*
Yes there is a slight tint to all low – I windows.
Low – I will pay you back only over the long term.
Less fade inside, reflects heat out in the summer and back in in the winter.
Check out Andersen’s literature on glazing even if you don’t buy their windows.
Skim-coating with joint compound covers texture, renews old drywall and plaster, and leaves smooth surfaces ready to paint.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Can anyone discuss the pros and cons of using Low-E type insulated
window glass?
Our very old house has a kitchen with a mostly northern exposure which will have many windows shaded by beautiful trees. We want to consider the view while also keeping in mind our heating bill... We think using restoration glass as we have in most of the house is probably not an option here. Does Low-E glass change the color of the light coming in, or the view going out? Does it appear any different from the street? We're using warm light colors and lots of antique incandescent lighting, and want the room to feel warm, rather than grey or dingy. Any input on glass would be welcome.
*What is "antique incandescent lighting?"If you look at ratings from the National Fenestration Rating Council, you'll note that they use what they call U-Factor, which is a basically meaningless index that compares windows with each other, much like tire sidewall ratings compare tires with each other. They also use a solar heat gain rating that looks at heat gain WITHIN the house from solar energy outside. This applies to Tempe, AZ, but not to your situation, and a hot, sunny situation is probably where the low-e coating may have it's greater value. In a winter low-e glass, the coating is on the inside pane, not the outside, and it's designed to reflect your radiant heat back into the room rather than let it leak outside. How valuable is this? Just how much radiant heat does your home interior generate? I prefer to think of glass in terms of R-value, which allows me to compare it to familiar stuff like walls and insulation. A dual pane, argon-filled, low-e window will have a R-value of around 3.15 -- real impressive, eh? The two panes contribute about 1.1 each, the argon cavity another .60, and the low-e the final .35. According to NFRC tests, there is little to no significant change in light transmission with low-e glass, and I've found it to be visually transparent.I personally see little value to winter low-e, given these observations. Particularly as it relates to the heating bill.
*....low -e ... is the only way to go.... the "u" value is the reciprocal of the R-value so you can convert any U to an r....1/u =R so, for example, an Andersen tilt-wash high -performance glazing would ave a "u" of .33, so 1/.33 = R-value of 3.0 compared to a standard insulated glass unit with a u of .49 or an R-value of 2.0.... this is especially important in trying to keep the surface temperature of the glass above the dew point... in standard conditions for the NFRC testing one would have a temp. of 55 deg. and the other would have a temp. of 45deg.one would start to have condensation problems at an indoor relative humidity of 60% and the standard glazing would only need 41% before it started to condense liquid out of the air....this is why high-perf. or hi-R glazing is so important and the new NFRC rating allows quick and true comparison of one unit to another....All the major mfrs have very good sections describing the different glazing options..you can get any color balance you want....if you have tapestries, or paintings on the wall, or carpets, you might want to consider UV blocking if they are in the direct rays any time of the year..I forget where your house is located.. so your climate and altitude have a bearing on your decision...go for max R-value and low maintenance and you can't go wrong...my favorite in terms of insulating and low maintenance is HURD... but i sell and install mostly Andersen and would probabaly use Andersen on my own house AGAIN... for several different reasons...Marvin has finally upgraded their line and have some pretty impressive product also..
*Mike,No offense, but you sound like window salesmen I've encountered. You begin with "low-e is the only way to go," then you never explain why. For the dollar and for the value added, explain, if you would, why one should have low-e glass in a winter situation.
*Not an expert on interior lighting or Low-E glass...I believe that energy efficient windows are taylored towards two situations: sunny and shady. Windows designed for sunny (south) exposure attempt to either allow more solar energy in or keep it out with films which could appear to give the sunlight and/or window a tint. Windows designed for shady (north) exposure focus more on the R value of the window and I wouldn't expect to see any kind of tint.In the end though, unless you specifically get mirror tinted windows, I think the color and warmth of the room will be determined by your choice of interior colors and lighting, not by the windows. Just my opinion.I also have a northern bump out bay window surrounding our kitchen (or at least on paper so far). To my eye, the high efficiency windows we're considering have no visible tinting (Restoration glass was not a consideration). New windows won't have the same texture and reflective qualities of Restoration glass. That in itself might be enough to make them stand out (to the critical eye).
*.....Steve, i thot i did..here it is again..(1) the term LOW-e, is what i use and most use to designate a high performance glazing with an R-value of about 3.0, isul. glass is about R-2....the temperature of the glass surface will be above the DEW POINT with low-e (R-3) and below the dew point with standard insulated (R-2)(2)if you calculate a heat loss for your structure and you change one parameter only.... the R-value of your windows from R-2 to R-3 you will see the economic advantage to the window over the life cycle of the product(3)if you stand or sit near a window with an R-2 value vs. a window with an R-3 value, you will notice a difference in comfort level....the main thing missing in the early search for energy conservation was better windows and doors... now we've got them.. and you should spend the upcharge to use them..did i leave something out?what's not clear about this? if you live in a climate with 6000 DD, you should have low -e windows..or you should have insulated glass and storm panels, in any case you should have an R-3 value....minimum..b Kermit
*Yes there is a slight tint to all low - I windows.Low - I will pay you back only over the long term.Less fade inside, reflects heat out in the summer and back in in the winter. Check out Andersen's literature on glazing even if you don't buy their windows.
*Garret... how do you arrive at figures that say changing your window from R-2 to R-3 will only pay back over a long time period?what kind of numbers are you using?that is different from the economic models i have seen and calculated..
*..been thinking on that ,Steve, and the reason i sound like one is because i am one,.....i'm also a siding salesman, door salesman, carpet, heating, plumbing fixtures...sales of services,, design... everything we do.... I sell....i stand between my customers and the floor salesmen....most of the time i know more about the product than the person selling it... but i really do appreciate a GOOD salesman , who knows their product....and is going to teach me something new.. and their is always something new... and you can usually tell who knows their product and who's blowin smoke.......so, thanks for the compliment.
*Mike,Rather than question how Garett based his statement, why not provide those calculations you talk about? First to challenge isn't automatically right. I tend to also agree that the pay back for low-e in a winter environment is probably a long time, considering its marginal effect on heat transfer. Its purpose, as stridently marketed by window manufacturers, is to reduce solar transference, something not present in a shady, winter environment. This implies a long pay-back.
*...Barry: i did the calcs 15 years ago and don't feel like doing them again...u know how you try to make one decision selections in your life and then not look back and second guess yourself...so, this is dumb... but i would feel guilty if i advised a customer to buy an R-2 window instead of an R-3 window...UCLIU..if you want an independent source try page 298 of Lstubirek's book "Builder's Guide for Cold Climate"or Gene Leger's book : "Complete Building Construction" pages 390 - 398.There is NOTHING controversial about this... this is not "venting/ non-venting"... this is Energy Conservation 101...if you are a builder..remodeler building in a Climate with 6000 DD. you should know this..if you don't then you should make the effor to learn about it...here's my cost for an Andersen 3042 Builders Select Narrowline (insulated glass)with prefinished interior...$164.50and here's the same window in HiPerformance, prefinished interior (3042) ...$217.70... now you look it up and figure for your climate, and then you can knowledgeabley advise your customers what you think they should do...hope this helps,Mike
*Carole and Doug -- it really depends where you live -- I priced out my options and felt low-E, let alone argon etc., would be a complete waste here in Northern VA. The climate is mild and our house's windows have little direct sun. I have many other things to spend money on that will net more benefits per dollar.A blanket statement that low-e is the option can not be true. It depends on your microclimate and your energy costs. High energy costs make spending significant amounts for better R-performance more likely worthwhile. But first consider spending that money to grab the low-hanging fruit, like improving the attic insulation or replacing that out-of-date furnace/AC (for example).
*....good morning Andrew... ....i don't like blanket statements either.. i did say that climate and altitude were important..and i further qualified that in a 6000 DD climate , this was a no-brainer...let me ask you.. you seem to do upscale remodeling...if an installed window costs $1000 for a primary rplacement.. when do you advise your customers not to spend the $100 additional for the advantage of Low-e..extra comfort, less condensation problems, protection of interior furnishings, lower heating and cooling bills... in Northern Va. you should benefit from lower cooling loads... and protection of interior furnishings..if your customers don't do it when the replace their windows, they can always have film tints applied later,,..... BUT, these are not as effective, cost a lot more per unit, and VOID all the window mfr's glazing warranties...now, if you're saying that they shouldn't REPLACE their windows, that's a different story... but if they are replacing them, anywhere in any climate, then the advantage and benefits of low-e are worth the upcharge..if they can't afford the upcharge, they should trade it off for something, like they do the painting, or the interior trim... the Low-e is worth the price..I don't know any mfr.s that are still using gas filled... the basic technologies are insulated glass (R-2)......, Low-e (R-3)..., and Heat-mirror (R-4)..I've quoted some independent sources.. what do you base your advice on?....you do replace windows for your customers , don't you?
*...i was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG...some of the major mfr's ARE still using Argon filled...for example Marvin lists 3 types of glazing for their double hungs..their ratings are : insul glass: R-1.9Low-e: R-2.3and Low-e with Argon: R-2.6, which is still below Andersen's Low-e (no argon) of R-3.0...
*Yes, and the price increment for the low-e to get a virtually negligible .4 can be a fair amount on the smaller windows. Marvin is the only brand I know in-depth, and I'm mostly interested in their bottom-of-the-line (read: surprisingly cheap) quality wood windows. Andersen seems fine, too.Like you said, it depends case-by-case on what the client needs. It's too easy for some folks to spend a lot of money on high-tech temptation like a sophisticated window or a little extra SEER in the new AC unit, overlooking that the relatively modest heating & cooling costs ($20-$100 a month) here can't ever lead to payback. Anyway, in these older houses, spending the money on unglamorous things like fixing leaks in ducts and roofs and old windows can be a better deal. Even the Marvin salesman didn't push the fancy windows (!), even discouraged me from buying them.UV and heat transmission are different. For south-facing windows, I like overhangs and awnings and outright tinted coatings to reduce the misery of solar heat gain. (I uesd to live in L.A. and the sun gets plenty hot.) But this just hasn't come up for me much as yet.Carole and Doug have NORTH-facing windows, so the low-e benefit would be a lot less dramatic. Triple-glazing might help more, if it's worth the money. Also, very important, choose good air-seal windows if you can -- fixed/picture are best (surprise), followed by awnings, casements, and last double-hung.Hey, you can get KRYPTON now too!
*I guess we must get the good stuff when it comes to windows. Just flipping through the Willmar liturature (our brand choice), the low end (dual pain - clear) manages R 2.0 at the center and R 2.1 for the window as a whole. A triple pain clear manages R3.1 at center and R3.0 as a whole. And that's not even using Argon gas or Low E glass.The windows of our choice are the R plus with heat mirror (kind of a triple pain which replaces the center glass with some kind of insulating film). R10 at center and R5 as a whole. From my experience, the pricing appears to be totally dependent on the dealer and what he's trying to clear out of the stock room. If he's pushing the high R windows, they won't cost much more then regular. If he's not, then you might as well shop else where 'cause the price won't even be in the ballpark.
*"triple pain"? (your typo)Farther south, we have the luxury of buying old-fashioned nonsense like real-muntin divided lites in wood double-hungs without getting soaked in energy costs. I'm also not a climate control nut -- somehow managed to survive most of my life (as a renter) without A/C or reliable heat -- so the window R matters less than appearance. However, a window that leaks air is awful and should be fixed ASAP.
*Carole & Doug:JLC (The Journal of Light Construction) and an excellent article in the 1/99 issue called "Choosing Energy-Efficient Windows." You need to read this article. Two pages of the article deal with Low-E coatings. One of the illustration boxes is called "Matching Windows to Climate" - you didn't tell us where you live - selecting windows for a home in Fla. is much different than selecting windows for Canada. Please let us know where you live.Normally, Low-E windows are considered more effective on the southern exposure of the house rather than the northern side. This is because modern low-e coatings are designed to reflect heat i out during the summer as well as i in during the winter. Still, this depends on your local climate.As far as the window "tint", you need to learn about VLT (Visible Light Transmittance) ratings. This is basically a percentage of the light that comes through the window. One piece of clear glass lets through about 90 % of the visible light so it has a VLT rating of about .90. Low-e coatings limit the VLT to roughly between .75 and .50. So, the technology of low-e coating that a specific brand of window uses makes a big difference with respect to VLT. This is discussed in the JLC article too.One thing I like about Kolbe & Kolbe windows, for example, is that the VLT ratings for their standard Low-e coating is relatively high - I think around .72. Pella windows, on the other hand have a VLT of around .50 for their Low-E product in their ProLine which translates to more of a "tint".As far as "look from the street" - yes the Low-E coatings are visible, once again depending on their VLT rating. In particular, if you have interior, removable, or between the glass, muntin bars (those "grids") the Low-E coating will make them less visible from outside. Obviously, this is not an issue with true divided light windows.
*If you are only replacing some of the windows in your house, I wouldn't introduce Low- glazing. The difference in color perception would be really glaring compared to that of your other windows.
*Matt G had a great post.In my readings, I found that Low E is unrelated to R or U value:E refers to the transmission of light/infrared energy via propagating waves.R/U refers to the thermal conduction of heat.Yes, low E usually has a better R. (Often simply due to the film which is suspended between th two glass panes (creats a "third pane"). Yes, low E reduces light transmission. (Windows will look slightly mirrored from the side that is Low-E'd. (Heat Mirrors look shiny from the outside.) They MAY also have a tint. I find that unless the windows in a room or on the exterior wall are mixed, it is difficult to detect and not objectionable. I also go for a neutral tint (grey) no colors.In a sunny climate, much heat gain is from sunlight entering the window, and turning into heat when is strikes the interior. Low E coating reduce this.Also, Low E is purported to cut down on UV which can be a "pane" on your fabrics, etc.AdamPS. Stay away from Hurd. Non-existent customer service, poor quality control.
*Yes, Adam's right, shame on us for not keeping our physics straight.3 mechanisms of heat transfer: convection, conduction, and radiation. Radiation is invisible, "heat-less," pure electromagnetic energy. (Particles or waves? That was the debate when I was in high school.)R-value reflects conduction; originally I think it was designed to mean that R-1 equals 1 foot of concrete. So a single piece of window glass outperforms a foot of concrete! (Glass is an insulator, relatively speaking. It is often spun into a fibrous "wool" to insulate houses -- what do they call that stuff, "Fiberglas®"? Contrary to popular belief, fiberglas performs worse PER INCH the more you fluff a given amount up! Glass is a better insulator than air. Smash that stuff in there, just don't leave any air cavities.)In a multiple-glazing window, convection of air between the layers plus conduction through the frame yields the R- or conduction value of the window as a whole. "Glazing" can include a layer of plastic or anything else that is airtight and thus convection.Argon, krypton, and presumably other noble gases retard convection -- anyone know why? Evidently the larger molecules provide better resistance to convection. Krypton is quite large, bigger than O2. Noble gases are elements that show virtually no affinity for anything else, and thus are nonreactive -- hence the alchemist's term "noble.") Larger pane-to-pane gaps, up to about 1", reduce conduction. Incidentally, orienting and enlarging the window vertically also reduce convection, because the round trip of the warm and cool airstreams is increased -- I wonder what position skylights are tested in?Multiple glazings slow conduction. Larger gaps between glazings, up to 1", retard conduction and a certain amount of convection. Heat mirrors and other non-insulating coatings reduce radiation, period -- unless suspended between glazings, where they give a R-/anti-convection bonus!Probably one of the single most important and forgotten factors for many windows, esp. double-hungs, is air leakage, particularly in leaky houses. I have no idea what those numbers the mfrs give mean; I just know awning-casement-double-hung are best-to-worst. And EPDM makes great weatherstripping; the open-cell foam sold everywhere bites.Funny, I've heard so many rave about Hurd that I thought they were a natural choice for casements. I'm suspicious of their R-values, though, that maybe they use the deceptive center-of-glass measurement?Well, anyway, the "right window" depends on the climate, the exposure of the window (for ultimate protection consider shade trees and overhangs for exposed windows), the decor, and the aesthetics of the user. Low-E gives a pretty good bang for the buck if you are in a reasonably severe climate (significant hesting or cooling costs), radiation/exposure to sunlight are substantial, and the slight color effect is not a problem, as it would be for a remodel.They do have a "winter" low-E that supposedly reflects heat radiation back into the house -- I'm not real persuaded this is worthwhile.
*Andrew et all:re your comment:"They do have a "winter" low-E that supposedly reflects heat radiation back into the house -- I'm not real persuaded this is worthwhile."It is my impression that all Low-E windows has this characteristic.
*Marvin clearly distinguishes the two, summer and winter low-E. It's a question of which way the mirror faces, in or out, and perhaps the film is different.
*the new NFRC label is a valuable tool in comparing one window to another and HURD does not use center of glass .. they were one of the leaders in going to standard like NFRC...one of the worst window styles is SLIDER, way below double hungs..here's what you can get from an NFRC label..U-factor ( u= 1/r), solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC),...visible light transmission (VT),..AIR INFILTRATION rates (AL)... and ..annual heating & cooling rating (HR & CR)..they all have to be independently test the same way...so this label is no b**l s**t...As far as quality control... i've used Hurd extensively, with great results, i use far more Andersens because of our remodeling.. but if i had a customer who was primarily concerned with Energy Conservation, i wouldn't have any problem recommending and installing Hurd...that may have to do with our distributor... my experience with anything my regular millwork company handled has always been good...perhaps , Adam S. you just had a lousy distributor... a bad one can screw up any good product.....b IMHO Pogo
*Andrew:You are right. There are different types of Low-E technologies. I'm not familiar with Marvin products however, I know that Hurd, for example offers several different options (in their catalog) including 1)low-e/Argon, "The low-e coating increases the windows insulating properties" - this is your general purpose low-e. 2)Heat Mirror TC88 "designed for reflecting interior heat back into rooms" which is apparently designed for enhanced winter performance, & 3)Heat Mirror SC-75 (Solar Control) "an excellent selection for the southern and western sides of a home; where heat gain can be a problem." According to their specs, all 3 of these products significantly increase both winter (insulation) and summer (solar control) performance.Some manufactures suspend a coated film between the glass. Some apply the low-e coating directly to the inside of one or both of the glass panes. Some use hard low-e coatings - some soft… Some Low-e coatings are rated as spectrally selective. Once you read the article I referred to in my first post, you will see that the whole low-e thing is rather complicated, and because of the different manufacturers offerings, it's difficult to compare apples to apples. Rather, when "window shopping" for energy conserving units, you need to decide what is most important for the application - VLT, U-value, solar gain, price, etc. The article also lists a dozen or so sources "For more Information" including a half dozen URLs.
*Another NFRC twist -- one mfr, I forget which, claims that some others submit the "best of the batch" windows for NFRC testing instead of a random sample off of the assembly line.OK, this IS nitpicking.
*If the U-factor is the reciprocal of the R-value (and NFRC admits it is), what is its point? Why would an organization create a rating system that's just the same as another, just reflected differently? Is it because R-values for windows are so low, compared to other insulators, so that creating a new index avoids this negative association?
*Steve....why don't you do some basic research on heat loss? ...i think "r", "R", "u", & "U" are older than you and me... and R has ALWAYS been the reciprocal of U, and U has always been the reciprocal of R....so NFRC didn't invent anything, they just adopted commonly accepted heat measuring units, and then agreed on a standard test procedure....NFRC for some reason you're not telling me, really seems to bug you, what is it man ? .. get it off your chest!.....i welcome NFRC as finally being an industry standard that allow all consumers and end users to evaluate one window against another without a lot of B.S. amd smoke and mirrors.... with one look at a label i can tell right off the bat, which window is more suitable to my needs...and this is not me that is saying this ... its's what all of the window mfr's agreed to... why don't you just say thank you very much ... and use it ..What, me worry?
*Personally, I think it would be far less confusing to us consumers if the industry would just stick with one or the other across all building materials...When it comes to windows, isn't R value generally accepted to be the R value at the center of the glass? Which doesn't really tell the whole truth about the window performance? Isn't U value generally accepted to be the conduction value of the ENTIRE window, frames and all? Thus being a more accurate representation of the window performance? Did I interpret this correctly or is it just more smoke and mirrors? If this is true, why don't manufactures simply list the center glass R value and whole window R value side by side instead of representing one in U values?Buyer beware....
*it's because you are not trying to work with the numbers... the goal is to calculate how much heat is being lost (conductance).... not how much the given section "resists" .in the end you multiply "U" x Area to determine the btu/hr.... this is why you need the reciprocal...historically , glass, windows , skylights, and doors are all listed by their mfrs with "U" values...since the consumer is MORE familiar with "R" they sometimes convert "u" to "r", it is not arbitrary.. it all depends on what you are trying to solve for...
*The other night, I left my sliding door a little open after letting the cat through...the heater didn't seem to run any longer that night like I notice it does on a real cold night...So I don't think sealing is as important as r value in ceilings and walls...just my angle, near the stream,aj
*Then couldn't that just as easily be calculated as divide Area by "R" to determine the btu/hr...this is why you don't need the reciprocal.Maybe the real question is why don't we rate walls and roofs using the "U" instead of "R". Seems to me the arguements for reciprocal values apply equally here as well? Most other scientific calculations I'm familiar with generally refer to the reciprocal of something as 1/x instead of defining yet another unit for it. I think the window industry should pull their pants up get their rating systems in line. Or maybe it IS as Andrew infered, they don't want to draw attention to the dismal R value of windows.
*why jac, ya damn dummy, the cat curled up around the thm'stat... course the heater didn't run......ya probly left the water boilin under the lobsters too, dintya?
*No claw marks near the tstat!!!!...but ya might be able to figure this...keep scratchin Mike...near the stream, nukin last nights pasketie,aj
*You had the blamed thing turned down/off.You have any hangemers to go with that pasketi ?
*Hot saaaaassssaaagggee maaaaaan!!!Near the skettie streaam,aj
*Scott....of course you can divide ..if you want to.. but why would you reinvent the method for heat loss calculation that is printed in every text on the subject....."U" i Coefficient of Heat Transmission (over-all)- the amount of heat (BTU) transmitted from air to air in 1 hour/sq. ft. of the wall, floor, roof, or ceiling for a difference in temperature (delta-T) of 1 deg. F. between the air on the inside and outside of the wall (includes doors & windows), floor, roof, or ceiling.You have to add heat loss due to infiltration and /or make up air to arrive at the total design heat loss for the structure. You can do this as the sum of the rooms, or the total loss of the structure.The point is that "u" is the valid unit to be used by NFRC.... and to the contrary.. they are not trying to hide their performance, but rather to point to the dramatic strides that have been made by window mfr.s since the '70's...here...try this, small 1-storey hs. 1084 sf,the attic is insulated to R40, the Design temp in is 70, and out is 0, so delta-T is 701/40= .025, so Btu = (u)x sf x 70 = 1897 BTU/hr10 windows, low-e, high -performance r-3, (3/0 x 4/2) = 13.91 sf. each (from mfrs tables) and the overall u for the window is .33, so, 10 windows = 139 sf x .33 x 70 = 3210 BTU/ hrsame window with insul. glass (r-2) u=.49.49x139 sf. x 70= 4767 btu/hr the difference in heat loss between the windows at r-3 and r-2 is 1557 btu/hr almost equal to the total heat loss thru the attic... what do you want to do?eliminate the windows?add more insulation to the attic (the 'low-hanging fruit theory")or use the more energy effiicent of the two?...you could go to Hurd and get a "u" of 0.15..try that in the equation!...
*Another way of looking at the relationship between R and U, R's reciprocal (and vice versa) ... just two ways of expressing the #'s, U being more useful for calculation and R easier for the consumer to understand and remember.
*great visual... don't think i've ever seen that one...
*Mike sells windows and likes to befuddle with complicated formulas; andrew d thinks simply and logically. Now who will I listen to?
*listen to your heart man, it doesn't get befuddled!wanna buy a duck?
*(tongue in cheek...)Ok, so now "U" fits great in the window calculation, but then you go and use 1/R in the roof calculation instead of expressing the roof insulation in "U"? And if "U" works better in the calculations why was "R" even defined? Why don't we express insulation values in "U" and make things less complicated all around? I'm going to take a guess that in the evolution of building materials, the use of "R" for insulation values was probably in use before windows ever came under scrutiny. Now that performance of windows are under the spotlight, why hasn't R value been universally accepted as the measure of a window's performance? If the interests of the consumer are to be considered, it would only make sense to stick with "R" rating? You'd never say, 'well if you want to save some heating dollars, you're going to have to drop the "U" value of your roof'. Yet nobody seems to be the least bit curious about why the same statement is being used to pitch windows? Or maybe the consumers are just supposed to leave all them darn complicated window decisions in the hands of the knowlegable sales staff...
*Perhaps some truth... my distributor went belly-up and I had to deal with the western regional manager and the factory warranty manager in Medford, WI...apparently, the story I got was that they had just switched from silicone sealant applied "freehand" and preformed silicone gaskets. They were dropping/misplacing gaskets.Their fix was to come out and smear caulk around the outside. That is NOT warranting the product against manufacturing defects, IMHO.Again, only one person's opinion. Given the modest upcharge versus HURD I try to stick with Pella. (Last time I checked, pella was still testing the each actual window for infiltration, not just "representative production samples". At least Designer Series)And actually.... thanks for everyone who stood up for the vendor (even if I don't agree) it helps give this site more credibility.
*Scott is on...
*I choose triple glazing, low-e, argon filled, and what do I get? An R-value (forget the U) of about 3.75 or so. For only a couple hundred bucks more a window. Three quarter inch styrofoam has the same R-value. The bottom line to me, is that this is a case of diminishing returns. The more I spend on an incremental increase in insulative capability, the less I get in economic return. Windows are for enjoyment, so I guess I'll take the bleacher seats. I can still see the game, and the hot dogs taste as good.
*Scott, Barry , & Steve... the three musketeers..the next time i want a heat loss calculation so we can size a heating system, or help the homeowner choose their windows.. i should refer them to you... you guys are starting to sound like luddites.. what's up with this? Steve, where do you live? more than a 6000 deg. day climate?and , the window you described is R-6.6 ( 1 divided by .15 equals 6.67).... i'm only talking about the difference between R-2 & R-3. So , cover your windows with styrofoam if you want ..my customers want comfort and low heating bills, and every mfr. has a window for them...and they've all agreed to use the NFRC label to give truth in advertising...you oughta learn how to read it...you guys are pretty clever, you can do this... get over it....go to the library , get any book you want on energy conservation, see how to calculate heat loss, how to determine a strategy for energy conservation, how to compare the results of additional insulation in the attic, in the walls, changing the windows, upgrading the doors, changing the efficiency of your furnace... or ..you can keep your heads stuck in the sand and think all i'm doing is selling windows......i hope we're still havin fun, i know i amb Heat loss = (""u"" x area x delta-T) , ignore it at your customer's riskb but hey whadda i know
*In electronics, resistance is measured in OHMs, conduction (the opposite) is measured in MHOs. They're reciprocals. Anyway, Heat Loss = (Area x Delta T)/RWhat's my point? ...I'm not sure.Jerry
*Jerry.... what is your point ... do you want to join the luddites too?.. or just pulling my chain?.. if you're havin a little fun.. that's ok , too, but as i'm not sure...lemme ask you something....surely you don't want to rewrite the heating texts , too?Steve, you're a contractor , right? how do you go about giving advice to your customers?does anyone of you seriously think , if you had a customer (IF), and they wanted new windows, or were building a house with new windows.. that you would recommend an R-2 window over an R-3?get real.. if you live north of Kansas.. this isn't an option...b or maybe you think it is...?
*Mike,Really, I'm with you on this one, and I was poking fun a little. My post, BTW, clearly implied that I didn't have a point! But if you insist, here goes. I was trying to show that it is not uncommon to use reciprocals in other areas of math and science. I don't think anyone is trying to fool us. Formulas are usually stated a certain way but can easily be changed to use the reciprocal value if that's the one you're comfortable with. Personally, 'u' or 'r' both work for me. Happy now? ;-)TIC,Jerry
*Jerry,don't give it a second thought , sometimes i get a little full of myself...usually a 2x4 to the side of the head does wonders.....BTW...you weren't out workin or anything odd like that , were ya?
*Oh how nice. "R" "U" 2 getting along now?Ha-ha-ha. I crack myself up.
*andrewd.. i think the phrase u wer looking for is .....gag me with a spoon....but i no wat u meen...sometimes i yust kill myself, Hah, hah, hah......