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

Heat people, not spaces (2015)

solar.lowtechmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 335 posts

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#301

Post by blindmute »

occz wrote: post #225
mypalmike wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not personally advocating for this, but some argue for water conservation by taking a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_shower which involves only about 2 minutes of time in the water.

>A Navy shower (also known as a "combat shower", "military shower", "sea shower", "staggered shower", or "G.I. bath") is a method of showering that allows for significant conservation of water and energy by turning off the flow of water in the middle portion of the shower while lathering. Hold up - do you mean to tell me that people do not turn off the water while lathering? I've showered this way all my life, is thi…

Why would you ever do that in a developed country? You'd be saving like 3 cents per shower or less.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#302

Post by tonyedgecombe »

screamingpots wrote: post #181

I'm in UK (south east). I work in tech, working from home. I very rarely put the heating on. The best part of not putting the heating on is that I've had my garden doors open almost every day through the winter. I mostly work at my laptop, just inside sitting on a comfy sofa, right next to the outdoors. In December I was mostly opening the doors about midday just for the afternoon, but since mid to late January I'm b…

I'd could probably do that (in the two years I lived in my flat I never turned the heating on). The problem is my wife would leave.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#303

Post by wolverine876 »

lucidguppy wrote: post #268
wolverine876 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in your house, but the temperature here drops into the 50s at night (or when we're on vacation) regularly in the winter, and zero issues or signs of anything freezing. When we're not using it, we set the thermostat at 10C / 50F. > If you let the house drop to 60-55 F - there's no guarantee that the colder parts of your walls and pipes freeze. That sounds like pretty high variation? ~25-30 deg F?

If the people building the house run the cold water pipes through the outside walls then yeah - you have to worry about temperatures there too. You only have to freeze your pipes once...

> If the people building the house run the cold water pipes through the outside walls

Holy cow - you have to heat the entire house to warm the exterior walls enough - in winter! - that the pipes don't freeze. Ouch.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#304

Post by wolverine876 »

woolion wrote: post #237
wolverine876 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An issue with keeping yourself warm with clothing is some hotspots get too warm, and others too cold. Like the armpits usually get too warm, but your exposed hands too cold. We can sit and imagine problems with every course of action, and never step forward. In my life, I've never had the quoted problem and I've never heard anyone else say it's a problem. On my list of things to worry about, this ranks near the bot…

>We can sit and imagine problems with every course of action, and never step forward. Well, you assume these are fake problems, and so the GP is being disingenuous. The problems he mentions basically only happen if you stay at a computer, or such unphysical activities that form the basis of modern work. As you properly notice, these problems are mostly nonexistent if you do "real" physical activities, but you can sti…

> The problems he mentions basically only happen if you stay at a computer ...

That is what most people I know do for a living, and often during personal time, including me - it's probably the most common job activity among HN readers. And what are we doing now to post these comments? And yet, I've never heard those complaints.

Also, I think you have things reversed: Active people are the ones who like to buy clothes with pit zips.

> your temperature will rise up a lot, so you may sweat a lot and then get cold fast again in your wet clothing

Tangentially: You can avoid this problem with the proper materials: Don't wear cotton in these situations - it is worse than nothing if damp; it chills you. Wear breathable materials that insulate when wet and dry quickly. Wool is probably best, and then 'fleece', which is effectively synthetic wool. Down (e.g., from geese) is even better but if it gets wet, it clumps up into useless balls; however, I've never seen it do that from perspiration, only from external water sources (rain, falling in a river, etc.). Synthetic down can be very warm and still insulates when wet; I suspect it's warmer per liter or per gram than wool, but I'm not sure.

Also, wear a wind-proof outer shell. Preventing the convection of wind does as much as anything to keep you warm.

> Managing good comfort while minimizing room-heating is not easy at all

In fact, it's very easy and people have been doing it for most of history: Put on a sweater. Are we really debating how hard that is? I mean, we can make anything hard, but ... wow.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#305

Post by joe_the_user »

wolverine876 wrote: post #179
joe_the_user wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last December, Nevada County Ca, where I live, had a massive snow storm that knocked out power and snowed people in for 1-3 weeks. I wound up huddled in my apartment with 45 degree heat for five days or so. With enough sweaters, I was a comfortable temperature. Aside from what you mention, since basically you providing your own heat for yourself, you have to put or take off layers depending on physical activity. And…

> we could all live like the hero of To Build A Fire That (and 45 degrees) are strawperson arguments against turning down the thermostat a little and putting on a sweater (and let me recommend shoes). My sense is that many people generally (I don't know the parent commenter) shoot down any individual action, because it's individual action - it's reactionary, ridiculing any 'liberal' idea.

I'm actually pretty progressive and do sometimes leave my sweater on after taking walk and turn the thermostat down.

However I have a bunch of other "personal comfort issues", related to health. so often leave the heat at seventy while I deal with these.

But even more, I do think the "liberal spirit" of trying to solve or pretending you can solve social or environmental issues with exhortations to individual action is reactionary in the end. The only solution to global warming or pollution or etc is action by the state involving the regulation of private enterprises. These "if we all consumed less" positions are kind of the flip side of telling people who make minimum wage they're poor 'cause they drink a soda at lunch or have netflix etc.

Edit: TL;DR; Exploring what you're comfortable with is a good, even suggesting other explore this good. But the spirit of "the problem is you-all consumer too much" is problematic.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#306

Post by joe_the_user »

SenHeng wrote: post #265
thaumasiotes wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Shanghai, which is too warm for snow in the winter. But it's still freezing cold; when I wasn't running heat (because I didn't know how), I'd wake up in the morning with my toes suffering from frostbite. I was miserable all the time until I obtained a space heater.

I've always found the best way to stay warm when sleeping, is to wear as little clothes as possible. My best guess is that heat escapes from our hands and feet so all the warm clothes causes this huge difference in temperature in our bodies. Even here in -20 temps, I typically sleep in a t-shirt and shorts. Heat from my body warms up the little enclosed space under the blankets quite quickly and the overall temp is a…

I think the depends heavily on having a room/blanket/sleeping-bag arrangement that doesn't leak a lot of heat.

In extremely cold, drafty situations (living in unheated bus) with only blankets rather than a sleeping bag, putting on clothes is necessary.

Of course, if you have a good sleeping bag, as little clothes as possible is how to sleep outdoor.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#307

Post by GeekyBear »

bluGill wrote: post #296
GeekyBear wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When we use the ac it lets hot air from the attic in, and worse all winter it is letting cold air from the attic in. The one in my relative's house had louvers that would open when you turned the fan on and then close when you turned it off, so it sealed itself off when not in use. They saved a fortune by not having to run the ac all summer.

Those louvers don't seal very well at best, and even sealed they have no r value so they are not very useful. They can save ac in summer, but IMO not enough

Actually, they did seal well, and the savings were quite significant.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#308

Post by woolion »

wolverine876 wrote: post #304
woolion wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We can sit and imagine problems with every course of action, and never step forward. Well, you assume these are fake problems, and so the GP is being disingenuous. The problems he mentions basically only happen if you stay at a computer, or such unphysical activities that form the basis of modern work. As you properly notice, these problems are mostly nonexistent if you do "real" physical activities, but you can sti…

> The problems he mentions basically only happen if you stay at a computer ... That is what most people I know do for a living, and often during personal time, including me - it's probably the most common job activity among HN readers. And what are we doing now to post these comments? And yet, I've never heard those complaints. Also, I think you have things reversed: Active people are the ones who like to buy clothes…

>Put on a sweater. Are we really debating how hard that is?

You are either very disingenuous, or have trouble with reading comprehension. The point is, if your hands get cold easily it's not possible to go too low in temperature without discomfort. Of course while having sufficiently warm clothing to have a warm core, as you said earlier.

The 4% figure I mentioned is from the Wikipedia abstract; I haven't bothered to check the research, but I believe it grounds this firmly in the "common" territory instead of the "I never heard of such a thing in my life".

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#309

Post by Tagbert »

Yeroc wrote: post #139
mc32 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One place you still need heat is the shower. Maybe some people are okay with taking a shower in 45F ambient temps, but I would resist it.

One thing that's kind of silly about most of our shower stall designs is their open-top design. While a few are sold with caps most are not. Having a cap on top of the shower allows for lower ambient temperatures in the bathroom while showering in (relative) comfort. This also has the benefit of reducing condensation on the ceiling and walls of the bathroom.

Probably because moisture is a much bigger problem in homes than heat or cold. If the shower stall were closed on top, when the door was closed, the moisture would sit in the shower and not evaporate. That can lead to mold problems.

Re: Heat people, not spaces (2015)

#310

Post by kortilla »

wolverine876 wrote: post #179
joe_the_user wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last December, Nevada County Ca, where I live, had a massive snow storm that knocked out power and snowed people in for 1-3 weeks. I wound up huddled in my apartment with 45 degree heat for five days or so. With enough sweaters, I was a comfortable temperature. Aside from what you mention, since basically you providing your own heat for yourself, you have to put or take off layers depending on physical activity. And…

> we could all live like the hero of To Build A Fire That (and 45 degrees) are strawperson arguments against turning down the thermostat a little and putting on a sweater (and let me recommend shoes). My sense is that many people generally (I don't know the parent commenter) shoot down any individual action, because it's individual action - it's reactionary, ridiculing any 'liberal' idea.

Pretending these little moments do anything to help is not a liberal idea. It’s just as stupid as avoiding exercise and eating less to reduce your carbon dioxide output. It demonstrates a complete disconnect from the ability to contextualize real issues from things that actually help.

Stopping climate change is not a “liberal idea”, at least not in the mainstream liberal sense. Airplanes are still filled with liberals even quite far left on the spectrum in the US (even AOC flies all over the east coast because her time is “too important” to be disrupted by climate change).

Post reply on HN