Adventures in Building Science.
Adventures in Building Science.
(OP)
A link to this lecture at Berkeley was posted in the HVAC forum. I found it very interesting and think that many in this group will also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkfAcWpOYAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkfAcWpOYAA






RE: Adventures in Building Science.
But, it has always been thus with Chicken Little's. If I can convince you that the sky is falling and I -- and only I -- am able to prevent it from falling, well, there's money to be made there, to say nothing of the ego-stroking I get by convincing myself and others how much smarter I am than they.
This very type of thing is part of what steered me into structural engineering. Gravity is utterly unforgiving and tolerateth not such bullspit. This discipline is largely (though certainly not completely) free of such snake oil salesmen.
Sorry to respond in such a manner but I believe my thoughts on the topic as are as worth as hearing as his. Further, I resent the direction that people such as he are taking our industry and I, peon though I am, try to push back a tad on occasion.
If the rest of his lecture was different from the first ten minutes then I will apologize and retract my statements but absent that I will stand by them.
And by the way, I don't *want* a completely airtight building - it sounds unhealthy and unpleasant to me.
RE: Adventures in Building Science.
Thanks for posting it.
RE: Adventures in Building Science.
Sounds to me like you didn't really listen, or perhaps did not understand.
What does limiting the thermal shorts and air leaks in a building have to do with gravity? What does making intelligent decisions regarding the mechanical technology inside the building, to actually control the air exchange (instead of letting it happen "naturally" through stupid holes left in the skin) have to do with making it unhealthy or unpleasant?
The guy was pretty much on the mark - nothing about LEED or ASHRAE standards really control how energy efficient a building design will be.
RE: Adventures in Building Science.
RE: Adventures in Building Science.
RE: Adventures in Building Science.
I really liked some of his closing comments in the Q&A segment at the end - that if we started holding public/commercial building designers accountable for the BTU/sq ft/year numbers, i.e. made the utility bills public, we could see improvements in energy efficiency grow by orders of magnitude, in much the same way as we have seen such growth in residential buildings.
I took most of his remarks as being light-hearted jabs at an academic community, most of the people he was jibing with seemed to be old friends and colleagues.