aerialcastor wrote:So what is the point of investing in a more expensive ITE if the benefit of inertia is reduced by a standard DV?
I don't see how standard DV affects inertia.
In the sense that the calories retained by inertia are partly lost by the thermal bridge of the standard DV.
Ah you participated in this project! Bravo, I knew this achievement recently, it's nice!aerialcastor wrote:But I maintain that for a house that wants to make passive solar the best is the DV without low emissivity.
A project on which I worked, the problem is posed. What type of glazing? The answer was given by a dynamic thermal simulation (thus taking into account the irradiation, the cloudiness, the angle of incidence of the rays, the temperatures inside and outside, ... all with a step of 15min).
The project is there:
http://www.architecturenaturelle.com/menu_principal.html
With a more complete explanation here:
https://www.econologie.com/fichiers/partager2/1265035216iRjzLe.pdf
This project is in the 84 therefore same climate problematic
So I believe that you have a scientific and technical approach to the thing and I an empirical approach, ie a feeling that is not scientific but that in principle, tries to get closer to common sense. I am wary of ready-made software that everyone uses, because that suggests that their designer did not omit any basic parameters. But perhaps it is an unnecessary distrust?