Talk:Passive solar building design

message: The recent merge of passive house was bogus. :de:Passivhaus describes a building standard that uses some of ideas described in passive solar. That standard (and others that define even stricter categories) are popular terms in several countries. Note that this article now has two outgoing interwiki links going to the German WP. Geez, we might as well merge this and all related articles into house. Rl 12:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I undid the merge. Both articles need work. Rl 12:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[passive house]] was bogus

message: wouldn't that be a better name for the article?  --naught101 04:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Solar Design 

message: are they really cost effective --  210.212.165.136
:That's not a very meaningful question.  Wheat, corn and cocoa are grown using solar technologies, so the answer is yes. njh 08:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Passive solar adds 15% to the cost of a temperate-climate house, and reduces the heating bill by 90% or more. (In milder climates the only cost is the design.)  It adds more than 20% to the value of a house. There was some development (in Novato CA?) that tested the marketing.  Passive solar is not even very interesting engineering anymore. The Europeans have building codes that assume it (See Passive house) Ray Van De Walker 06:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  solar technologies 

message: The first passive solar house in the US was designed in 1940 by George F. Keck for a Chicago area real estate developer named Howard Sloan. Keck had designed an all-glass house for the 1933 Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago and was surprised to find that it was warm inside on sunny winter days, even though the furnace hadn't been installed yet. Keck was not aware of the research being done elsewhere on solar architecture, but he gradually started incorporating more south-facing windows into his designs for other clients, and by 1940 he had learned enough to design a passive solar house for Sloan.
I'm puzzled that it took so long.  Conservatories were a standard feature in edwardian manors in the last 19th C.  Surely other people had attached greenhouses they used for heating?--njh 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  first passive solar house in the US 

message: # Plenty of people here dont know what the words 'passive' and 'solar' mean. This is not a general article on 'sustainability in architecture'.
# Please provide sources for your data. Otherwise it should really be deleted. Several statistics on this page were unsourced, and probably came from very one sided sources.
# Most importantly, what we need here is an explanation of the principles of passive solar design and the circumstances in which different techniques may be used, rather than launching into specifics of how these may be applied in specific situations ('One technique buries water-proof insulation in 7-metre skirts around the foundation, and buries loops of plastic pipe or ducts under the foundations and slab', etc.).
# Where do the lists of 'types' and 'techniques' come from? Who says there are 3 of each?
# why do we have that example there? is it even part of What wikipedia is?
Any comments please provide. Otherwise i'll probably do some more cleanup/editing myself Miscreant 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on cleanup and where this article needs to head. 

message: The content has been widely expanded and includes some useful information.  However, there are several examples of subjective and non-factual phrases that are peacock or weasel words that undermine the quality and objectivity of the article.  'Arguably the best', 'The worst', 'is not difficult', 'state of the art', 'bright and cheerful', 'full of bad habits', 'extremely bad', 'uninformed','superior solution', 'many ways', 'really CLUNKY', 'lack of motivation'. The facts should speak for themselves and the reader should be able to arrive at their own conclusions. There is also use of capitalization to emphasize points that is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia.  The article reads less like an encyclopaedia entry and more like a opinion piece.  The format suspiciously follows the Zero Energy Design website which appears to be a commercial site and incorporate information found elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Dymonite (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed wholeheartedly. This article is beyond the point of ridiculous. The problem of course is that there are far too many people contributing information that they think adds to the article, but really just confuses and obfuscates from anyone reading the article actually comprehending the subject matter. Miscreant (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major re-edit

message: I disagree with pushing the obsolete problematic Trombe wall
It is a historical reference, but not recommended in today's passive solar building design.
Escientist (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there are only two inline references to the trombe wall in the article. i don't see how that can be interpreted as "pushing" the technology. the inline text also notes that it's obsolete (your addition?). Anastrophe (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trombe Wall

message: I am actively trying to clean up some of the previous, valid, editorial comments on this potentially-valuable Wikipedia page.
I see some of what clearly needs to be done, but I have a finite amount of time to work on it for free.
I think the request to expand "Sun Path" is a good idea, and I have plenty of resources to do so.
If you are a qualified subject matter expert with specific suggestions, details or feelings, I would enjoy collaborating with you.
Please see my profile Escientist (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as long as all added material is properly sourced, you'll find that your fellow editors will welcome your contributions, and collaboration. please note also that new comments on talk pages are traditionally added to the bottom of the page. I've refactored this section with that in mind. Anastrophe (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing clean up effort

message: Whilst modelling software may help in achieving an optimal solution, I think the tone of the article suggests passive solar is high-tech and generally in-accessible to the mainstream building industry.  In most medium density developments there are a number of other constraints which prevent reduce the ability to achieve a perfect arrangement e.g. block size and orientation, obstructions, building regulations, owner's needs and preferences.  Successful passive solar buildings have been built based only on a set of rule of thumbs and a little local research without resorting to computer algorithms.  Perhaps some references to these principles i.e. orientation angles and latitudes, glazing areas/ratios, prevailing winds, climactic zone classifications, eave length calculations would be useful.  It would be far better if a large proportion of residences were designed around good principles than a small proportion making full use of computer software.Dymonite (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other passive solar design techniques

message: I think a point needs to be made that ZEB is a completely integrated application of passive solar principles but other passive solar houses make variable use of all the available concepts and technologies.
It may worthwhile knowing if the effects are purely additive or synergistic (with appropriate data supplied to indicate this)Dymonite (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zero Energy Building

message: The recent edit, which stated that conductive/convective insulation is used to reduce radiant heat flow, was scientifically incorrect.
Radiant barriers (like aluminimum foil) are often VERY conductive. Fiberglass insulation (spun glass) is translucent to radiation (afterall, it is just glass). Different insulation types must be used in different applications (upward, downward, and horizontal heat transfer). Radiation is by far more important is hot climates than conduction or convection. I added this earlier, but it was deleted. Please, if you do not understand the science, let's discuss it here before you insert any more false statements, or delete valid ones. Escientist (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an ambiguous statement on my part.  I meant to say don't mismatch the modes of transfer - for instance using a convective insulator to stop radiant barrier.  Building insulation explains this in more detail.Dymonite (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Insulation

message: There are some controversies surrounding this topic.  Direct gain is the simplest and most intuitive of passive solar designs.  Indirect and isolated gain are more complex systems which are reliant on adequate heat storage and distribution to function effectively.  Heat distribution systems have been designed passively (natural convection) or actively (forced convection).  There appears to a scarcity of research on direct comparisons for each design and their relative efficiencies or cost-effectiveness.  On other occasions there are mixed reports on the benefits of certain designs e.g. double envelope (double shell, thermal envelope, thermal buffer zone) and this needs to be shown. Dymonite (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This information would be ideal for the Wikipedia's Passive Solar HistoryDymonite (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some have argued that the part of the efficiency of this is also related to the higher combined R-values of the two sections.  There needs to be mention of additional cost for double envelope systems and its generalizability and scalability to all projects. e.g. Would the above design be just as effective without the thermal mass of the swimming pool or in any climate.  It would be easier to get this into Wikipedia if it is shown that this model has been validated by independent measurement data.  Perhaps we need to have separate section on once-off experimental designs which have shown anecdotal success but there are no other examples to validate the design in all conditions and situations.  There also should be some comments about the challenges or issues with such a design.Dymonite (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It would be easier to get this into Wikipedia if it is shown that this model has been validated by independent measurement data.  Perhaps we need to have separate section on once-off experimental designs which have shown anecdotal success but there are no other examples to validate the design in all conditions and situations.  There also should be some comments about the challenges or issues with such a design.Dymonite (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct vs indirect vs isolated gain strategies 

message: Like above this issue is controversial.  The designs are based on theoretical grounds that solar energy can be stored over the course of one season to be released at another.  The designs generally use high thermal mass or earth-coupled/earth-bermed buildings.  There are some anecdotal reports of high efficiency but not not much formal measurement data to validate this.  Again better evidence needs to be cites to describe this.Dymonite (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Annual Heating Storage (PAHS) 

message: Recent edits to my original material in the "Solar path fundamentals" section introduced several inaccurate statements.
I have corrected these errors in my most recent edit Escientist (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar path technical corrections 

message: OK, you talked me into it. I added a generic public-domain summary version of Lee Porter Butler's work, and my own refinements to it in "Passive solar design history", as published by the DOE and ORNL. If you want to hack it to pieces (as often happens to my contributions) go ahead - I won't waste the time to enter it twice. If you want to start a talk: page about it, let me know, and maybe "we" can refine it to meet editorial standards, without eliminating the relavant requested content altogether. It is just a high-level summary, not low-level details and diagrams. Escientist (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Shell History 

message: I suggest that any specific designs which have not had formal evaluation should not be included as part of this article.  A casual reader may be mislead into believing that they would be able to reproduce these results.
see http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/research/buildings/zero_energy/lakeland/index.htm for an example of a very strict protocol for evaluation.
These examples may need further validation:
John Hait's "Passive Annual Heat Storage" (PAHS) method 
Water walls and roof ponds
Australian deep-cover earthed-roof
Don Stephens' "Annualized Geo-Solar" (AGS) heating
Thermal Buffer Zone / zero Energy buildingDymonite (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental / Prototype architecture 

message: Passive solar design history used to be part of Passive solar building design.
It was moved into its own article.
I added an obviously-reasonable link from Passive solar building design to Passive solar design history,
but it was deleted with no talk: or explaination.
I find this extremely curious, and I re-inserted the necessary link.
How are readers to know that the new article was recently created, if not by such a link
from its original source?
Please explain and discuss the reason you think this link is not necessary or inappropriate.
Escientist (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link to the article, now known as History of passive solar building design, in the "See also" section. Style-wise it did not fit well in the intro. If you want it there, make sure you integrate it properly with the flow of the content. Barrylb (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also [[Passive solar design history]] 

message: Someone added this bad idea to the passive solar building design text. Presumably they are
referring to a high-pollution wood-burning fireplace, which pollutes the air, contributes
significantly to global warming, normally results in a reduction of trees that sequester CO2
and release pure oxygen.
Getting rid of burning biomass by 2 billion people worldwide is a goal. No one should
encourage deforestation, especially not using wood as a fuel in any building, and
in particular NOT in a "green" ZEB. I know of no true ZEB with a biomass heating system.
If a building has one, it is by definition not "green."
A typical fireplace draws a large volume of conditioned interior out of the building,
forcing unconditioned replacement air to be drawn in. Fireplace leaks (even in those
that use outside air for combustion) do this 7/24/365.
With your permission, I will delete this addition in a few days, unless someone has a good reason not to.
It is possible to closely manage biomass as a renewable resource, but it seldom is. Global
deforestation is a serious ongoing environmental, and global warming, issue.
Escientist (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a biomass heating system" IN A ZEB? 

message: Please STOP deleting the references to western and roof-angled glass. They are the most significant design flaw of new passive solar designers, who do not understand the relationship between seasonal and daily sun path, and the angle of incidence of solar radiation to glazing. If you do not understand this critical passive solar design issue, we can discuss it here, or see http://www.passivesolarenergy.info/#S1 for an example of solar gain and heat loss precise numbers and diagrams from the U.S. Department of Energy. Escientist (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roof-angled glass 

message: 219.90.160.205, please check the History section in Solar furnace. The original use of the Greek term "heliocaminus" (which means "solar furnace") referred to glass-enclosed rooms where solar energy made them hotter than the outside air temperature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Furnace / "Heliocaminus" 

message: I noticed the long See Also section.  The list here and in sustainable design seem like valuable means to navigate all the information on energy efficient buildings and solar concepts, however, they're rather cumbersome tacked onto already lengthy articles.  I don't have much experience with this, but I think making lists like passive solar design concepts or low-energy(sustainable?) building design concepts might help people navigate better.  Any comments? Muffinon (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning lengthy "See Also" section into lists 

message: It has been suggested that this article be merged with Passive solar.  --Lambiam 12:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please merge. I'm sorry that I don't have the time to contribute to it, but I fully support the merge. LK (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose: I agree with moving most of the information from that article to this (they currently talk about the same thing), but I think a separate article is needed (albeit a short one) for 'Passive Solar' to talk about things that make use of passive solar energy other than buildings (eg. solar cookers).  Miscreant (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose: I agree with Miscreant - passive solar should introduce the concept of passive solar power and the 'devices' that exploit it - an entirely different topic from 'building design' (though passive solar building design may make use of 'some' passive solar devices). To combine them would be rather like combining rechargeable battery with electric car. Finally, passive solar also is needed as a counterpoint to active solar (which also doesn't only apply to buildings). 88.108.175.253 (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose: There are enough other passive solar devices. Mion (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Applies to things other than buildings.  T34CH (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

text: At least there should be more about the types of design, and the article should link to those.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.109.244 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose: Passive solar is a counter argument to active solar and does not exclusively relate to buildings. I suggest expanding Passive solar to include solar cooker and parabolic reflector as well as other examples of passive solar. Let the section of passive solar be an exhaustive category unto itself. December 1, 2010 Ch0pstick(137.49.141.197 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: we have a rectractble shade that works well. But I can't insert the image <sigh> correctly.It's here : [[Image:Retractable_shade.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Retractable shade
Feroshki (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: retractable shade : image

message: The reasoning for keeping Passive Solar distict from building design could also help to better define "passive solar." In being put on the spot to define Passive Energy for others, I have to know what's offered on Wikipedia.  Very few of you who know better seem happy with the given state of terms and definitions of Passive on Wikipedia.(or anywhere else?)  
The needed understanding of Passive (for short to defer to your term and mine) is so incredibly important to understanding both Energy and Sustainability, and it is kingpin to allowing innovations in both to get applied as needed.
A full sense of what Passive is, is necessary to overcome the problems inherent to having our cultural wisdom maintain that Energy is equivalent to Fuel. How many examples have you seen lately of legitimate, easily-recognized sources calling fuel, "energy"? Too many?  Kudos to all of you who struggle to define Passive, still listed here as starter level, b-level, and of limited importance. I have collected a list of renamings of Passive too long to share. (ranging from "natural energy" to "radical energy efficiency") Can't we define Passive as all of the energy that is NOT Fuel? This non-fuel energy, this Energy described by very basic physical science, is most of the energy life on our planet actually experiences, and at least most of the energy human needs actually demand. It's only in the face of the erroneous expectation that Fuel is the only Energy we need, (a very destructive expectation indeed) that Passive Energy so difficult to define, much less prove the value of.
-----------
Passive should be defined in usage that does not convert the energy to a manipulatable "middleman" such as electricity. Converting the sunlight to some other format that is not implored in final usage should be defined as active usage. So sunlight to heat is passive. I should seek to pursue a more formal definition and return to post. December 1, 2010 Chopstick (137.49.141.197 (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Energy Definitions Comments and Suggestions 

message: Include current E/The Environmental Magazine's Just Add Body Heat: The New Passive Houses Are So Energy-Efficient, They Make Heating and Cooling Practically Irrelevant by Christine MacDonald?  97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include current [[E/The Environmental Magazine]] article? 

message: Please STOP deleting the well-documented material and references from the U.S. Department of Energy about the many problems with roof-angled glazing and skylights. Skylights are well-known by energy research scientists supported by the DOE to be the anthesis of Passive Solar Building Design. The next person who deletes this scientific material will be suspect of being a skylight salesperson, trying to filter out the scientific truth presented by the U.S. Department of Energy on the EERE website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roof-angle glass / Skylights 

message: Just wondering if passive solar design restricts houses to certain architectural styles (eg modernist) or if it can be applied to more traditional housing styles without losing the integrity of those buildings? Can you do it without the huge expanses of glass on one side of the house? How little glass can you get away with on the equator-facing wall for it to still be considered passive solar? Are there any examples of passive solar houses out there that don't have that eco-house look, which look more traditional?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.96.44 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of aesthetic issues and suitable architectural styles?

message: A history section is needed, or some section needed to add social and cultural context.  Currently the article is mostly about the technology but not about its impact or the significant buildings that have used the technology. What have been some of the break-through buildings and designs?  Perhaps a history of passive solar buildings should be in a separate article, which is summarized in a sub-section and then linked to using a  template. --Bruce Hall (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A history section needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Passive solar building design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318232122/http://www.heliodon.com.mx/productos/heliodon/gal/helio_u_c_colon.JPG to http://www.heliodon.com.mx/productos/heliodon/gal/helio_u_c_colon.JPG
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Passive solar building design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081008034715/http://www.yourhome.gov.au:80/technical/index.html to http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Passive solar building design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heliodon.com.mx/productos/heliodon/gal/helio_u_c_colon.JPG
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified