[squall_line]

Not to pick a nit, but technically the definition of an insulator is "bad thermal conductor".

How long it takes a material to eventually transmit that heat through is what makes that material a good or bad insulator.  If you're in a climate where the heat never actually conducts all of the way through, or only 10% of the heat conducts through, it's still an insulator by definition.

 

[Packard]

Not to pick a nit, but technically the definition of an insulator is "bad thermal conductor".

How long it takes a material to eventually transmit that heat through is what makes that material a good or bad insulator.  If you're in a climate where the heat never actually conducts all of the way through, or only 10% of the heat conducts through, it's still an insulator by definition.

I would call it a heat sink, something that stores heat/energy, much like a tulikivi stove. (I once looked into getting one of those stoves.  If the cost did not send me running, then the structural changes would have.  They are so heavy I would have hat to pour a new foundation for a new steel post in the basement.  It was 30 years ago and I think I needed two posts.)
https://www.tulikivi.com/en/products/Wood_burning_stoves

 

[Cheese]

I would call it a heat sink, something that stores heat/energy, much like a tulikivi stove. (I once looked into getting one of those stoves.  If the cost did not send me running, then the structural changes would have.  They are so heavy I would have hat to pour a new foundation for a new steel post in the basement.  It was 30 years ago and I think I needed two posts.)

Not to pick a nit...but a Tulikivi is a thermal mass and yes the Tulikivi is not simply an after thought stuck in the house but rather the house is constructed around the Tulikivi.

 

[Tom the Remodeler]

Not to pick a nit, but technically the definition of an insulator is "bad thermal conductor".

How long it takes a material to eventually transmit that heat through is what makes that material a good or bad insulator.  If you're in a climate where the heat never actually conducts all of the way through, or only 10% of the heat conducts through, it's still an insulator by definition.

Absolutely correct. In the context of habitable structures, R Value is defined as the capacity of a material to resist heat flow. Wood has a capacity to resist the flow of thermal energy through a structure, albeit at a different rate than other materials.

Any substance is technically an insulator, but some will perform much better (aerogel foams have a R value of ~10.3/inch) than others (steel, with an R value of 0.003/inch).

 

[Packard]

I am learning something here.  I will add one more thing to the fire.

Tests need to be run in situations that replicate how they are used.

Back in the early 1970s I was a salesman for what would later be called SIPs (Structural Insulated Panels), but we just called “insulated panels.  Our product was a lamination of an interior aluminum skin, a fire resistant honeycomb panel and an exterior aluminum skin.  The strength and insulation properties were surprising good, especially considering the extremely light weight.

I wanted to get our panels approved for use in New York City, as an awning material for use over balconies. 

Absurdly, the city required a 2 hour fire rating for this application.  They pointed out to me that cinderblocks have a 2 hour rating.  And I pointed out that 2 hour rating was only for when the cinderblocks were “green”.  A year later when they had dried out, it would be about 1 hour. 

The fire rating in NYC is basically a fire build on once side of the wall, and how long it takes for something to combust on the other side of that wall. 

But an awning never has anything on the other side of the panel except rain, snow and pollution.

In any case, I could never get it approved.  But I remain convinced that testing should reflect how the product is used, not what is an easy test to perform.

And before I go, I never knew the purpose of breeze walls before this thread.  My house would benefit from that, but it would probably look too odd for resale.  Also, a “bad-guy” trying to break into your home would have a perfect screen to do his break-in.”