Q1. Why not a kickspace heater?
A1. It requires electricity, it becomes noisy after a few years, it blows dust around and nobody wants 130 degree air blasting on to your feet.
Q2. Why not baseboard?
2. There is not enough exterior wall to meet the 7,770 btu/hr heating load.
Q3. OK, you have to do radiant, why not a nice warm floor, isn't that the custom?
A3. Yes, but the base cabinets take up a lot of floor space, math tells us the kitchen floor would have to be approximately 100 degrees F. Imagine standing on a floor that hot.
Q4. Doesn't heat rise? Your ceiling will keep all the heat at the ceiling, so your design won't work, Mr. Smart Guy.
A4. Less dense air rises (warm air), not heat. The zeroth law of thermodynamics tells us heat goes from a higher concentration to a lower concentration. That means it goes from hot objects (or surfaces) to cold objects. Hold you hand near a hot stove, you feel the heat by radiation; the hot surface radiates heat to your cooler hand. The same idea applies to our radiant ceiling, it will be about 91 degrees; your skin temperature is about 85 degrees. Heat will go from it to you, keeping you warm.
Q5. Won't the room above it have a radiant floor now?
A5. The ceiling is well insulated, see A-4.1. This will "encourage" the heat to go down into the kitchen, not the bedroom above.
Q6. Won't your head be baked?
A6. Only if you are 7'9" tall. We aren't (and none of you are). If you are of ordinary height, it shouldn't be bad.
Keep asking questions, the truth is out there (don't fear the future).
Much respect to Tom D. for his advice.
5 comments:
freak! (o.k., so i learned something with Q4/A4 - thanks!) freak!
Q7. will the radiant ceiling help you grow your sideburns out?!
Sideburns are non-aerodynamic, weigh more and look too modern for bill n. The offset is a razor will last a micro-amount longer and my shaving time will be reduced by 1-2 seconds per day. I'm willing to omit them. Five years from now people will see Mr. 2007's very "in" sideburns and ask, "Is that Elvis?"
This blog is not the appropriate place for learning, if you have learned anything, it was without the express written permission of blogger.com, this blog's author, major leauge baseball and your fancy college.
thank you, oh delicate flower for your response. i find it complete - and unfortunately, TMI. (just so you know, i will have to prepare for an event for the eve of 04/05 at my fancy college. any wisdom from the right coast is welcomed!)
Q8. The oak floor and sub floor are both of identical thickness (3/4"). (a) Is this a coincidence, or is this by design? (for economics? guido had a sale? stuff was on craig's list? other?) (b) What if oak thickness > sub floor? (c) What if oak thickness < sub floor?
Q9. If you HAD to pick something other than oak, what would it be?
[BTW, I'm serious about these questions. feel free to answer seriously, or not so seriously.]
The house was constructed in the 1950's. At that time subfloor was traditionally 3/4" thick by 3-1/2" wide tounge and groove (nominally 1x4). Subfloor construction today is 3/4" (actual) plywood or oriented strandboard.
Hardwood flooring at the time (and even today) is 3/4" actual thickness(again, nominally 1").
We didn't choose oak, the builder did in 1950 something. Living in Vermont, we would choose Maple (national tree of our Republic).
Post a Comment