Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

lowtechmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 314 posts

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#271

Post by com2kid »

wffurr wrote: post #176
com2kid wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this keeps my hands warm. Or makes me feel comfortable. After growing up in a house with no insulation and being miserable all winter long, now for an extra ~$50 a month during the winter I get to keep my house at a nice toasty 74-76 degrees F and I'm comfortable year round.

Keeping your core warmer, especially with the thermal underwear discussed at length in the article, will also keep your hands warmer. There's an entire section of the article titled "Hands and feet". You could read it instead of dismissing the whole idea out of hand.

> Keeping your core warmer, especially with the thermal underwear discussed at length in the article, will also keep your hands warmer.

That works on the general case, but not always.

I've worked in buildings where I can be sweating in my coat and still have cold hands.

I can easily wear extra thick socks, have my feet swimming in my shoes, and still have my ears be cold.

Theory is great until it runs into reality.

(If theory worked so well, there wouldn't be an active market for desk heaters to warm up hands!)

edit:

Example from the article

>> But of course, the permeability index is not of any importance for indoor couch potatoes: they don't sweat.

Which is complete BS. I am sitting here in a t-shirt right now and the part of my back that is up against my chair is rather sweaty.

Likewise, feet sweat in shoes.

> However, it is important to note that if the body as a whole is kept warm enough, hands and feet will not be greatly affected by lower indoor temperatures.

Again, not true in my experience.

> While insulating your neck and feet will greatly improve your thermal comfort, there is no need to wear gloves or caps indoors.

If the indoor temp is below 65f I am not going to be typing anything for very long. For that matter at around 68f I'm starting to get uncomfortable.

Truth of it is, I've worked in more than one office where I was stuck wearing a cap indoors.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#272

Post by heelix »

nucleardog wrote: post #199
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until you go outside and try to walk in the street :) There’s no bad weather, only bad clothing. Dress appropriately when going out - every Canadian 5yo has mastered that skill.

I appreciate the thought and agree in most situations the solution is to dress better, but when it’s -40 actual temperature and hitting -70F with the windchill I’d still call it “bad weather”. At that point you can get frostbite in under a minute. Dressing appropriately starts to feel more like putting on a hazmat suit than getting dressed to go out as any bit of exposed skin is at risk. Even many cold-weather access…

Fun fact -40C == -40F. The nice thing about those days it it is typically too cold to snow up here in Minnesota.

A thin wool hat is really nice around the house if SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED keeps things on the colder side. Same deal for camping - if you trap the body heat that escapes your head, you will feel much warmer - be it the keyboard or a hammock. Same goes for a good pair of socks too.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#273

Post by jedberg »

sn_master wrote: post #270
jedberg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what the rules are in London, but in Chicago landlords are responsible for paying for heating. An interesting side effect is that even crappy old buildings have triple paned windows and super efficient heaters.

Strange, I never heard of any place where the renter doesn't pay for the heating. Doesn't seem fair to make the landlord pay for it.

It's probably not fair, but the side effect of it is that people don't freeze in their homes, and heating can be more efficient because they can use whole building systems.

And at the end of the day, the tenants basically pay for it anyway as part of their rent. It's just spread out more.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#274

Post by fomine3 »

masklinn wrote: post #65
peteretep wrote: post #11

From the comments: > Sorry, I am not buying it. Not because you haven't done good work on the article: you have. Also not because N.American homes are overheated, and the residents under-dressed: they are. I do not buy it because the Japanese live the way you suggest in the winter, and it is miserable I have a mother in Scotland and I have a mother-in-law in Canada. Worst it ever gets near my mother seems to be -5C,…

Interestingly the same can be seen in Japan despite it being a common example: Honshu (the main island) generally has poor insulation and heating. Hokkaido, however, generally has good insulation and central heating. Unsurprisingly, while nowhere near as bad as Winnipeg winter in Hokkaido is much longer and deeper than in most of Honshu. Although it likely helps that Hokkaido is much drier, especially in summer, mean…

Because Japanese house is traditionally built to be able to pass winds for natural wind cooling in summer. It was fine for summer but bad for winter, so we love Kotatsu.

Now, we can't live with natural wind cooling in summer (A/C is the only option), it's bad in both summer and winter.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#275

Post by grecy »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #241
grecy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference there is the humidity making you feel cold. I live in the Yukon where -40C is the standard daytime temp for months, and I'm perfectly happy/used to it. I felt cold to my bones in the UK.

How do you folks in the Yukon manage air humidity inside your houses during the winter? I would think that by default, the indoor heated air would be so dry that it would cause havoc on your sinuses.

Many, many people struggle with dry and cracked skin (hands, face), blood noses, etc.

For me personally I do notice it whenever I leave and come back, though I seem to adjust OK. I use moisturizer a lot.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#276

Post by fomine3 »

boznz wrote: post #182
Symbiote wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a week-long business trip to South Island in the winter terribly cold. Going from 30°C weather to 12°C isn't a great start, but then the otherwise-decent hotel had single glazed windows, which the maid would open every morning. The only heater in the room was an electric resistance one attached to the wall. In offices, most of the foreigners on the trip were wearing coats and other extra layers. Young people…

We're not that tough. Any house built in the past 15 years must meet the newer regulations of double-glazing and roof,wall,floor insulation. There are plenty of older properties without any of these standards and these are terrible and are also probably the most likely to be Holiday homes or AirBnBs, but any houses that are tenanted now need to be upgraded to meet minimum standards. Most private houses also have effi…

Aluminum window frame is really awful. Why we use the material that used for heatsink to insulate?

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#277

Post by dharma1 »

gwd wrote: post #53

> Because vasoconstriction only occurs when the core body temperature falls, it won't happen if you're dressed warmly enough. While insulating your neck and feet will greatly improve your thermal comfort, there is no need to wear gloves or caps indoors. In fact, it doesn't matter very much which parts of your body you choose to insulate - the important thing is to limit total heat loss so that the body core temperatu…

sheepskin slippers/booties. best thing I've bought in a while.

https://www.sheepskin.co.uk/product/sheepland-luxury-sheepsk...

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#278

Post by sn_master »

jedberg wrote: post #273
sn_master wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange, I never heard of any place where the renter doesn't pay for the heating. Doesn't seem fair to make the landlord pay for it.

It's probably not fair, but the side effect of it is that people don't freeze in their homes, and heating can be more efficient because they can use whole building systems. And at the end of the day, the tenants basically pay for it anyway as part of their rent. It's just spread out more.

yes, but people's preferences can vary. e.g. I can't stand it being less than 77 F inside, while others will be happy with 64 F. I know my electricity/heat bill is always significantly higher than others in the Winter.

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#279

Post by fnbr »

duncans wrote: post #99
fnbr wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I find that people spend the least amount of money on insulation/heat that they can. I’m from Edmonton, and the coldest I’ve ever been was the winter when I lived in London, UK, as their insulation sucks and their heating sucks. In Edmonton, that’s not possible, because you have a few days of -40C weather annually, so your pipes will freeze without proper insulation (and you’ll die). Now, it’s not comfortable l…

I guess most people's experience of living in London is because they lived in shitty rented accommodation. Most houses in London were built before the 1970s. Being rented would mean they they would be less likely to have double-glazing retro-fitted or insulation improved because the landlord wouldn't give a shit.

Oh, definitely. I lived in university accommodations that were awful. The residents the year after me sued the university as the residence wasn’t inhabitable (black mold).

Re: Insulation: First the body, then the home (2011)

#280

Post by mixmastamyk »

Kluny wrote: post #269
mixmastamyk wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't mold handled most effectively with a dehumidifier, rather than a heater?

So add a second appliance rather than using one that you already have for both comfort and mold prevention?

If it worked better and more directly attacked the problem, I'd consider it yes. I'm not even certain a heater will prevent mold, but will take your word for it.
Post reply on HN