Best excuse for not going to work

rhext

Nope, not ignoring the thermal properties of the house. Unless someone's rewritten the laws of thermodynamics recently, they're completely irrelevant.

Anyway, excuses.....not really done that since my student days. In fact, I'm currently doing it the other way round: at home feeling horrible with a stinking cold, but finding WFH infinitely prefereable to daytime telly!

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

a 3mm wide gap around the edge of a 1.5m x 0.9m sash window is equivalent to a hole about 10cm x 15cm.

Equivalent in terms of area, but in terms of heat loss? If I had a crack that was 15 metres long and 1 mm wide, the area of the crack is 150sq cm. But do I really get the same airflow through a very long, very thin crack as I would through a 10x15 hole?

Not sure. Probably not exactly the same airflow, but my point was that the gap is a lot bigger than you might think. Having spent part of the weekend temporarily blocking up some air bricks in my house, I can confirm that even a small gap can let a lot of cold air in, and fireplaces, well, I might as well leave the window open. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr.

langster

I was late for work this morning as I took too many Viagra and couldn't get my trousers on.

If you don't believe me ask your mom.

hfidgen

DonDaddyD wrote:

Is she fit? Are they nice feet.... :oops:

Not sure about that tbh

Sorry for interrupting the ever so interesting thermodynamics debate

Finbar Saunders

langster wrote:

I was late for work this morning as I took too many Viagra and couldn't get my trousers on.

If you don't believe me ask your mom.

I wouldn't go round boasting about being a necrophiliac if I were you!

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

a 3mm wide gap around the edge of a 1.5m x 0.9m sash window is equivalent to a hole about 10cm x 15cm.

Equivalent in terms of area, but in terms of heat loss? If I had a crack that was 15 metres long and 1 mm wide, the area of the crack is 150sq cm. But do I really get the same airflow through a very long, very thin crack as I would through a 10x15 hole?

Not sure. Probably not exactly the same airflow, but my point was that the gap is a lot bigger than you might think. Having spent part of the weekend temporarily blocking up some air bricks in my house, I can confirm that even a small gap can let a lot of cold air in, and fireplaces, well, I might as well leave the window open. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I thought airbricks were supposed to let air in though - ventilation, or summint to stop damp and rot accumulating in the void under the floor. Presumably this is a short term blockage, right?

As for fireplaces: build a fire, man! Man make fire, woman cook food, children toast marshmellows, cat go sleep. Do you know nothing? A good fireplace fire (a) has flames so high the base of them is all you can see, and (b) is so hot you can't get close enough to add another log without you hand cooking.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

a 3mm wide gap around the edge of a 1.5m x 0.9m sash window is equivalent to a hole about 10cm x 15cm.

Equivalent in terms of area, but in terms of heat loss? If I had a crack that was 15 metres long and 1 mm wide, the area of the crack is 150sq cm. But do I really get the same airflow through a very long, very thin crack as I would through a 10x15 hole?

Not sure. Probably not exactly the same airflow, but my point was that the gap is a lot bigger than you might think. Having spent part of the weekend temporarily blocking up some air bricks in my house, I can confirm that even a small gap can let a lot of cold air in, and fireplaces, well, I might as well leave the window open. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I thought airbricks were supposed to let air in though - ventilation, or summint to stop damp and rot accumulating in the void under the floor. Presumably this is a short term blockage, right?

As for fireplaces: build a fire, man! Man make fire, woman cook food, children toast marshmellows, cat go sleep. Do you know nothing? A good fireplace fire (a) has flames so high the base of them is all you can see, and (b) is so hot you can't get close enough to add another log without you hand cooking.

These are air bricks in bedrooms, not the underfloor ones. The house was originally gas lit, so I guess they were put in to provide air for the gas lights (only the rooms without fireplaces have them). You're right that they are needed for ventilation, so this is only temporary until it warms up a bit.

Unfortunately the fireplaces were built for gas fires, so there's no grate or hearth to build a fire except on the floor in front of the chimney breast (I think that would spoil the carpet). Open fires are lovely, but wood burning has its problems. My parents have now switched to a gas fire after setting the wood tar in the chimney on fire three times in 6 months. I think when they were on first name terms with the local fire crew they decided that enough was enough.

secretsam

Asprilla wrote:

mroli wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yesterday I got a phone call saying that X staff member wasn't coming in because they "felt cold".

No, not had a cold. They felt chilly.

I'm working from home today and due to my refusal to have the heating on (I'm in one room - what's the point of heating the whole house?), it is a damn sight colder here than it is at work...

Central heating is supposed to heat the structure of the house and that structure then radiates heat. By keeping the heating on at a low level you retain and replenish the heat stored in the mass of the building meaning that you spend much less eneregy over the course of the winter that you would turning the heating on and off again.

Now, I've heard that one before, is it true? It's cheaper to keep the heat on low all the time than keep warming up a cold house? We're out during the day but heating only comes on when we're in - so we tend to warm the house up quite a bit, radiators working hard. So it's cheaper to keep the heating on at (say) 14 degrees?????

Nifer

Finbar Saunders wrote:

langster wrote:

I was late for work this morning as I took too many Viagra and couldn't get my trousers on.

If you don't believe me ask your mom.

I wouldn't go round boasting about being a necrophiliac if I were you!

rhext

SecretSam wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

mroli wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yesterday I got a phone call saying that X staff member wasn't coming in because they "felt cold".

No, not had a cold. They felt chilly.

I'm working from home today and due to my refusal to have the heating on (I'm in one room - what's the point of heating the whole house?), it is a damn sight colder here than it is at work...

Central heating is supposed to heat the structure of the house and that structure then radiates heat. By keeping the heating on at a low level you retain and replenish the heat stored in the mass of the building meaning that you spend much less eneregy over the course of the winter that you would turning the heating on and off again.

Now, I've heard that one before, is it true? It's cheaper to keep the heat on low all the time than keep warming up a cold house? We're out during the day but heating only comes on when we're in - so we tend to warm the house up quite a bit, radiators working hard. So it's cheaper to keep the heating on at (say) 14 degrees?????

No, it's not true! It's cheaper to let the house cool down and then warm it up when you need to. You may feel like you're not burning much fuel to keep the house warm, but you're burning it all the time. Best way to think about this is imagine you're staying out for a bit longer than a few hours. Does it still seem feel right that it would be cheaper to keep it warm all the time if you left it for a month? For a year?

Bottom line is that if you want to keep your house at constant temperature you have to put in as much energy as it loses to the environment. If you let it cool down and want to bring it back to the same temperature, you have to replace as much energy as it lost while you let it cool down. A cool house loses less heat to the environment than a warm one, so you're ultimately going to have to put more energy in to keep it constantly warm than if you only heat it when you need to.

It seems like there might be some sense in the 'keep it on all the time' position, because it clearly takes a lot of energy to heat the fabric of a house up from cold. But the fabric of the house does not instantly cool down the moment you leave the door. If you only pop out for a few minutes, the fabric of the house won't cool down much and you won't have to put much energy back in to bringing it back up to temperature.

rjsterry

Try it for a month, then compare the meter readings with a similar month switching the heating on and off.

fnegroni

Would a better solution be to use central heating only when needed, closing all unneeded radiators, wearing warm clothes and set the temperature low? Also, insulate cavities and close off any drought. Double glazing helps, but we found heavy backed curtains coupled with energy saving lights do the trick too.

rhext

rjsterry wrote:

Try it for a month, then compare the meter readings with a similar month switching the heating on and off.

And how would you recommend making sure that the weather conditions are the same for both tests?

rjsterry

Well you can't, obviously, but you could note down the daily temperatures for the month as well and see if there is a correlation.

soundninjauk

We haven't turned our heating on yet at home. It was getting close to the point where we'd consider it the other day, but then one of the flats around us obviously gave in to the weather before us because our temperature has rocketed back up to a balmy 21 degrees (from 18 degrees).

Go go gadget eco friendly new build flats.

DonDaddyD

I find my X-box and my old AMD Sempron (the fan on the Phenom processor is just too big) do more to warm my living room than anything else.

Right now I have the heating on permanently, but set to the lowest setting possible (halfway between off and the first dot).

Kieran_Burns

Nifer wrote:

Finbar Saunders wrote:

langster wrote:

I was late for work this morning as I took too many Viagra and couldn't get my trousers on.

If you don't believe me ask your mom.

I wouldn't go round boasting about being a necrophiliac if I were you!

I wasn't going to post this, but after DDD's comments in the 'The Office' thread I'm thinking it can't be any worse!

Sung to my name is Jake (Rolf Harris)


My name is Jack, (deedle, deedle ack)
I'm a necrophiliac (deedle, deedle, deedle ee)
I **** dead women (deedle, deedle, deedle ee)
And I fill them full of semen (deedle, deedle, deedle ee)

I get frustrated
When they get cremated.
Because try as you must,
You can't **** dust.

Each time I enter the mausoleum gate
I get the urge to fornicate.

My name is Bill
I like to ****'em when they're still
And whack off in
An occupied coffin

I love wrinkly women
Who are over sixty-five
Es-spec-ial-ly
If they died when twenty-five.

Each time I pass the cemetery gate
I get the urge to copulate.

My name is Mitch
And I dig a wealthy bitch
Not because she's really rich
But in a six-foot ditch.

Like most men I am not
I don't prefer my women hot
I may be bold --
But I prefer my women cold.

soundninjauk

DonDaddyD wrote:

I find my X-box and Athlon Sempron (the fan on the Phenom processor is just too big) do more to warm my living room than anything else.

You're not wrong about the xbox. Combined with a mac pro they certainly do their bit to heat the place.

Fireblade96

I live in an old draughty Victorian house, and I have just resigned myself to the fact it costs a fortune to heat. I work from home so during the day I turn off the radiators in living room and bedroom, and crank up the heat in the study.

I tried using just a convector heater in the study, but every time I ventured out to the kitchen or bathroom I froze. Brr. I'm not convinced it was much cheaper anyway...

daviesee

i have been through five Canadian winters and everyone there keeps the heating on 24/7 once the temperature drops. They may adjust the thermostat but the heating stays on until spring. The important thing is thermostats. If the weather picks up the heaters are off anyway apart from a little re-circulating.

You would think they know a thing or two

rjsterry

Indeed, and a few years back, when we left London to see the folks in Bristol it was fairly warm for December (around 7 or 8 degrees) so we switched the heating off as we were going to be away for a week. By the time we returned, a cold snap had set in (2 or 3 degrees) and our flat was so cold that when we made a cup of tea, the cups shattered from the thermal shock. It then took 3 days to get the flat back up to a comfortable temperature. This was a good demonstration of the high thermal mass of a 1950s concrete framed block of flats. By all means turn the heating down a bit when you are asleep or out for a few hours, but having whole areas of the house unheated is just daft.

rhext

Hmmm......it make sense to keep heating running all the time for two reasons:

1) Comfort - if you let the place get reallly cold it'll take a while to warm up.

2) Maintenance - if you let it freeze you'll be faced with burst pipes.

That doesn't mean you'll save money on your fuel bills too though!

We turn the heating off during the day when there's no-one in the house, and we turn it off overnight. If we were going to leave the house for a few days in this weather, we'd leave it on, but with the thermostat right down.

fnegroni

The thing with the thermostat is: if it never kicks in, does it mean the central heating does not do anything at all, or does it keep some kind of heated water ready to be circulated in the radiators?

rjsterry

rhext wrote:

Hmmm......it make sense to keep heating running all the time for two reasons:

1) Comfort - if you let the place get reallly cold it'll take a while to warm up.

2) Maintenance - if you let it freeze you'll be faced with burst pipes.

That doesn't mean you'll save money on your fuel bills too though!

We turn the heating off during the day when there's no-one in the house, and we turn it off overnight. If we were going to leave the house for a few days in this weather, we'd leave it on, but with the thermostat right down.

I think we are heading towards the same conclusion, but providing comfort and maintaining the fabric of a building are pretty much what heating is for; saving money by turning it off, aside from being uncomfortable, may be a false economy if you have to redecorate the house every year due to condensation damage and burst pipes.

nich

I couldn't get in, all the Boris bikes were in use.

Not really, but I did see a postman using a Boris bike today!

rhext

Your thermostat controls the boiler. So even if the heating's on, the boiler won't necessarily be working. It only cuts in and starts to heat the house if the temperature drops below the preset level on the thermostat.

One of the best ways of saving money on heating (once you've insulated your house) is to drop the thermostat a degree or two!

rjsterry

I think we may have driven everyone away :oops:

soundninjauk

I was still reading. Honest.

Nifer

So what if you don't have a thermostat? What then?

snailracer

rhext wrote:

Your thermostat controls the boiler. So even if the heating's on, the boiler won't necessarily be working. It only cuts in and starts to heat the house if the temperature drops below the preset level on the thermostat.

One of the best ways of saving money on heating (once you've insulated your house) is to drop the thermostat a degree or two!

Better still is a programmable thermostat. It automatically changes the target temperature depending on time of day, so it sets it to 16C overnight, kicks it up to 19C just before you get up, 10C while you are at work, 20C just before you get back from work. No need to wait for the house to heat up, the house waits for you. It is the bee's knees.

Those who are unable to program a VCR need not apply - you are unworthy and deserve to shiver.