Regan Dixon wrote:Aha! You're back from the drawing board! In my opinion, this take is looking more promising and feasible, and a plausible part of the landscape, with its historic precedent and scale. A couple of questions, and thoughts:
-What holds up the top of the roof? Presumably posts, but they're not shown. Or is the system more like a yurt roof, where the poles support the chimney ring, and the whole thing stays up in a conical shape, because of outward pressure on the unyielding wall?
-Your source of heat is up through the floor as described. Is the only source of heat?
-Have you a membrane between the wooden roof members and the sod? Near where I live, early settlers built sod roof log cabins, which today are all lovely and rustic, but eventually moisture passes through the sod, sits on the roof members, and rots them through. I've been on a roof-clearing team. It was dusty, dusty work, lots of sweating, and suitable for lightweight, nimble-footed people only. The room below was disused, but I imagine they had barrowloads of dirt to remove.
William Bronson wrote: Black houses and corbeled roundwood roofs,both are new concepts to me,and very cool!
The only thing I would weigh in on is the skylight- they leak and/or are noisy.
I like how the black houses used turf ,covered with thatch.
I like the ledge that allows for easy access for re-thatching.
Heating is a common dump load for excess wind energy. Water heating allows you to move the heat around.
A connected green house could give a yeild from excess heat/energy.
If there really is a lot of wind, incandescent lighting could give light and heat,and heat loosing glazing could be eliminated.
Travis Johnson wrote:I am not an expert on this kind of housing, but I am VERY interested in it. I see no reason why it would not work.
I was originally going to say that building with rock takes a lot of time, but then when I look back at my own lavish use of rock, I got a lot accomplished in just a few years. The key is just to start. This applies to everything in life, but when you suggest doing anything, there are 15 people telling you why it can't be done. There is SOME value to that, but often just starting an ambitious project is enough. And the last piece of advice applies to everything as well. Finish. Always save drive, determination and funds for the finish.
It is kind of like a marathon runner. They can't win the race if they never start! And 15 people are going to tell him why he is not conditioned enough to take on the grueling challenge. And it certainly does not do any good to quit the race 80% of the way through.
I have found in the middle is where I get discouraged, for I see how hard it has been to get to the half way point and yet there is so much to do, but sticking with it achieves results.
So best wishes to you on this. I'll be following your progress for sure.
Chris Knite wrote:Primarily I wanted to comment in order to encourage you. Fun looking project! Please keep us informed and updated.
As a possible input - when building my in-laws place, rather than put in a skylight we put in a "sun-tunnel" (not the correct word). He wanted the natural light into an interior room, but was afraid of heat-loss and exposure to leaking of a sky-light. Instead we put in a kit that had a small 12" round aperture on the roof - connected to shiny 8" ducting, connected to a glass opening in the room. We insulated the ducting so very little heat loss, but a surprising amount of light gets radiated into the room. It is not a window, but it brings in the natural light.
How in the heck you would install either that (or a skylight) into your type of roof I have no idea.
Glenn Herbert wrote:The sola-tubes (one brand name I believe) should work for you, but I would also want some sort of view out of every main room. The skylight, being at the highest point of the space, will cause the most possible heat loss. Windows low in the space will cause less heat loss. I would modify the design just a bit to lower the stone/sod wall at one point on the south side of the room to allow a window, which would also allow through ventilation when the windows can be open. You could have a bit of view out to a sunny garden space, or through flowers in the spring...
I would most assuredly have a window leading from each round room to the greenhouse space, as that would not even alter the drainage or exterior appearance of the structure.
Regan Dixon wrote:Re: double glazed windows. I'm asking partly out of my own ignorance, but I intend to do the following in my next project: Can one not get two panes of ordinary glass, and double-groove the wood one intends to use as a frame, and just seal it well, as one would for a single pane of glass? It wouldn't be vacuum sealed, so maybe some moisture between the panes, but it would be dead air space for pennies instead of pounds.
Glenn Herbert wrote:You certainly can do that. What would probably be better than double grooving the wood frame would be setting one pane of glass into a deep frame recess with a 1/2" x 1/2" strip of material, then setting the second pane in the normal fashion with putty. This would allow future disassembly for maintenance or replacement of a broken pane without destroying the frame. That is what my father did in the late '50s when he built the house I grew up in. It had no good sealing aside from tight wood joints, so moisture and even a few spiders did get in. With actual sealants in the construction (either putty or silicone if you are willing to go with modern tech), it could be quite tight. I would do the work in very dry weather to minimize the built-in moisture. Clean the inner surfaces painstakingly, as anything left inside will be there to look at forever.
Glenn Herbert wrote:If sealed with silicone or other good sealant, it would actually be double glazing, just without special atmosphere and fancy components. The secondary glazing is a good idea where there is already one pane of glass in a frame.
I have built a few of these as sealed, double-glazed panels that were then set into a custom wood frame.