ᐅ New Single-Family House Construction (KFW70) / Aerated Concrete vs. Sand-Lime Brick / Which Material to Choose?
Created on: 31 Jan 2014 08:27
L
Lacos
Hi everyone,
We are planning to build with a general contractor and have collected some offers. Some use aerated concrete, others use calcium silicate bricks. Some combine the two, using aerated concrete for the exterior walls and calcium silicate bricks on the inside.
What would you recommend? Is this combination of aerated concrete on the outside and calcium silicate bricks on the inside common and preferable?
Should we be concerned about cracks due to the different expansion properties of the two materials, or is this not an issue with proper construction?
What would you currently choose to build with or have built—what is your preferred building material?
Thank you in advance,
Lacos
We are planning to build with a general contractor and have collected some offers. Some use aerated concrete, others use calcium silicate bricks. Some combine the two, using aerated concrete for the exterior walls and calcium silicate bricks on the inside.
What would you recommend? Is this combination of aerated concrete on the outside and calcium silicate bricks on the inside common and preferable?
Should we be concerned about cracks due to the different expansion properties of the two materials, or is this not an issue with proper construction?
What would you currently choose to build with or have built—what is your preferred building material?
Thank you in advance,
Lacos
B
Bauexperte1 Feb 2014 15:44Hello €uro,
which competing requirements are you referring to? With a thermal insulation value of 36.5 AW and above?
It would be new to me that a monolithic external wall is cheaper compared to an external wall with ETICS (external thermal insulation composite system). Even compared to a two-layer plaster construction, the savings are limited.
Regards, Bauexperte
which competing requirements are you referring to? With a thermal insulation value of 36.5 AW and above?
It would be new to me that a monolithic external wall is cheaper compared to an external wall with ETICS (external thermal insulation composite system). Even compared to a two-layer plaster construction, the savings are limited.
Regards, Bauexperte
Hello construction expert,
1. - Structural engineering (load transfer)
2. - Thermal insulation
3. - Summer heat protection
4. - Sound insulation
5. - Facade or weather protection
Even a layperson would realize that these different requirements can hardly be optimally fulfilled in detail by a monolithic wall structure alone.
This necessarily leads to a multilayer external wall construction, where each layer takes on the specific role it can best fulfill.
An optimal external wall construction could look like this, for example:
1. Inner leaf: e.g., high-strength, heavy calcium silicate brick or clay brick (17.5 cm (7 inches)):
Advantage: very good internal heat storage capacity, excellent load transfer (no special anchors needed for point loads), very good sound insulation
Disadvantage: poor thermal insulation
2. Thermal insulation (thermal conductivity value and thickness as required)
Advantage: very good thermal insulation (main component of a construction)
Disadvantage: no load transfer, little sound insulation, poor internal heat storage, limited summer heat protection
3. Air cavity: function: moisture protection of the insulation by decoupling, summer heat protection through ventilation, additional thermal insulation by stationary air layer
4. Outer leaf: 11.5 cm (4.5 inches) facing brick or calcium silicate brick or similar with plaster
Advantage: excellent, durable summer heat and weather protection, very good sound insulation, very good external heat storage capacity
Disadvantage: poor thermal insulation, no load transfer (which is not required)
However, the usual general contractors/main contractors are often professionally and financially overwhelmed by this!
Best regards
Bauexperte schrieb:This topic has already been addressed several times in this forum!
...which competing requirements are you referring to? ...
1. - Structural engineering (load transfer)
2. - Thermal insulation
3. - Summer heat protection
4. - Sound insulation
5. - Facade or weather protection
Even a layperson would realize that these different requirements can hardly be optimally fulfilled in detail by a monolithic wall structure alone.
This necessarily leads to a multilayer external wall construction, where each layer takes on the specific role it can best fulfill.
An optimal external wall construction could look like this, for example:
1. Inner leaf: e.g., high-strength, heavy calcium silicate brick or clay brick (17.5 cm (7 inches)):
Advantage: very good internal heat storage capacity, excellent load transfer (no special anchors needed for point loads), very good sound insulation
Disadvantage: poor thermal insulation
2. Thermal insulation (thermal conductivity value and thickness as required)
Advantage: very good thermal insulation (main component of a construction)
Disadvantage: no load transfer, little sound insulation, poor internal heat storage, limited summer heat protection
3. Air cavity: function: moisture protection of the insulation by decoupling, summer heat protection through ventilation, additional thermal insulation by stationary air layer
4. Outer leaf: 11.5 cm (4.5 inches) facing brick or calcium silicate brick or similar with plaster
Advantage: excellent, durable summer heat and weather protection, very good sound insulation, very good external heat storage capacity
Disadvantage: poor thermal insulation, no load transfer (which is not required)
However, the usual general contractors/main contractors are often professionally and financially overwhelmed by this!
Best regards
B
Bauexperte2 Feb 2014 13:09Hello €uro,
I appreciate your dedication to HVAC systems, but sometimes I am incredulous at your apparent reluctance to think beyond the tunnel vision.
That is your perspective... what you overlook is that there is no single exterior wall system suitable for every building project. For example, a single-family home without many thin columns in the façade (the majority of projects) can very well be realized with a monolithic wall construction. On the other hand, a single-family home where a lot of concrete (structural) is required in the façade is often better equipped with full thermal insulation systems. Ultimately, as always, it is a matter of cost-effectiveness.
Some time ago, I found an article from 1986 that truly resonates with me. This essay reflects only my personal view on the requirements in construction; naturally, I try to implement monolithic construction (whether aerated concrete or perforated bricks) in most cases, even if this often leads to lively discussions with our architects. Because: full thermal insulation always prevents discussions with clients... and apparently also with HVAC planners.
"When a stone lies in the snow, a snow-free area soon forms around it under sunlight because, due to its relatively low specific heat capacity, the stone quickly reaches a high temperature in the sun, melting the surrounding snow. Tibetan mountain farmers take advantage of this thermal radiation absorption effect by using dark-colored stones, animal dung, and soil clumps to thaw their deeply frozen soils on this roof of the world during the very short growing periods between sowing and harvest by freeing the soil from heat-reflecting and insulating snow masses earlier.
About two-thirds of this free, energy-rich, shortwave global radiation is absorbed or reflected by the Earth's atmosphere. However, the air layer is transparent enough to enable human, animal, and plant life to thrive under sufficient radiant heat in various climatic regions and dwellings. Misguided highly insulated, intangible fiber or foam constructions (with air pore volumes up to 98%) can hardly absorb or store this freely available heat due to lack of mass. If it were physically possible, some “polystyrene scientists" in industrial suits might try to outlaw all temperate building solids by law—like the nightside of a planet’s hemisphere shielded from solar radiation. Fortunately, planets can rotate and revolve, bringing all surface areas periodically into the light and warmth of the central sun of our solar system.
Insulated wall constructions, such as highly porous “cardboard sandwich” designs as well as combinations of light and heavy building components, are fixed in location, immovable, and irreparable! When solar radiation hits the surface of (non-transparent) insulation-free solid (and liquid) materials, continents (seas), and massive buildings, it is converted into long-wave heat (radiation) that warms the Earth (and its atmosphere). Consequently, each small increase in radiant heat (for example from minus 7°C to minus 6°C [19.4°F to 21.2°F]) in the outer layers of thick exterior walls (monolithic and heated building masses) reduces the temperature difference between the inside and outside wall surfaces, as well as the overall heat loss to the outside. Exterior walls should therefore provide insulation by their thickness but—traditionally—should also absorb radiant heat on both sides through their weight mass and low specific heat capacity, thus being heated without cost.
“Full thermal insulation systems” exclude this “gift from the sky.” Since mid-October 1983, this has been officially documented in a brief report enforced by the brick industry analyzing and comparing energy consumption of monolithic structures and porous insulated designs “in the open air.” This report, whose publication was delayed by more than a year, amounts to a “confession” from the Fraunhofer Institute that it had provided grossly incorrect, overestimated energy savings—estimated at over 300%, possibly up to 600%—for high-porosity exterior walls for decades via the Information Center for Space and Building or industry publications.
An example from this report: a building with 23 cm (9 inches) of applied insulation on one exterior wall and an overall “energy-world-champion k-(insulation) value” (a common marketing term, e.g., from manufacturers of polystyrene-based “back-friendly” blocks) with a thermal transmittance coefficient of just 0.16 W/m²K actually had significantly higher heating energy consumption than a perforated brick wall with a three times “worse” k-insulation value of 0.46 W/m²K—even during a cold, low-radiation measurement period in the “Ice Moon” January 1983!
From this previously certified but completely false k-value difference, every energy consultant still shapes the “softener” of his clients toward “full thermal insulation,” ignoring the short lifespan and low quality of these insulating wall constructions. Based on the legally determined “better” k-value of 0.30 W/m²K, they calculate about 70% less heat loss of the insulated component and even a reduction of approximately 4.5 liters (1 gallon) of heating oil per m² (10.8 ft²) of exterior surface per heating period. One must wonder how much longer the 32 market-dominant “Poroton” major producers—not to mention aerated concrete foam block manufacturers—intend to “blow” polystyrene foam into biologically valuable, healthy clay or loam spheres to produce a failed insulating material. The monoproduce “Poroton T” (where T stands for Tempo) consists predominantly of cavernous voids rather than well-drying hair-like pores (capillaries).
The strategy of Poroton management and the advertising council should soon be abandoned due to false norms that currently still promote, for material, energy-saving production, and weight reasons, “just barely hand-carryable” large-format insulation materials in direct masonry—at the economic disadvantage of future homeowners and competing small full-brick producers—finally closing their “mom-and-pop shops” to possibly take over the rare and valuable clay pits. It is well known that 36.5 cm (14.4 inches) thick exterior walls made from full bricks (unfortunately only available in smaller sizes, e.g., 240/115/71 mm or 240/115/113 mm [9.4/4.5/2.8 inches or 9.4/4.5/4.4 inches], with a density of about 1600 kg/m³ [100 lb/ft³]) are steady energy savers and, above all, irreplaceably healthier compared to porous bricks.
The fantastic laboratory thermal insulation values of the “thermal protection according to DIN 4108” only refer to dry materials. Porous building materials, however, lose nearly all of their insulating capacity after becoming damp and have nothing to do with the legally required heat demand calculations for building permit / planning permission submissions, which exclusively allow the use of dry material values. These ideal lab values lose all relevance after installation once the moisture balance in the wall assembly begins.
Moreover, besides the calculated heat storage and insulation values of building materials, resistance against water, vapor, and external forces plays a major role—such as that of solid bricks or wood compared to typical insulation materials. It should also be added that the hygroscopic moisture balance dependent on ambient humidity of brick is, in contrast to other well-praised modern building materials like calcium silicate blocks, pumice, gas, expanded, or normal concrete, negligibly low. Furthermore, solid bricks (unlike klinker bricks) exhibit low vapor diffusion resistance and good capillary moisture transport capacity (especially drying to the outside in winter), making brick dry out faster and radiate heat better than other acclaimed masonry units that absorb more water through vapor diffusion and rain impact than they can release.
Desorption in bricks is about ten times greater than in calcium silicate blocks. Good capillary action of bricks, mortar joints (preferably lime plaster without chemical sealants), and coatings is necessary to transport construction moisture or water vapor condensate from the entire wall cross-section as well as interior air to an acceptable relative humidity of 40-65%, which is vital for health. With modern vapor-tight materials, membranes, and current insulating wall constructions, this is only possible by window ventilation, which causes rapid heat losses and excludes any heat storage capacity in the exterior walls. Although the quantitative air exchange from this “breathing” of brick walls is minimal, its qualitative effect on indoor air regeneration is highly relevant—since the cooler interior surfaces of exterior brick walls bind and transport the emissions of inhabitants, pathogens, sweat from skin, and pores of humans, animals, and plants, as well as bacterial and mold spores through vapor diffusion and capillary moisture transport through the wall outwards. The lime compounds in mortar and coatings disinfect these harmful pathogens, preventing them from circulating as dry dust in heated rooms.
Insulated wall constructions—whether insulation is applied on the exterior, interior, or inside the core of the wall—remain unresolved climatic shells that inevitably cause both visible and invisible moisture damage and related hidden energy losses. Sufficiently thick solid walls with uniform structure rarely experience these problems and are therefore reliable energy savers! Current legal insulation regulations regarding heat demand and vapor diffusion simply do not correspond to established scientific facts. Is this flood of one-sided insulation advertising not overwhelming enough to drown any truth about real annual heat balance losses? Is it not outrageous that, since the thermal protection regulation came into effect on January 1, 1984, owners of solid buildings are even legally “obliged” during renovations to spend money on additional thermal insulation, the supposed insulating miracle, only to end up consuming more energy after this misguided investment? This is despite their old massive, heat storage capable, uninsulated buildings being vastly superior in both energy consumption and living comfort?
Indeed, a thermal insulated thermos flask not only keeps coffee hot but also prevents ice cubes from melting, which means many “fully insulated” homeowners still have to heat in June! Additionally, since insulating materials such as at least UF foams are classified as hazardous to health and mineral fibers (glass wool, slag wool, and rock wool) are considered carcinogenic due to their lung-penetrating fiber form, I hereby declare an end to lightweight construction methods—at least for residential buildings—a nemesis for insulating wall assemblies. In the Federal Republic of Germany, insulation will perhaps remain limited to vehicles, spaceships, or similar for weight reasons against cold and heat. [I]Residential walls, however, will be built thicker, solid, and without insulation again—vapor permeable without vapor barriers, and thus naturally and healthily.
[/I]
Source: A. Klaus/Arch+
My conclusion: as predicted; with 36.5 and 42 cm (14.4 inches and 16.5 inches) wall constructions, we are already there... although admittedly driven by Brussels.
Regards, Bauexperte
I appreciate your dedication to HVAC systems, but sometimes I am incredulous at your apparent reluctance to think beyond the tunnel vision.
€uro schrieb:
This necessarily leads to a multi-layered exterior wall system, where each layer takes on exactly the role it can fulfill best.
That is your perspective... what you overlook is that there is no single exterior wall system suitable for every building project. For example, a single-family home without many thin columns in the façade (the majority of projects) can very well be realized with a monolithic wall construction. On the other hand, a single-family home where a lot of concrete (structural) is required in the façade is often better equipped with full thermal insulation systems. Ultimately, as always, it is a matter of cost-effectiveness.
Some time ago, I found an article from 1986 that truly resonates with me. This essay reflects only my personal view on the requirements in construction; naturally, I try to implement monolithic construction (whether aerated concrete or perforated bricks) in most cases, even if this often leads to lively discussions with our architects. Because: full thermal insulation always prevents discussions with clients... and apparently also with HVAC planners.
"When a stone lies in the snow, a snow-free area soon forms around it under sunlight because, due to its relatively low specific heat capacity, the stone quickly reaches a high temperature in the sun, melting the surrounding snow. Tibetan mountain farmers take advantage of this thermal radiation absorption effect by using dark-colored stones, animal dung, and soil clumps to thaw their deeply frozen soils on this roof of the world during the very short growing periods between sowing and harvest by freeing the soil from heat-reflecting and insulating snow masses earlier.
About two-thirds of this free, energy-rich, shortwave global radiation is absorbed or reflected by the Earth's atmosphere. However, the air layer is transparent enough to enable human, animal, and plant life to thrive under sufficient radiant heat in various climatic regions and dwellings. Misguided highly insulated, intangible fiber or foam constructions (with air pore volumes up to 98%) can hardly absorb or store this freely available heat due to lack of mass. If it were physically possible, some “polystyrene scientists" in industrial suits might try to outlaw all temperate building solids by law—like the nightside of a planet’s hemisphere shielded from solar radiation. Fortunately, planets can rotate and revolve, bringing all surface areas periodically into the light and warmth of the central sun of our solar system.
Insulated wall constructions, such as highly porous “cardboard sandwich” designs as well as combinations of light and heavy building components, are fixed in location, immovable, and irreparable! When solar radiation hits the surface of (non-transparent) insulation-free solid (and liquid) materials, continents (seas), and massive buildings, it is converted into long-wave heat (radiation) that warms the Earth (and its atmosphere). Consequently, each small increase in radiant heat (for example from minus 7°C to minus 6°C [19.4°F to 21.2°F]) in the outer layers of thick exterior walls (monolithic and heated building masses) reduces the temperature difference between the inside and outside wall surfaces, as well as the overall heat loss to the outside. Exterior walls should therefore provide insulation by their thickness but—traditionally—should also absorb radiant heat on both sides through their weight mass and low specific heat capacity, thus being heated without cost.
“Full thermal insulation systems” exclude this “gift from the sky.” Since mid-October 1983, this has been officially documented in a brief report enforced by the brick industry analyzing and comparing energy consumption of monolithic structures and porous insulated designs “in the open air.” This report, whose publication was delayed by more than a year, amounts to a “confession” from the Fraunhofer Institute that it had provided grossly incorrect, overestimated energy savings—estimated at over 300%, possibly up to 600%—for high-porosity exterior walls for decades via the Information Center for Space and Building or industry publications.
An example from this report: a building with 23 cm (9 inches) of applied insulation on one exterior wall and an overall “energy-world-champion k-(insulation) value” (a common marketing term, e.g., from manufacturers of polystyrene-based “back-friendly” blocks) with a thermal transmittance coefficient of just 0.16 W/m²K actually had significantly higher heating energy consumption than a perforated brick wall with a three times “worse” k-insulation value of 0.46 W/m²K—even during a cold, low-radiation measurement period in the “Ice Moon” January 1983!
From this previously certified but completely false k-value difference, every energy consultant still shapes the “softener” of his clients toward “full thermal insulation,” ignoring the short lifespan and low quality of these insulating wall constructions. Based on the legally determined “better” k-value of 0.30 W/m²K, they calculate about 70% less heat loss of the insulated component and even a reduction of approximately 4.5 liters (1 gallon) of heating oil per m² (10.8 ft²) of exterior surface per heating period. One must wonder how much longer the 32 market-dominant “Poroton” major producers—not to mention aerated concrete foam block manufacturers—intend to “blow” polystyrene foam into biologically valuable, healthy clay or loam spheres to produce a failed insulating material. The monoproduce “Poroton T” (where T stands for Tempo) consists predominantly of cavernous voids rather than well-drying hair-like pores (capillaries).
The strategy of Poroton management and the advertising council should soon be abandoned due to false norms that currently still promote, for material, energy-saving production, and weight reasons, “just barely hand-carryable” large-format insulation materials in direct masonry—at the economic disadvantage of future homeowners and competing small full-brick producers—finally closing their “mom-and-pop shops” to possibly take over the rare and valuable clay pits. It is well known that 36.5 cm (14.4 inches) thick exterior walls made from full bricks (unfortunately only available in smaller sizes, e.g., 240/115/71 mm or 240/115/113 mm [9.4/4.5/2.8 inches or 9.4/4.5/4.4 inches], with a density of about 1600 kg/m³ [100 lb/ft³]) are steady energy savers and, above all, irreplaceably healthier compared to porous bricks.
The fantastic laboratory thermal insulation values of the “thermal protection according to DIN 4108” only refer to dry materials. Porous building materials, however, lose nearly all of their insulating capacity after becoming damp and have nothing to do with the legally required heat demand calculations for building permit / planning permission submissions, which exclusively allow the use of dry material values. These ideal lab values lose all relevance after installation once the moisture balance in the wall assembly begins.
Moreover, besides the calculated heat storage and insulation values of building materials, resistance against water, vapor, and external forces plays a major role—such as that of solid bricks or wood compared to typical insulation materials. It should also be added that the hygroscopic moisture balance dependent on ambient humidity of brick is, in contrast to other well-praised modern building materials like calcium silicate blocks, pumice, gas, expanded, or normal concrete, negligibly low. Furthermore, solid bricks (unlike klinker bricks) exhibit low vapor diffusion resistance and good capillary moisture transport capacity (especially drying to the outside in winter), making brick dry out faster and radiate heat better than other acclaimed masonry units that absorb more water through vapor diffusion and rain impact than they can release.
Desorption in bricks is about ten times greater than in calcium silicate blocks. Good capillary action of bricks, mortar joints (preferably lime plaster without chemical sealants), and coatings is necessary to transport construction moisture or water vapor condensate from the entire wall cross-section as well as interior air to an acceptable relative humidity of 40-65%, which is vital for health. With modern vapor-tight materials, membranes, and current insulating wall constructions, this is only possible by window ventilation, which causes rapid heat losses and excludes any heat storage capacity in the exterior walls. Although the quantitative air exchange from this “breathing” of brick walls is minimal, its qualitative effect on indoor air regeneration is highly relevant—since the cooler interior surfaces of exterior brick walls bind and transport the emissions of inhabitants, pathogens, sweat from skin, and pores of humans, animals, and plants, as well as bacterial and mold spores through vapor diffusion and capillary moisture transport through the wall outwards. The lime compounds in mortar and coatings disinfect these harmful pathogens, preventing them from circulating as dry dust in heated rooms.
Insulated wall constructions—whether insulation is applied on the exterior, interior, or inside the core of the wall—remain unresolved climatic shells that inevitably cause both visible and invisible moisture damage and related hidden energy losses. Sufficiently thick solid walls with uniform structure rarely experience these problems and are therefore reliable energy savers! Current legal insulation regulations regarding heat demand and vapor diffusion simply do not correspond to established scientific facts. Is this flood of one-sided insulation advertising not overwhelming enough to drown any truth about real annual heat balance losses? Is it not outrageous that, since the thermal protection regulation came into effect on January 1, 1984, owners of solid buildings are even legally “obliged” during renovations to spend money on additional thermal insulation, the supposed insulating miracle, only to end up consuming more energy after this misguided investment? This is despite their old massive, heat storage capable, uninsulated buildings being vastly superior in both energy consumption and living comfort?
Indeed, a thermal insulated thermos flask not only keeps coffee hot but also prevents ice cubes from melting, which means many “fully insulated” homeowners still have to heat in June! Additionally, since insulating materials such as at least UF foams are classified as hazardous to health and mineral fibers (glass wool, slag wool, and rock wool) are considered carcinogenic due to their lung-penetrating fiber form, I hereby declare an end to lightweight construction methods—at least for residential buildings—a nemesis for insulating wall assemblies. In the Federal Republic of Germany, insulation will perhaps remain limited to vehicles, spaceships, or similar for weight reasons against cold and heat. [I]Residential walls, however, will be built thicker, solid, and without insulation again—vapor permeable without vapor barriers, and thus naturally and healthily.
[/I]
Source: A. Klaus/Arch+
My conclusion: as predicted; with 36.5 and 42 cm (14.4 inches and 16.5 inches) wall constructions, we are already there... although admittedly driven by Brussels.
Regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte schrieb:
.... sometimes I stand in disbelief before your (apparent) unwillingness to think beyond the obvious…. Accusing me of unwillingness is likely influenced by your predetermined sales-related constraints—only a cynic would suspect foul play here! Bauexperte schrieb:
- as always - also a question of cost-effectiveness…. Correct, which is why bargain hunters often choose the cheapest option first, without understanding the long-term and sustainable real cost-effectiveness! Cheap at the start usually ends up being very expensive later! Bauexperte schrieb:
Because: .... ... No independent, professionally justified opinion? Relying on vague salespeople for guidance? When it comes to study results, a simple rule usually applies: Who commissioned the study and who sponsored the results?
That alone sufficiently explains the presentation of the findings!
Only naive or overly trusting people base a major investment decision—one that will last 20...25 years—on professionally undefined sales offers!
Best regards.
B
Bauexperte2 Feb 2014 16:20Hello €uro,
I should have known better; you don’t handle opposing views very well
It’s not easy to have a discussion with you when you always retreat to your own calculation methods—how am I supposed to follow you when I am not an engineer? Especially since you are not at all willing to publicly and, above all, freely share your results in a way that forum users can understand? You hide behind numbers and formulas? Or, on the other hand, you refuse to accept that it is not a disaster to acknowledge a differing opinion as valid? You consistently respond in the same pattern whenever you encounter an answer that doesn’t fit your way of thinking—in my view, an inappropriate behavior not worthy of your reputation—reacting like a pubescent teenager?
You may be many things—but probably not an easygoing character.
Regards, Bauexperte
I should have known better; you don’t handle opposing views very well
€uro schrieb:That impression arises involuntarily without any extra effort.
Accusing me of bad intentions is probably influenced by your sales-driven, predefined conditions, [...]!
€uro schrieb:This statement—although correct in the context of the typical conditions of so-called bargain hunters—has absolutely nothing to do with the question under discussion.
Correct, that’s why bargain hunters always choose the cheapest option first, without understanding the long-term and sustainable actual cost-effectiveness! Cheap at the start often becomes very expensive in the end!
€uro schrieb:I posted this text solely as a reflection of my own thoughts on the topic of insulated versus monolithic construction. It is far from me to claim it as a perfect solution ... neither professionally justified, nor reinventing the wheel.
...No own, professionally justified opinion? Relying on vague salespeople for guidance?
€uro schrieb:Have you considered that by saying this, you are implicitly claiming that only your opinion—which you surely consider unbiased—should be accepted as the absolute truth?
When it comes to study results, a simple rule usually helps: Who commissioned it and who sponsored the results?!
That basically explains the presentation of the findings quite sufficiently!
It’s not easy to have a discussion with you when you always retreat to your own calculation methods—how am I supposed to follow you when I am not an engineer? Especially since you are not at all willing to publicly and, above all, freely share your results in a way that forum users can understand? You hide behind numbers and formulas? Or, on the other hand, you refuse to accept that it is not a disaster to acknowledge a differing opinion as valid? You consistently respond in the same pattern whenever you encounter an answer that doesn’t fit your way of thinking—in my view, an inappropriate behavior not worthy of your reputation—reacting like a pubescent teenager?
You may be many things—but probably not an easygoing character.
Regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte schrieb:
You don’t make it easy to have a discussion with you if you always retreat to your calculation methods – how am I supposed to follow you when I’m not an engineer? Especially since you are not at all willing to share your results publicly and, above all, for free, so that the users of this forum can understand them? You hide behind numbers and formulas? That is exactly the problem with 99% of the €uro posts. Users ask very specific questions, and the answer is usually:
"Blah blah... have you considered <complicated formula>? Blah blah... And anyway, <some parameter from the depths of energy calculations> can’t be correct... blah blah... so the whole concept is total nonsense. You should definitely consult an MEP engineer.
Best regards
<Signature promoting own MEP services>
€uro, you write a lot and, if your posts are to be believed, you know a lot, but I have NEVER read anything concrete from you. Why don’t you post 2-3 example calculations of energy certificates, which you claim are often wrong? Why no website showing your references?
It would be great if the next 1400 posts are more productive.
Thanks and best regards
klblb
Similar topics