[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GBlist: solar composting toilets




Further to my previous note re: the above, the booklet can be bought from
the more current address and e-mail as noted below.
__________________________________________________________
Jorg Ostrowski,  M. Arch. A.S. (MIT), B. Arch. (Toronto), Ecotect 
 in full-time professional practice since 1976 (Straw Bale since 1978),    
 3 demonstration projects in Canada built 1979, 1981, 1994, +80,000 visitors
 - living a conserver lifestyle & working in a sustainable home and office
Web Site [under construction]: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jdo/ecotecture.htm
_____________________________________________________________

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:14:47 -0600
From: John Cruickshank <hobbithouse@csi.com>

                John Cruickshank
         <<<Hobbit House Sunrise Ranch>>
            5569 North County Road 29
                Loveland CO 80538
                    _/V\_
                    (o~o)            
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~oOOo~(_)~oOOo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   <<<Provider of the "Sunny John" solution>>>
        <<<hobbithouse@compuserve.com>>>

----------
> From: NEHEMIAH STONE <NSTONE@energy.state.ca.us>
> To: strawbale@crest.org; owner-strawbale-digest@crest.org
> Subject: <Autofrwd>SB: in-situ window testing
> Date: Tuesday, July 01, 1997 11:19 AM
> 
> Sender: owner-strawbale@crest.org
> Received: from athena.digimark.net (athena.digimark.net [198.77.86.20])
by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
> 	id NAA28944; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:18:06 -0400
> Received: from solstice.crest.org (solstice.crest.org [199.75.171.10]) by
athena.digimark.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA20394; Tue, 1 Jul 1997
13:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: (from majordom@localhost) by solstice.crest.org (8.8.5/8.7.3)
id NAA26393 for strawbale-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
> X-Authentication-Warning: solstice.crest.org: majordom set sender to
owner-strawbale@crest.org using -f
> Received: from energy.state.ca.us (smtp.energy.state.ca.us
[165.235.216.2]) by solstice.crest.org (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA26385;
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:15:59 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from HAWAIIAN-Message_Server by energy.state.ca.us
> 	with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:12:59 -0700
> Message-Id: <s3b8d82b.044@energy.state.ca.us>
> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 10:19:34 -0700
> From: NEHEMIAH STONE <NSTONE@energy.state.ca.us>
> To: owner-strawbale-digest@crest.org, strawbale@crest.org,
>         strawbale-digest@crest.org
> Subject: SB: in-situ window testing
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Sender: owner-strawbale@crest.org
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:42:03 -0600 (MDT),  Jorg Ostrowski
> <ash@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote the following on the Subject: SB: high
> performance on-site window test:
> 
> Further to the note of below and further to the on-going thread on high
> performance windows, we have several different window technologies which
>  we would like to test in our most recent demonstration project,
> including:
> 
> 1) 3 different types of gases
> 2) 2 different types of thermal breaks
> 3) 2 different types of glass
> 4) several different types of low E coatings/films
> 5) several different R-values: from a low of R-5 to R-17 (prototype)
>    (all are off-the-shelf, even the R-12 windows, except the R-17)
> 6) 4 different window shades
> 7) 2 SunPipes
> 
> We are hoping to install an R-20 window (using xenon) into the project
> later this summer. 
> 
> What is the most: simple, cost-effective, reliable, and appropriate
> on-site test that can be done to check the actual performance and center
> of glass  insulation value? Anyone interested in practical advice or
> useful participation?
> ____________________
> Jorg, and others,
> 
> Lawrence Berkeley Lab has been doing in situ testing of fenestration
> products for over a decade in a facility called the MOWITT (mobile
> window testing something or other).  The facility has been situated in
> Reno, NV most of the time but I believe it has been sited elsewhere part
> of the time.  The people you should probably speak with are (1) Joe
> Klem, (2) Dariush Arasteh, and (3) Steve Selkowitz.  I only have
> Dariush's phone number on hand; (510)486-6844.  Steve is the head of the
> Windows and Daylighting Division at LBL, Dariush heads up the Windows
> section and Joe operates the mobile test facility.  They would have
> better information than probably anyone around on in situ testing.
> 
> On another note, you should probably make it clear when you are talking
> about R-20 and R-15 windows that you are speaking about the center of
> glass values (which will almost always be better than the product's
> overall average value).  An R-17 window (as opposed to an R-17 glazing
> unit in the window) would have a U-factor of 0.06.  [Note: U-factor is
> the inverse of R-value.  Where R-value denotes a products ability to
> resist the flow of heat through it, U-factor is a measure of how many
> Btus flow through each square foot of the product in each hour, for
> every one degree diference between the inside and outside temperatures;
> Btu/(sq.ft. * hr * F).]  Just to put that into perspective, a window in
> the National Fenestration Rating Council's Directory of Certified
> Products with a U-factor of 0.14 (much worse than the 0.06) has a vinyl
> frame, three layers of glass with two 3/8" spaces between them, krypton
> gas, a steel spacer, and a super low emissivity (e = 0.04) coating on
> TWO surfaces of the glass.  Any guess what such a window might cost? 
> Roughly $15.00 per square foot premium OVER the normal cost of window; 
> or, an incremental cost of $360 dollars over a standard dual glazed
> product.  ... One window!  Now if we were to find a way to get the
> U-factor down to 0.06, it is reasonable to expect that the incremental
> cost of each (less cost effective) feature that we would have to add on
> over and above the features already in the equation, would be much
> greater.  It is not inconceivable that getting down to 0.06 (and R-value
> of 17) would make the average sized windows cost over a thousand dollars
> apiece.
> 
> On the other hand, if the number we are discussing is the
> center-of-glass R-value (or U-factor), then an R-17 (U-0.06) is
> "reasonably" achievable at a much lower expense.
> 
> Whether the extra expense would be worth it is dependent upon a number
> of other, non-window, considerations.  Greater expense is justified if
> you have a verrrrry cold and long winter.  ... if your house is
> basically uninsulated and it would cost too much to insulate the walls
> (not too relevent for subscribers to a straw bale construction list, i
> would guess).  ... if you use electricity to heat your home (dumb!)  ...
> or if you have an otherwise in efficient heating system.  the more
> costly your heating options are the more cost effective is a technology
> that would lower your heating requirements.  But at almost any design, I
> have a hard time believing that (outside of the arctic circle), R-20
> windows, or even R-17 windows are anywhere near commercially viable
> (cost effective) prices.  Please, if I'm wrong let me know the brand and
> type of windows that you know of which have R-15, R-17 and R-20 values.
> 
> Nehemiah Stone
> California Energy Commission


______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <www.crest.org>
Environmental Building News <www.ebuild.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
For  instructions send  e-mail to  greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
______________________________________________________________________