Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition |
![]() |
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment. PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book. |
Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: djhThe actual report is freely available at the address below, if anybody wants to make their own mind up about its quality:
http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/evaluation-of-the-thermal-performance-of-insulation-systems-used-in-roof-structures.
Posted By: Mike GeorgeI do have my reservations about the way in which NPL conducted their tests. But my reasons are not the same as yours Tom. Nothing to do with the radiation issue (which is what I was alluding to in my comment above).I'm sure we've discussed all this before on the other thread.........
I was also engaged by Paul Mitton (post CMM) to carry out some dynamic simulations using Tas and offer the results in a confidential report, which I did; and which I subsequently sent to the Lead Author of the NPL Report. They did not reply.... either to address my comments or to refute what I was saying...
Posted By: fostertomas conventional insulations perform as expected in steady-state conditions but only a fraction as well under dynamically-varying temperatures; while multifoils do the opposite; this spec covers all eventualities, until we understand multifoils better.That would be “both” then. Do you still think that?
Posted By: fostertomWhat do you think of that model of how radiation dominates in dynamically varying conditions? Don't say 'it's not been scientifically tested' (or has it?) - what do you think - could it even make sense?
Posted By: djhIt's no good just saying 'scientists have got it wrong'. The way to say that to a scientist is to do an experiment that shows there is something wrong with current knowledge. And the experiment needs to meet the reproducibility test - some other scientist needs to be able to repeat exactly what you do and get the same result. When that has happened, the phenomenon will be taken seriously.Cmon Dave that's just a way to only allow proper scientists to have an opinion.
Posted By: fostertomCmon Dave that's just a way to only allow proper scientists to have an opinion.
Posted By: djheverybody's opinion is valued equallyIt may seem like that, but I don't think it is really.
Posted By: fostertomYeah yeah but it still diqualifies everyone else, who hasn't got a research lab at their disposal, from making 'unproven' speculations, suggestions, common sense criticisms, inspired hunches, unblinkered/innocent fresh view etc.
Posted By: fostertomwho hasn't got a research lab at their disposalI don't have a lab to work in any more, I can still do valid science though.
Posted By: SteamyTeaThere is nothing to stop you writing up what you think is happening, as long as you can justify your assumptions.Exactly. It needs a much clearer explanation than just a bit of hand waving. At the moment I have no idea whether what Tom says has any validity and can't make useful comments without understanding it in more detail. Lab results would be great but a more precise explanation would go a long way.
Posted By: fostertomSo it's mind-experiments (inspired/informed hunches) or nothingNothing wrong with that, as long as you use decent references to back thing up.
Posted By: Ian1961It worked as the manufacturers claimsis a little bit open to interpretation.