SteamyTea

Except you can, for want of a better term' self verify the overall performance when you have finished i.e. your energy usage over unit time. I seem to remember that PH standards are very hard to reach for small houses. So take my neighbours, they have a 50 m2 house, that is an end of terrace. The largest wall get virtually no sunlight as shaded by another building. So the kWh.m-2.year-1 usage is relatively high compared to mine which is just a terrace. Any standard that penalises small places is not a good standard as they generally use less energy overall.

If that is the case (the actual numbers are not that important), it is what pisses people off about certification, especially if they are being charged for it. Why a few of us fail to see the value in PH certification.

As in they default to an artificially low (or high energy use) value?

This I don't understand. Are you penalised against the (worthless) PH standard or actually penalised against real energy usage (which I doubt). Could you clarify please.

Isn't that a good enough reason for this forum to help educate?

No it isn't. I think this is part of the problem. People get put off 'science' at school because it is so badly taught. Most is really easy.

I am with Jeremy on this. Just good basic (as in no harder than 'A' level) engineering is all that is needed to design a thoroughly good thermal envelope. It is very easy to get bogged down in detail at the very start, then go looking for solutions along the way. Often when looking at solutions there is a conflict of opinions. These conflicts usually take the view that you are starting from the wrong place. So rather than be negative, why don't we start an 'official blog' about basic engineering. When I say basic, I mean really simple, the kind of thing that a 12 year old could understand.

The photon is a 'special case' particle. It can be kinetically modelled, which makes it look like it has mass, until it comes to rest, or modelled according to the rules of relativity, which are just odd.

Sounds to me, but not looked at the methodology, that they started with a bunch of data, created a model that fitted, then checked it against the data. Leaving a window open or a hot tap running would 'ruin' the model.

Isn't certification a bit like the government car fuel usage test. What works in the lab does not always translate to the road.

Does this work. Not tried, but it may work off line if you save the page and then open it in a browser. https://steamytea.wixsite.com/radiuscalculator

Or part of an ellipse. Draw it up in CAD

Reminded me that I emailed the production office about I said: Will you make sure that the term 'thermal mass' is not used. There is no such thing in science. There is thermal energy and mass, they are not connected. They said: Thanks for your comment. We will will do our best to ensure correct terminology is used.

And we don't know how long a photon lasts yet, at least 1 billion, billion years. And they have a mass of less than two-billionths of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a kilogram.

Was part of the point he was making. But that was about javascript. But I notice here that IE11 is 4th from bottom. https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html

Here is a quick 'time to heat' page https://steamytea.wixsite.com/timetoheat

My initial suggestion was that we had a few on-line calculators that would save time by not having to repeat ourselves too often. And have them in an easy to get at place. IE is an old browser. There comes a point where old standards should not be supported. I am not a 'coder' at all, and have little interest in doing it, but know that others are. But one thing I do know is that by keeping things very simple, they tend to be reliable. So adding in too much to one small bit of code can cause problems.

Why I suggested some online calculators on the site

Is that someone that does painting for a living (possible not for long). If so, then they should know better.

Well not that hard really, just wish I had better eyesight and I would spot the mistakes. Now let us see if I have managed to load it to 'somewhere' and it works. https://steamytea.wixsite.com/watercalculator

I initially thought of that, but then it is best to discourage random downloads. I am just playing with a bit of HTML5 output code that seems to 'do sums'. Got the input side sorted, just struggling to get the output showing, probably as simple as a ; instead of a :

Can't you just have a default message to say, "Update your browser dickhead" Is there any non javascript way to do it? I know next to nothing about coding, it is all a bit messy to me. But the arithmetic behind it is simple enough.

The trouble with external links is that they don't drive traffic here particular, more drive it away. How much maintenance is there really? These would be simple calculators i.e enter volume, power and get out energy and time, maybe an extra to add in kWh price.

Would the capital costs and service of an LPG system not be greater than the imported power of an electrical system?

After the silly mistake I made working out the energy needed to heat some water (it was late and I had just finished work), I got to thinking about how hard would it be to add a few calculators onto this site. I had a quick look around and there seems to me dozens of example about using javascript to process 'stuff'. But to be honest, it is all Greek to me. So two birds could be killed with one stone. Calculators to work out frequently asked questions and an easy to follow tutorial about how they are made and integrated into webpages. What do people think?