|
Home > Archive > Architecture > November 2007 > Old building methods for modern buildings?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Old building methods for modern buildings?
|
|
| Andre-John Mas 2007-11-07, 1:25 pm |
| Hi,
I have had the chance to travel and have seen that in some countries
there are some effective solutions to keeping a building cool, warm or
simply making them work in the environment they are in. Contrast this
to some modern buildings which seem to ignore completely the
environment in which they are present. Some of the design issue I see
are:
- buildings which have roofs that aren't designed for the amount of
rain or snow
- inefficient design for cooling
In some of the counties I have visited I have seen, as smart of use of
'technology' (does not have to be modern):
- tall rooms for keeping spaces cool
- large vertical chimneys that rise up beyond the building that are
designed to capture the moving wind, to extract the warm air in the
buildings
- stilts that help keep the building away from the damp and help
cooling of the building
- roofs that slant to reduce the impact of snow and rain on the
building
These are just a few, though I would be curious to see what seemingly
simple building techniques that you have seen elsewhere that could be
used in our new buildings, to help them better fit into its climate.
Andre
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-07, 1:25 pm |
|
"Andre-John Mas" <andrejohn.mas@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194456765.036306.297070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have had the chance to travel and have seen that in some countries
> there are some effective solutions to keeping a building cool, warm or
> simply making them work in the environment they are in. Contrast this
> to some modern buildings which seem to ignore completely the
> environment in which they are present. Some of the design issue I see
> are:
> - buildings which have roofs that aren't designed for the amount of
> rain or snow
> - inefficient design for cooling
>
> In some of the counties I have visited I have seen, as smart of use of
> 'technology' (does not have to be modern):
> - tall rooms for keeping spaces cool
> - large vertical chimneys that rise up beyond the building that are
> designed to capture the moving wind, to extract the warm air in the
> buildings
> - stilts that help keep the building away from the damp and help
> cooling of the building
> - roofs that slant to reduce the impact of snow and rain on the
> building
>
> These are just a few, though I would be curious to see what seemingly
> simple building techniques that you have seen elsewhere that could be
> used in our new buildings, to help them better fit into its climate.
This is not a traditional-vs-modern debate. Many old buildings are awfully
stupid too.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
|
Andre-John Mas wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have had the chance to travel and have seen that in some countries
>there are some effective solutions to keeping a building cool, warm or
>simply making them work in the environment they are in. Contrast this
>to some modern buildings which seem to ignore completely the
>environment in which they are present. Some of the design issue I see
>are:
> - buildings which have roofs that aren't designed for the amount of
>rain or snow
> - inefficient design for cooling
>
>In some of the counties I have visited I have seen, as smart of use of
>'technology' (does not have to be modern):
> - tall rooms for keeping spaces cool
> - large vertical chimneys that rise up beyond the building that are
>designed to capture the moving wind, to extract the warm air in the
>buildings
> - stilts that help keep the building away from the damp and help
>cooling of the building
> - roofs that slant to reduce the impact of snow and rain on the
>building
>
>These are just a few, though I would be curious to see what seemingly
>simple building techniques that you have seen elsewhere that could be
>used in our new buildings, to help them better fit into its climate.
>
>Andre
>
>
Dear Andre,
I have a whole library on traditional building, but I'm too tired to
summarize all that after putting in 5AM to over 9PM working at the polls
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Andre-John Mas" <andrejohn.mas@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194456765.036306.297070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I have had the chance to travel and have seen that in some countries
> there are some effective solutions to keeping a building cool, warm or
> simply making them work in the environment they are in. Contrast this
> to some modern buildings which seem to ignore completely the
> environment in which they are present. Some of the design issue I see
> are:
> - buildings which have roofs that aren't designed for the amount of
> rain or snow
> - inefficient design for cooling
>
> In some of the counties I have visited I have seen, as smart of use of
> 'technology' (does not have to be modern):
> - tall rooms for keeping spaces cool
> - large vertical chimneys that rise up beyond the building that are
> designed to capture the moving wind, to extract the warm air in the
> buildings
> - stilts that help keep the building away from the damp and help
> cooling of the building
> - roofs that slant to reduce the impact of snow and rain on the
> building
>
> These are just a few, though I would be curious to see what seemingly
> simple building techniques that you have seen elsewhere that could be
> used in our new buildings, to help them better fit into its climate.
>
> Andre
Just about all the things you mentioned are incidentals, not methods.
Ex:
Not everyone can afford high ceilings and a house without a fireplace has no
use for a chimney no matter how tall it is.
ALL homes on barrier islands must be above sea level and if there isn't
enough dirt than *stilts* will suffice and flat roofs that are designed
properly work well with snow loads - just take a look at any walmart in
northern climes-ever seen one collapse? Me neither.
You're hitting and running and I'm not sure where you're going............
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fgt95p01ib4@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Andre-John Mas" <andrejohn.mas@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1194456765.036306.297070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Just about all the things you mentioned are incidentals, not methods.
> Ex:
> Not everyone can afford high ceilings and a house without a fireplace has
> no use for a chimney no matter how tall it is.
> ALL homes on barrier islands must be above sea level and if there isn't
> enough dirt than *stilts* will suffice and flat roofs that are designed
> properly work well with snow loads - just take a look at any walmart in
> northern climes-ever seen one collapse? Me neither.
>
> You're hitting and running and I'm not sure where you're going............
>
The use of a chimney is not necessarily related to a fireplace AFAIK. I've
seen heat chimneys used to draw heat up out of a space in order to cool the
air it in one small area, and let it fall back down when it cools. Of
course these look nothing like your standard fireplace chimneys. But I
agree with you on some of the rest of the stuff.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Andre-John Mas 2007-11-07, 5:25 pm |
| On Nov 7, 4:00 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Andre-John Mas" <andrejohn....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194456765.036306.297070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just about all the things you mentioned are incidentals, not methods.
Maybe I should have used the word 'technology', but I am not sure that
is the best definition either.
> Ex:
> Not everyone can afford high ceilings and a house without a fireplace has no
> use for a chimney no matter how tall it is.
I used the word 'chimney', but apparently its the wrong word.
Basically what I meant is that there are buildings that use simple
vertical vents, which are designed to evacuate the heat contained in a
room. Their design helps reduce the need for an air-conditioning unit
and works well for a house in a hot climate.
> ALL homes on barrier islands must be above sea level and if there isn't
> enough dirt than *stilts* will suffice and flat roofs that are designed
> properly work well with snow loads - just take a look at any walmart in
> northern climes-ever seen one collapse? Me neither.
>
> You're hitting and running and I'm not sure where you're going............
I have seen many western buildings that seem to be the result of short-
term cost savings, as opposed to proper adaptation of the environment
in which they are in. For example low lying houses in an area which
floods often, would be better suited to stilt houses. The gist of the
question was: In the western world are there situations where you feel
too much technology, or inappropriate building techniques have been
used, where more traditional technologies (of any country) would have
provided a better result?
In asking the question I am trying to see what others have to feel
about this. I already have my opinion on certain aspects, but I would
be interested to see the view points of others.
Andre
| |
|
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4732232e$0$12575$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:fgt95p01ib4@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> The use of a chimney is not necessarily related to a fireplace AFAIK.
> I've seen heat chimneys used to draw heat up out of a space in order to
> cool the air it in one small area, and let it fall back down when it
> cools.
I never heard of that.
Of
> course these look nothing like your standard fireplace chimneys. But I
> agree with you on some of the rest of the stuff.
>
> --
> Edgar
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
| |
| RicodJour 2007-11-08, 3:25 am |
| On Nov 7, 4:33 pm, "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fgt95p01ib4@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The use of a chimney is not necessarily related to a fireplace AFAIK. I've
> seen heat chimneys used to draw heat up out of a space in order to cool the
> air it in one small area, and let it fall back down when it cools. Of
> course these look nothing like your standard fireplace chimneys. But I
> agree with you on some of the rest of the stuff.
Or just exhaust it. I'm designing such an animal right now. I have
to partition off the attic-bedroom stairs to allow the attic door to
be louvered. Not sure if I'll put in a powered ventilator at the
top. Hoping to get a skylight/roof window in there in hopes of
getting a city and bridges skyline view.
Andre, there are plenty of people that are sensitive to location
specific design and use proven techniques instead of bleeding edge
technology. There's a place for both in good design and construction.
R
| |
| Troppo 2007-11-08, 9:25 am |
| Andre-John Mas <andrejohn.mas@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194456765.036306.297070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Hi,
>
> I have had the chance to travel and have seen that in some countries
> there are some effective solutions to keeping a building cool, warm or
> simply making them work in the environment they are in. Contrast this
> to some modern buildings which seem to ignore completely the
> environment in which they are present. Some of the design issue I see
> are:
> - buildings which have roofs that aren't designed for the amount of
> rain or snow
> - inefficient design for cooling
>
> In some of the counties I have visited I have seen, as smart of use of
> 'technology' (does not have to be modern):
> - tall rooms for keeping spaces cool
also needs good venting by convection or pressure differential (see
below) but helps - because the hottest air is higher above your head than
it would be with a normal-height room.
> - large vertical chimneys that rise up beyond the building that are
> designed to capture the moving wind, to extract the warm air in the
> buildings
Bernoulli vents, sometimes imho incorrectly called Venturi vents
> - stilts that help keep the building away from the damp and help
> cooling of the building
In tropical climates, the air nearest the ground is the hottest, most
humid and frequently turbulent. Raising the house on stumps places the
living areas in a slightly cooler, less turbulent zone.
Gives the the house better access to breezes, which may be attenuated by
fences and other obstructions at ground level.
A house on stumps allows air to flow over, round and under the house -
minimises attenuation. Houses on the ground are "bluff bodies" - there
are always areas of still air in front of the walls. And mosquitoes
prefer still air to moving air ...
> - roofs that slant to reduce the impact of snow and rain on the
> building
>
> These are just a few, though I would be curious to see what seemingly
> simple building techniques that you have seen elsewhere that could be
> used in our new buildings, to help them better fit into its climate.
Have a look at "Designing for Climate" on
http://people.aapt.net.au/jclark19/
Not all old or traditional buildings are smart of course, but I have come
across some gems. Traditional houses in Milne Bay PNG have vertical
frames "spung" from the ground, outwards around a suspended floor, back
in and joined at the apex, like a row of archery bows. They hum and
vibrate in strong winds and earth tremours, but rarely fail.
Heavy timber beam/column joints, also in PNG, where the joint is made by
a complex decorative winding of bush vine. As the structure moves in wind
or earthquake, the vine tightens progressively. and deals with high/low
cyclic loads. Operates like a torsion joint in a skyscraper, but in any
direction. Housed or dowelled joints or modern bolts would probably fail.
Then there's the Mongolian yurt with its diagonal cross-bracing. Same
structural system as the Hancock Tower (sp?) in Chicago but can be folded
up and carried on the back of a horse ...
| |
| Troppo 2007-11-08, 9:25 am |
| Andre-John Mas <andrejohn.mas@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194472982.704824.308770@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 7, 4:00 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> I used the word 'chimney', but apparently its the wrong word.
> Basically what I meant is that there are buildings that use simple
> vertical vents, which are designed to evacuate the heat contained in a
> room. Their design helps reduce the need for an air-conditioning unit
> and works well for a house in a hot climate.
As I said before - 'Bernoulli vents".
There is also the "Stack Effect". If the height of the stack (chimney,
atrium, whatever) is high enough eg 7 - 10 metres and the openings are
large enough then the airflow by convection can be constant and dramatic.
"Cool pools" - natural airflow over a body of water (lake, swimming pool,
clay pot full of water) and funnelled into the building, will reduce the
air temperature and also humidify the air - useful in hot dry climates.
> [...]
>
> I have seen many western buildings that seem to be the result of
> short- term cost savings, as opposed to proper adaptation of the
> environment in which they are in. For example low lying houses in an
> area which floods often, would be better suited to stilt houses.
Yep - 10 years ago round here, people up to their armpits in water,
having to be rescued. Similar flood 50 years before that, most people
high and dry on their elevated floors and verandahs ...
> the gist of the question was: In the western world are there situations
> where you feel too much technology, or inappropriate building
> techniques have been used, where more traditional technologies (of any
> country) would have provided a better result?
Well, I try giving the right advice:
"That's just what Grandpa told us ..."
"You listen to your Grandpa?"
"No .."
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-11-08, 9:25 am |
| Don wrote:
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> I never heard of that.
Look up "solar chimney"...
| |
|
| On Nov 7, 12:32 pm, Andre-John Mas <andrejohn....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have had the chance to travel and have seen that in some countries
> there are some effective solutions to keeping a building cool, warm or
> simply making them work in the environment they are in. Contrast this
> to some modern buildings which seem to ignore completely the
> environment in which they are present. Some of the design issue I see
> are:
> - buildings which have roofs that aren't designed for the amount of
> rain or snow
> - inefficient design for cooling
>
> In some of the counties I have visited I have seen, as smart of use of
> 'technology' (does not have to be modern):
> - tall rooms for keeping spaces cool
> - large vertical chimneys that rise up beyond the building that are
> designed to capture the moving wind, to extract the warm air in the
> buildings
> - stilts that help keep the building away from the damp and help
> cooling of the building
> - roofs that slant to reduce the impact of snow and rain on the
> building
>
> These are just a few, though I would be curious to see what seemingly
> simple building techniques that you have seen elsewhere that could be
> used in our new buildings, to help them better fit into its climate.
>
> Andre
Well, two techniques should be reinvented. After seeing the troubles
with my friend's heating system, I'd be all for campfires in the
middle of the floor.
Second, my house is just over 100 years old but is well insulated with
blown in insulation and attic insulation. When I heated exclusively
with wood, the downstairs would be HOT and the upstairs cold -- all
those rules about hot air rising didn't seem to apply. I realized
that there was only one way upstairs and some type of invert was
occurring. So I hacked a hole through the floor and put in one of
those old-fashioned floor grates like they used when people had
gravity-fed furnaces. It evened the whole temperature out right
away. I liked the idea of having a passive system, for some reason.
We don't even have the upstairs heat turned on, it's all off of the
downstairs.
| |
|
|
Edgar wrote:
>
>The use of a chimney is not necessarily related to a fireplace AFAIK. I've
>seen heat chimneys used to draw heat up out of a space in order to cool the
>air it in one small area, and let it fall back down when it cools. Of
>course these look nothing like your standard fireplace chimneys. But I
>agree with you on some of the rest of the stuff.
>
>
I'm interested in chimneys. Does anyone have the plan for a Russian
chimney in Maine that appered in Yankee Magazine in the 80s? Any plans
for the same?
| |
| RicodJour 2007-11-08, 1:25 pm |
| On Nov 8, 11:04 am, ++ <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> I'm interested in chimneys. Does anyone have the plan for a Russian
> chimney in Maine that appered in Yankee Magazine in the 80s? Any plans
> for the same?
Google is your friend.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...russian+chimney
First and third links are of particular interest.
R
| |
|
|
RicodJour wrote:
>On Nov 8, 11:04 am, ++ <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Google is your friend.
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...russian+chimney
>First and third links are of particular interest.
>
>R
>
>
Wow, not the original, but thanks. And it was 1978, so now, thanks to
you, i have the original citation.
>
>
>
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2007-11-09, 9:25 am |
| On Nov 8, 6:37 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:32 pm, Andre-John Mas <andrejohn....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, two techniques should be reinvented. After seeing the troubles
> with my friend's heating system, I'd be all for campfires in the
> middle of the floor.
> Second, my house is just over 100 years old but is well insulated with
> blown in insulation and attic insulation. When I heated exclusively
> with wood, the downstairs would be HOT and the upstairs cold -- all
> those rules about hot air rising didn't seem to apply. I realized
> that there was only one way upstairs and some type of invert was
> occurring. So I hacked a hole through the floor and put in one of
> those old-fashioned floor grates like they used when people had
> gravity-fed furnaces. It evened the whole temperature out right
> away. I liked the idea of having a passive system, for some reason.
> We don't even have the upstairs heat turned on, it's all off of the
> downstairs.
Nice, force air is a bit noisy, even the computer fan
(you're probably hearing) can be a bit distracting.
Some of the nicest systems I've seen have the wood
stove in the basement.
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-17, 5:25 pm |
| "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:fgt07502e52@news5.newsguy.com:
>
> "Andre-John Mas" <andrejohn.mas@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1194456765.036306.297070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is not a traditional-vs-modern debate. Many old buildings are
> awfully stupid too.
I thknk the point was not traditional-versus-modern, but rather, not
simply throwing away ideas that work well, merely because they don't
appear to be new. ((I say "appear to be" only because it seems to happen
fairly often that "new" ideas are basically reinterpretations or
rediscoveries of "old" ideas.))
Often, people do get so caught-up in being "new", that they rush into it
and don't think enough about what actually works.
IOW, I think the OP's point was about *blending* traditional and modern
techniques so as to make the best use of what *works* in a given climate.
For example, I remember driving through newly-built areas in Inland
Southern California, and seeing not one single extended eave, or one
single porch, or *anything* that hinted at being an overhang. That was
just stupid, given the climate and the cost (both financial and
environmental) of wasted air-conditioning.
effeciency and comfort are ebst served when what's used is what works,
and that means both developing new techniques/designs, *and* adapting
past-and-proven techniques/designs.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-17, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fgt95p01ib4@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> "Andre-John Mas" <andrejohn.mas@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1194456765.036306.297070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Just about all the things you mentioned are incidentals, not methods.
> Ex:
> Not everyone can afford high ceilings and a house without a fireplace
> has no use for a chimney no matter how tall it is.
I thought the OP was referring to a thing used in North Africana nd soem
Middle East buildings, where earthen homes had towers which, IIRC (not
sure) might be called "wind catchers" or somehting similar (I'd have to
check). Anyway, the idea was that these were, in fact, tall and sturdy,
and both brought winds into the house (thick earthen walls BTW), and
allowed hot air to rise and escape.
I thnik theword"chimney" is used in the general sense,m as oppsoed to the
specific sense of being incorporated with a fireplace.
At least, that is what I thought the OP meant - I could be worng, of
course.
> ALL homes on barrier islands must be above sea level and if there
> isn't enough dirt than *stilts* will suffice and flat roofs that are
> designed properly work well with snow loads - just take a look at any
> walmart in northern climes-ever seen one collapse? Me neither.
>
> You're hitting and running and I'm not sure where you're
> going............
>
>
>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-17, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fgtipu01v8q@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> "Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4732232e$0$12575$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> I never heard of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher
>
>
> Of
>
>
| |
| Troppo 2007-11-17, 5:25 pm |
| Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in
news:13jummao8i0sbec@corp.supernews.com:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:fgt95p01ib4@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> [...]
>
> I thought the OP was referring to a thing used in North Africana nd
> soem Middle East buildings, where earthen homes had towers which, IIRC
> (not sure) might be called "wind catchers" or somehting similar (I'd
> have to check). Anyway, the idea was that these were, in fact, tall
> and sturdy, and both brought winds into the house (thick earthen walls
> BTW), and allowed hot air to rise and escape.
>
> I thnik theword"chimney" is used in the general sense,m as oppsoed to
> the specific sense of being incorporated with a fireplace.
>
> At least, that is what I thought the OP meant - I could be worng, of
> course.
No you are right. High level vents.
Hot air rises up the vent by convection = stack effect.
However, if the opening in the vent faces downwind relative to the
"target" wind (the wind that is going to bring relief when conditions are
the most uncomfortable) then the device also works due to difference in
pressure. The downwind side of the vent has a lower pressure than the
upwind side. Equalisation of this difference draws air from the interior
of the building. More effective than anything produced by temperature
difference. I have seen houses where the effect is good enough to cause
paper to float around rooms at head height, or get sucked up the vent.
sou you have to be very tidy, or be well-equipped with paperweights.
Same phenomenon with an aircraft wing - the air path past the wing is
shorter on the underside than the top side = lower pressure at the rear
top side of the wing = lift.
Contemporary tract housing in hot climates usually lacks natural airflow
at ground level. There are too many obstructions so natural airflow, if
present, is "skimming" above the roof - the boundary layer is pushed
upwards. So - if you can poke a vent up above the roof, you might get
some benefit. Problem is, the vent has to be controllable, for when all
else fails and you have to turn on the A/C.
| |
| Troppo 2007-11-17, 5:25 pm |
| Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in news:13juo9i36919re5
@corp.supernews.com:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:fgtipu01v8q@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> [..]
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher
Yep - but compared to the device I described earlier, that's the 'top of
the range' item. Bit expensive for the rest of us :-)
On the other hand, if you are building blocks of units ?
| |
|
|
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-18, 5:25 pm |
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13jumdr449n5m0e@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
> news:fgt07502e52@news5.newsguy.com:
>
>
> I thknk the point was not traditional-versus-modern, but rather, not
> simply throwing away ideas that work well, merely because they don't
> appear to be new.
Maybe so, but that's how it looks to me. Anyone who knows me knows I am not
a modernist-right-or-wrong, so I'm not sticking up for modernism..... just
pointing out some conceptual imprecision. If you look at them with the
intent to do so, you can find many 'silly' things in traditional building
too. More wherever people have enough in resources to play the "my branch
is higher than your branch, you stupid tree monkey" game.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-20, 5:25 pm |
| "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:fhqerc02ju3@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13jumdr449n5m0e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Maybe so, but that's how it looks to me. Anyone who knows me knows I
> am not a modernist-right-or-wrong, so I'm not sticking up for
> modernism..... just pointing out some conceptual imprecision. If you
> look at them with the intent to do so, you can find many 'silly'
> things in traditional building too. More wherever people have enough
> in resources to play the "my branch is higher than your branch, you
> stupid tree monkey" game.
I don't go for that, either. I think that it's possible (if not easy) to
achieve a balance between traditional/indigenous mehtods that work, AND
modern methods that work. Stylistic integrity is also IMO achievable in
this, but it does take attention. THe worst thing, IMO, is to combine
methods that don't work, and then call the leaky hodgepodge
"fashionable" ;)
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-20, 5:25 pm |
| Troppo <troppo19@notsohotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99EC51404BBB9troppo19notsohotmail@210.8.230.25:
> Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in news:13juo9i36919re5
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>
> Yep - but compared to the device I described earlier, that's the 'top
> of the range' item. Bit expensive for the rest of us :-)
> On the other hand, if you are building blocks of units ?
>
Why expensive...? Not being sbnotty, I don't see why they should be, so
I'm curious.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-20, 5:25 pm |
| "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:fhqec302j7h@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13juo9i36919re5@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>
> Great link, Kris!
>
>
>
THanks, occasionally I come up with something useful <g!>
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-11-20, 5:25 pm |
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13k6ogoj7rptma8@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
> news:fhqec302j7h@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
> THanks, occasionally I come up with something useful <g!>
It must be bloody hot there to warrant building something that tall...
| |
| Troppo 2007-11-21, 9:25 am |
| Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in
news:13k6ofvmpkvg89f@corp.supernews.com:
> Troppo <troppo19@notsohotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns99EC51404BBB9troppo19notsohotmail@210.8.230.25:
>
>
> Why expensive...? Not being sbnotty, I don't see why they should be,
so
> I'm curious.
>
>
Referring to the deluxe version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...t-Cooling-1.jpg
Basement under the building, water channels under that. If they aren't
there already, digging holes like that will cost a bit, even without all
the WH&S issues. The version 'for the rest of us' eg a high-level vent
above the roof, with the opening pointing downwind - that's not too bad
in a lot of places. Of course, around here it might take a bit of work to
stop it coming off in a high wind (61 metres per second ultimate limit-
state design).
| |
| per.corell@privat.dk 2007-11-21, 9:25 am |
| On Nov 17, 10:13 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote innews:fgt07502e52@news5.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I thknk the point was not traditional-versus-modern, but rather, not
> simply throwing away ideas that work well, merely because they don't
> appear to be new. ((I say "appear to be" only because it seems to happen
> fairly often that "new" ideas are basically reinterpretations or
> rediscoveries of "old" ideas.))
>
> Often, people do get so caught-up in being "new", that they rush into it
> and don't think enough about what actually works.
>
> IOW, I think the OP's point was about *blending* traditional and modern
> techniques so as to make the best use of what *works* in a given climate.
>
> For example, I remember driving through newly-built areas in Inland
> Southern California, and seeing not one single extended eave, or one
> single porch, or *anything* that hinted at being an overhang. That was
> just stupid, given the climate and the cost (both financial and
> environmental) of wasted air-conditioning.
>
> effeciency and comfort are ebst served when what's used is what works,
> and that means both developing new techniques/designs, *and* adapting
> past-and-proven techniques/designs.
Sorry I reply to the first post, but many true things are said in this
tread and it is difficult to reply many ,by adding to the end of the
treads. When that is said ,please remember that there are new
methods , methods that realy are unique and deliver --- but all the
wrongs of other new methods so often are used against those few but
genuine ones.
---- We all has our Pony's , and you wouldn't belive what resistance a
new method meet --- often irelavant critics, often critics that
indicate that the one critisising, has in fact not read what you said.
Also I can say after many years of explaing a new method on the web,
that some guy's don't care if that new method realy are so
wonderfull ; if it challance their pony, the attacks become hush, when
arguments are answered the critic turn into personal attacks, personal
attacks that uncover the ignorance uncover what the new has against
it, and sorry to say it happen that those who know the least who has
totaly misunderstood, end up writing dirty personal mails, mails that
allway's newer respond to the method, but is allway's personal
attacks.
With the method I promote, I even experienced people who arogantly
claimed it don't work, then when others copied it , I did not invent
it, but that it was invented decades ago -- then when I proved it
could not be done without computers, and there was no other method
capable of that what this method could perform, then the same ones
who first claimed it didn't work, and later claimed I didn't invent
it , started a rear campain , a campain that was nothing but personal
attacks.
So please remember this, when you polish your pony, --- there are
newthinking out there, but it is not all who apriciate it, only few
who understand that it is no challance towerds what we allready has,
and that you must have an open mind .
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-22, 5:25 pm |
| "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:fhvpi00neq@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13k6ogoj7rptma8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> It must be bloody hot there to warrant building something that tall...
>
I think it's one of those things invented by desert dwellers - I've seen a
good number of pics of them from places like Morocco and Egypt.
I experienced a similar ffect in SOuthern CA - the LA Botanical Gardens are
a bit inland, so rather dry as well as quite warm. THere is an old stable
building on th egrounds, two story with a big vented steple on top. One
day we went, and the temp outside was in th eupper 90's - but inside the
building, it felt downright chilly, between the shade and the venting
effect.
THe tricky thing is a hot and *wet* climate, such as here in the Houston
area. I don't know wheher such methods are applicable here. But in a hot
and dry climate, many passive cooling methods seem to work quite well.
| |
|
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
>"
>
>I think it's one of those things invented by desert dwellers - I've seen a
>good number of pics of them from places like Morocco and Egypt.
>
>I experienced a similar ffect in SOuthern CA - the LA Botanical Gardens are
>a bit inland, so rather dry as well as quite warm. THere is an old stable
>building on th egrounds, two story with a big vented steple on top. One
>day we went, and the temp outside was in th eupper 90's - but inside the
>building, it felt downright chilly, between the shade and the venting
>effect.
>
>THe tricky thing is a hot and *wet* climate, such as here in the Houston
>area. I don't know wheher such methods are applicable here. But in a hot
>and dry climate, many passive cooling methods seem to work quite well.
>
>
Since i live in a hot/wet a lot of the year, I think the key is
dehumidification with the water produced by the process soemhow filtered
back into a system for at least watering lawns if not doing laundry
>
>
>
>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-11-27, 5:25 pm |
| ++ <spasi@erols.com> wrote in
news:u6udnaIhMMVjddXanZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@rcn.net:
>
>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Since i live in a hot/wet a lot of the year, I think the key is
> dehumidification with the water produced by the process soemhow
> filtered back into a system for at least watering lawns if not doing
> laundry
>
But how do you passively dehumidify a space? THe vents under discussion
are passive cooling devices in hot, dry climates. If the humidity outside
is 80% and the temp is the same as body temp (as can happen here in the
Houston, TX area), how can a space be *passively* dehumidified? THat's the
point I was suggesting. THe "wind catchers"/Bernoulli vents work well in
the desert, but in hot and wet weather, all they do is move around wet, hot
air (assuming the air *is* moving...) I'd be really interested in passive
dehunmidification...
| |
| Andre-John Mas 2007-11-30, 1:25 pm |
| On Nov 17, 4:17 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote innews:fgt95p01ib4@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I thought the OP was referring to a thing used in North Africana nd soem
> Middle East buildings, where earthen homes had towers which, IIRC (not
> sure) might be called "wind catchers" or somehting similar (I'd have to
> check). Anyway, the idea was that these were, in fact, tall and sturdy,
> and both brought winds into the house (thick earthen walls BTW), and
> allowed hot air to rise and escape.
While the examples were from North Africa and the Middle East, the
point was more about using technology intelligently and not ignoring
something because it is hundreds of years old. Sometimes the solutions
are already being used in other cultures or were being used locally
until a while back. In many ways in trying to build a standard house
or using electronic devices to a job, we fail to realise that there
are already effective technologies available to keep a builing warm, a
building cool or keeping the water away fromt the floor. This is a
general comment, since there are certainly buildings that adhere to
smart design, but there are also so many that don't. Also as stated in
other comments there are new technologies that build on and improve on
what already exist.
For me passive-energy is something I like to think about in buildings
- that is letting natural physics do the work, rather than throwing a
motor in to do the work, if at all possible. With concerns about
energy expenditure I would like to see more energy concious designs
come into play. I haven't been everywhere and I haven't seen
everything so I am hoping to find out other technologies that have
maybe ignored that we could reintroduce. The point about some houses
not having over-hanging roofs to create shade, or keep water away from
the main structure, which was brought up in another comment, is an
example of where we build and miss something out because we didn't
understand their importance.
> I thnik theword"chimney" is used in the general sense,m as oppsoed to the
> specific sense of being incorporated with a fireplace.
I was using it to describe a vertical structure through which heat
escapes.
Andre
|
|
|
|
|