111–120 of 185 posts
Well that's full of really useful tips. I'll get the builders in to construct a 1.37m (4.5ft) thick spine through the middle of my house. Obviously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ridge vent is the modern approach, with vents and wind baffles in the eaves so air is evenly distributed. 1.5' overhang is good, 2' is ideal. Cheap builders will go 1' or even less. Good architects still pay attention to the sun. It's often builders who are the culprits because they want to save money.
Around Seattle, modern houses are square boxes with a flat roof, and zero eaves. I watch these homes get built all the time. A few years later, I see all the water damage to the siding. You're right about ridge vents, they behave much like a cupola, but the holes in them are too small for much airflow, and are easily blocked by debris, insects and moss.
That's a concern. It may be a good idea to put a connected thermometer and hygrometer in the attic. If it is ventilating properly, the temperature and humidity should be close to outdoor values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone I know who has built a house has thought very much about sun, season and temperature. I've lived in houses that certainly did not take into account sun, season and temperature. I learned a lot from that experience. My current house is optimized for it. I've learned a few more things about it, and could do better. > the idea that it has something to teach modern architects and builders is pure fantasy Not m…
Forced ventilation of the attic creates negative pressure in the attic, which pulls conditioned air from the house. The additional air movement (which you should minimize with air sealing) costs more than the additional loses by the mildly increased temperature differential through the insulation. If you aren't using A/C and have the windows open, then it only helps, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a noticable (and well recorded) change in the climate for awhile when Ghenghis Khan went on his rampage. And he was a lot less effective at killing people than novel old world diseases. It doesn’t seem completely implausible.
Correlation vs causation?
When we lost power for 10 days a few winters back we attempted to use the fire place for heat. It was a fail. Post and beam house (large wide open floor plan) with a large transfer from 1st to 2nd floor, and apprently my lack of skill for optimizing heat over beauty in the fireplace, left us without much of a thermal bump. To this day I swear we were pulling heat out of the chimney faster than we were heating the hou…
An open fire is not a particularly warm thing to have unless you’re directly in front of it. Most of the heat goes straight up the flue, and it uses an enormous amount of air to keep burning - it will pull huge volumes from rvertwhere it can. This is why these old buildings didn’t suffer from damp issues - the open fires burning were ventilating them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because they’re so airtight they require expensive mechanical ventilation and make-up air systems unless you want indoor air pollution problems. Most modern homes have this issue. Building science has driven them to be air tight bubbles. Look at blower door tests on current construction and a lot of "building science" driven construction.
It's still miles ahead of having literal holes in your window frames to let "fresh air" come in when it's -20c outside. All you need to do is design a house with a sensible ventilation system, which costs virtually nothing compared to the rest of the building costs. It's even more stupid for americans because they already all have complex ventilation system...
Maybe for newer houses. I have an older house and I don't have a ventilation system. Forced radiator hot water heat and no AC in New England.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you imagine is called a rocket stove mass heater, and it has other names too. Works wonderfully well.
We saw stoves/fireplaces like this in a bunch of taverns in Slovenia. Huge hulking tiled cubes around the center of the building that just radiated a pleasant heat from every square inch of the surface. I imagine it was quite efficient, with just a very low fire burning to keep it in equilibrium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An open fire is not a particularly warm thing to have unless you’re directly in front of it. Most of the heat goes straight up the flue, and it uses an enormous amount of air to keep burning - it will pull huge volumes from rvertwhere it can. This is why these old buildings didn’t suffer from damp issues - the open fires burning were ventilating them.
If it has a flue or chimney, it isnt really an open fire. Look at an ancient long house, or farmer's thatched cottage from say 400 years ago. They had a fire on a stone circle on the floor in the middle of the room, and a high roof sometimes with a hole but often not. It was smoky, but kept everyone warm.