do you put plastic on your home windows

[JHZR2]

I live in a sizeable enough home, but no mansion. Pop Rivit mentioned having 35 windows too, in a far more modern home. Yes somewhat of a drawback from the days of no/less AC (optimal TOC because no electricity used, and no expensive systems to upkeep/repair).

The wood windows on my home are 90-ish years old and still great. Storm windows with full screens to let air in or keep a nice air buffer in the gap (just like putting plastic on the inside), very functional. The new vinyl windows the POs put in many spots I'm no fan of. Only half screens, and most sources I've read indicate they are only really good for 10-20 years.

I can't imagine living in a place entirely reliant upon artificial light and sealed up such that mold, moisture, and sick building type syndromes are common. IMO it is a good cross between old style and new tech that makes a home functional and cost effective to run. I'm not sure that cutting the number of windows and then overly sealing a home is the best bet, personally.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I live in a sizeable enough home, but no mansion. Pop Rivit mentioned having 35 windows too, in a far more modern home. Yes somewhat of a drawback from the days of no/less AC (optimal TOC because no electricity used, and no expensive systems to upkeep/repair).

The wood windows on my home are 90-ish years old and still great. Storm windows with full screens to let air in or keep a nice air buffer in the gap (just like putting plastic on the inside), very functional. The new vinyl windows the POs put in many spots I'm no fan of. Only half screens, and most sources I've read indicate they are only really good for 10-20 years.

I can't imagine living in a place entirely reliant upon artificial light and sealed up such that mold, moisture, and sick building type syndromes are common. IMO it is a good cross between old style and new tech that makes a home functional and cost effective to run. I'm not sure that cutting the number of windows and then overly sealing a home is the best bet, personally.

In theory a heat recovery ventilator should do your air exchanges in a tightly sealed home. How many people bother with one, I don't know, we didn't put one in but we heat with wood so the stove does pull air into the house with the windows closed.
Our vinyl windows are nearing 10 years now with no noticable degredation. They have a lifetime warranty from a reputable company so I don't worry about them and the one in the kitchen gets opened and closed 10 times a day(our food scraps go to the chickens outside).
Maybe your area doesn't often get cold enough to get condesation on the windows at reasonable interior humidity, but up here its pretty common. So wood windows do take a bit of maintenance to keep them from rotting out. Scraping and repainting isn't high on alot of peoples list of things to do, so at 15-20 years the wood windows get replaced by vinyl...
Maybe with older single pane drafty wood windows, the air moving by kept condensation to a minimum? I have rented places with very old(50+ years) wood windows and they seemed to be in good condition, but they certainly weren't air tight.
I suspect older homes end up having much lower relative humidity than a newer house due to their air exchanges, so that may have kept condensation down as well.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The new vinyl windows the POs put in many spots I'm no fan of. Only half screens, and most sources I've read indicate they are only really good for 10-20 years.


There are good and there are bad vinyl windows. Just like there are good and there are bad wooden windows. Our 20 year old wooden windows were all shot, your 90 year old ones still work. Good vinyl windows should outlast most home owners.

If they got half screens, that means they used single hung windows, in which only one sash opens (usually the lower sash). We installed double hung windows, in which both sashes slide and they use full screens. We usually have our top sashes open to vent the house.

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I'm not sure that cutting the number of windows and then overly sealing a home is the best bet, personally.


It's not. You'll never get a home sealed super tight in my opinion. Our windows are also much larger than most. Fewer wall openings, but larger wall openings. Each of our three bedrooms use just one window, but the window is huge; I don't recall the exact size, but it's on the order of a 6460. The dining room window is even larger, I think it's a 6660. So you can get a large amount of natural light in a home and still maintain a limited number of wall openings. And of course, larger wall openings mean lots of air movement as well. Our smallest window is a 3660.

Most older homes, around here at least, have smaller windows. They have MORE windows, but they have smaller windows. Glass technology wasn't as great back then, and super large panes of glass weren't common (and were expensive). Who knows, our house might have nearly the same area of wall opening, if you add up the square footage, that your house does.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The new vinyl windows the POs put in many spots I'm no fan of. Only half screens, and most sources I've read indicate they are only really good for 10-20 years.


There are good and there are bad vinyl windows. Just like there are good and there are bad wooden windows. Our 20 year old wooden windows were all shot, your 90 year old ones still work. Good vinyl windows should outlast most home owners.

If they got half screens, that means they used single hung windows, in which only one sash opens (usually the lower sash). We installed double hung windows, in which both sashes slide and they use full screens. We usually have our top sashes open to vent the house.



True, there are good and bad to most everything. That said, we dont live in a very warm climate, and the windows in my Grandparents' home, my parents' home, and some in my home, all of which were built in the teens-twenties are still original. With storm windows on them, they work great and generally all perform well. With use of sash chains (some used cotton rope) they dont need to be opened up, but ones that have draft can be sured up, sealed/painted fairly easily. Even the mountain home which we built int he early 80s have just fine wood windows. The only issue with them is the springs to hold them in place when opened. Then again, the spring on one of my newer vinyl windows also has broken and needed replacement.

My windows are double hung, and they only have half screens. That's part of the reason Im down on them. They are nice enough windows, but that really annoys me, as small bugs can slip in at the bottom. I also like to be able to crack windows at the bottom AND top.


Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
It's not. You'll never get a home sealed super tight in my opinion. Our windows are also much larger than most. Fewer wall openings, but larger wall openings. Each of our three bedrooms use just one window, but the window is huge; I don't recall the exact size, but it's on the order of a 6460. The dining room window is even larger, I think it's a 6660. So you can get a large amount of natural light in a home and still maintain a limited number of wall openings. And of course, larger wall openings mean lots of air movement as well. Our smallest window is a 3660.

Most older homes, around here at least, have smaller windows. They have MORE windows, but they have smaller windows. Glass technology wasn't as great back then, and super large panes of glass weren't common (and were expensive). Who knows, our house might have nearly the same area of wall opening, if you add up the square footage, that your house does.


yeah, it doesnt make much sense to me that there is much difference. I dont recall the size of most of our windows, they are fairly consistent, but Id imagine not 60" (which I assume is the 60 in that number you gave).

The question really becomes one of efficacy of the sealing AROUND the windows, vs THROUGH-glass conduction. Glass isnt a good insulator, and if surface area is surface area, then its very much the same. If there is some pro/con to having mouldings and the around-window configuration one way versus another, I can kind of understand. But from the glass and pane perspective, I showed the graph on the other page of this thread. The savings are fairly marginal once you do anything beyond just a single pane (storm windows for example), and the ROI doesnt even exist for the fancy stuff given the typcial savings vs. cost.

It is an interesting discussion of construction, sealing, wall openings, etc.!!!

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My windows are double hung, and they only have half screens. That's part of the reason Im down on them. They are nice enough windows, but that really annoys me, as small bugs can slip in at the bottom. I also like to be able to crack windows at the bottom AND top.


You have double hung windows with a screen that covers only one of the sashes? I'm not sure I've ever seen that; it sounds very unconventional. Could be an oddball window the previous owner installed at some point, but that's not convention today. Single hung windows will typically have the screen that covers just the lower sash. And double hung windows have the screen that covers the entire window.

We really enjoy our new ones. They have the 4" travel limiters that you can push out, so we use those and lower the upper sashes to vent the house. That way the dog and cats (and kids) aren't tempted to slip out through the lower sash (since its still closed).

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The question really becomes one of efficacy of the sealing AROUND the windows, vs THROUGH-glass conduction. Glass isnt a good insulator, and if surface area is surface area, then its very much the same. If there is some pro/con to having mouldings and the around-window configuration one way versus another, I can kind of understand. But from the glass and pane perspective, I showed the graph on the other page of this thread. The savings are fairly marginal once you do anything beyond just a single pane (storm windows for example), and the ROI doesnt even exist for the fancy stuff given the typcial savings vs. cost.


When we did our windows, the cost difference between conventional double pane and LowE-366 with argon filling was trivial. It was about $300 for the entire job, or about 10%. According to that chart you posted, you'd make that difference back in three years if in Wisconsin, in six years if in Missouri, or in probably 8-10 if in Arizona. If you're replacing windows anyway, it makes little sense to NOT buy the most efficient window you can.

(Of course, if you are considering replacing windows SOLELY to save money on energy, you'll likely never get there.)

There are, however, other tangible and intangible benefits to new efficient windows. One thing I've found, that's very tangible, is our HVAC runs FAR less than it did before, especially, obviously, in extreme weather. We've only endured summer temperatures with the new windows so far. I look forward to seeing how much less gas we use this winter. The other benefit isn't measured monetarily, but I find it quite compelling nonetheless. Our new windows have a slight tinting to them. I'd call it a blue-ish tinting. The quality of light coming into the house is amazing now. Especially morning light and evening light, which can be pretty harsh when at certain angles. The light that comes in the house is a very pleasing tone now, and colors of the outside as we look out are far richer and far more pleasing. The effect is like having polarized sunglasses on, though obviously to a much lesser extent.

Honestly, the difference the windows made in the quality of light and color of light is almost worth the price of admission alone. I'd have never guessed that going into the project...

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Windows are a big loss and those single vs double pane and plastic windows are all a pretty big scam. Most of the modern windows are garbage too. Their design is to only last a few years per some reading Ive done.

Some good reading, IMO:
http://eastrow.org/articles/vinylwindows.html

But to your question, the windows were probably not well maintained and leaked, so plastic over them kept an air pocket that sealed some of the leaks. Unfortunately, often air leaks around the window frame and moulding; the glass is ALWAYS lossy.

Id sure up windows that have air leaks around them, make sure the mouldings are sealed well and there arent any lossy air pockets in the pockets to the sides of the windows, and then call it a day. If you have a lossy window that for whatever reason isnt reasonable to replace witha quality wood unit, I'd get a storm window and install that for a permanent enclosure. From what I recall when I friend tried doing plastic on all his windows in a leaky rental home, it wasnt cheap.


What a lie. My grandfather just replaced all the windows in his house (old, single pane, wood frame windows from the 1950s) with brand new double pane windows, and his Heating and A/C bills last year were cut in half :|

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Windows are a big loss and those single vs double pane and plastic windows are all a pretty big scam. Most of the modern windows are garbage too. Their design is to only last a few years per some reading Ive done.

Some good reading, IMO:
http://eastrow.org/articles/vinylwindows.html

But to your question, the windows were probably not well maintained and leaked, so plastic over them kept an air pocket that sealed some of the leaks. Unfortunately, often air leaks around the window frame and moulding; the glass is ALWAYS lossy.

Id sure up windows that have air leaks around them, make sure the mouldings are sealed well and there arent any lossy air pockets in the pockets to the sides of the windows, and then call it a day. If you have a lossy window that for whatever reason isnt reasonable to replace witha quality wood unit, I'd get a storm window and install that for a permanent enclosure. From what I recall when I friend tried doing plastic on all his windows in a leaky rental home, it wasnt cheap.


What a lie. My grandfather just replaced all the windows in his house (old, single pane, wood frame windows from the 1950s) with brand new double pane windows, and his Heating and A/C bills last year were cut in half :|


It's ironic: the author of that article (to which was linked) said that vinyl window salespeople have a vested interest in selling you vinyl windows. Fair enough. The author then goes on to praise the virtues of wood windows, apparently offers wood restoration workshops, and then plugs his local window repair businesses. Uh-huh, right!

(The author is also an architectural historian. To say that those types of folks are resistant to change is an understatement.)

The content of the article itself is also questionable. He said vinyl windows have been around for only 20 years; I suppose it could be true, if the article was originally written in the 1970s. A company in Europe called Trocal introduced the first vinyl window in 1954, and they were prevalent in the American market by the mid-1960s. The author's self-stated "conventional wisdom" doesn't seem to line up with what is known today about modern high performance window designs. It could be the article is out-dated, and I fully acknowledge that.

Our windows, for example, use Cardinal LoE-366 glass, in which the glass and seals in the sashes have a lifetime warranty.

http://www.cardinalcorp.com/products/coated-glass/loe3-366-glass/

The difference in heat gain is quite dramatic. The author may not believe it to be true, or it may be that these products weren't on the market when the article was written, but it's really quite dramatic.

Studies (or articles) like these tend to be like those evaluating health effects of various foods and drinks. It's common to find two different articles that are almost diametrically opposing in what they say. Both may be correct under certain circumstances or conditions.

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Windows are a big loss and those single vs double pane and plastic windows are all a pretty big scam. Most of the modern windows are garbage too. Their design is to only last a few years per some reading Ive done.

Some good reading, IMO:
http://eastrow.org/articles/vinylwindows.html

But to your question, the windows were probably not well maintained and leaked, so plastic over them kept an air pocket that sealed some of the leaks. Unfortunately, often air leaks around the window frame and moulding; the glass is ALWAYS lossy.

Id sure up windows that have air leaks around them, make sure the mouldings are sealed well and there arent any lossy air pockets in the pockets to the sides of the windows, and then call it a day. If you have a lossy window that for whatever reason isnt reasonable to replace witha quality wood unit, I'd get a storm window and install that for a permanent enclosure. From what I recall when I friend tried doing plastic on all his windows in a leaky rental home, it wasnt cheap.


What a lie. My grandfather just replaced all the windows in his house (old, single pane, wood frame windows from the 1950s) with brand new double pane windows, and his Heating and A/C bills last year were cut in half :|


No question,the double pane windows are the only way to go.The dual layers of glass in double-pane windows, create a thermal barrier,helping lower heating and cooling costs,anyone who believes otherwise is either blind or stubborn.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Windows are a big loss and those single vs double pane and plastic windows are all a pretty big scam. Most of the modern windows are garbage too. Their design is to only last a few years per some reading Ive done.

Some good reading, IMO:
http://eastrow.org/articles/vinylwindows.html

But to your question, the windows were probably not well maintained and leaked, so plastic over them kept an air pocket that sealed some of the leaks. Unfortunately, often air leaks around the window frame and moulding; the glass is ALWAYS lossy.

Id sure up windows that have air leaks around them, make sure the mouldings are sealed well and there arent any lossy air pockets in the pockets to the sides of the windows, and then call it a day. If you have a lossy window that for whatever reason isnt reasonable to replace witha quality wood unit, I'd get a storm window and install that for a permanent enclosure. From what I recall when I friend tried doing plastic on all his windows in a leaky rental home, it wasnt cheap.


What a lie. My grandfather just replaced all the windows in his house (old, single pane, wood frame windows from the 1950s) with brand new double pane windows, and his Heating and A/C bills last year were cut in half :|


Not a lie at all. Notice in the graphic I provided below that post that the values change from climate and area to area. If your grandfather is in upstate NY where the winters get very cold, the savings may be higher, and in other places, lower.

But look at the math I gave - you might save something, but it doesnt mean that there is a RETURN. There is a difference. Return implies the savings are higher than the total outlay. May not always be the case.

I have emphasized more than once that storm windows are a good thing. This effectively does the same thing as the plastic (creates an air pocket) but on the outside, isnt nearly as unsightly, and is a do it once and done. Most storm windows have a screen and glass, so can be very functional. And the wood windows are more aesthetically pleasing.

Part of your grandfather's problem is likely the 1950's home aspect, because quality of construction IME/IMO has gone way down post-WWII.

There are lots of factors in this. Nobody is denying that a second pane of glass is a good thing. It is all about the implementation, aesthetics, and costs/potential for ROI or to even break even, because at the end of the day you still have a large uninsulated hole in the side of your home, and R2 vs R0.5 is still pretty worthless compared to, say, a wall filled with R19... Which is exactly the point of why much of this is folly except for the window sellers.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

The content of the article itself is also questionable. He said vinyl windows have been around for only 20 years; I suppose it could be true, if the article was originally written in the 1970s. A company in Europe called Trocal introduced the first vinyl window in 1954, and they were prevalent in the American market by the mid-1960s. The author's self-stated "conventional wisdom" doesn't seem to line up with what is known today about modern high performance window designs. It could be the article is out-dated, and I fully acknowledge that.

Our windows, for example, use Cardinal LoE-366 glass, in which the glass and seals in the sashes have a lifetime warranty.

http://www.cardinalcorp.com/products/coated-glass/loe3-366-glass/

The difference in heat gain is quite dramatic. The author may not believe it to be true, or it may be that these products weren't on the market when the article was written, but it's really quite dramatic.

Studies (or articles) like these tend to be like those evaluating health effects of various foods and drinks. It's common to find two different articles that are almost diametrically opposing in what they say. Both may be correct under certain circumstances or conditions.


Thus why Ive provided the results from other sources that show the diminishing returns.

how many more do we need???

American green Roofing (pretty inconsequential once you get some second layer.

Penn State:

According to here, the break-even point is 10 years... On par with solar panels.
http://www.safestyle-windows.co.uk/saving-energy/
And its funny because some of these folks figure ROI on the assumption that you were going to replace windows anyway (Why I have no clue but to skew numebrs), so it is really based upon the cost delta from a replacement single pane to something else).

Not sure why they call it "great", there is actually negtive actual return here...

here is the Historic Trust insight. Again, storm windows do a darn good job on old windows.

yearly savings per DOE:

I dont know, doesnt get much clearer.

Change for other reasons... Not a benefit to save money. And the aesthetics may stink depending upon the home. Lots to this.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Change for other reasons... Not a benefit to save money.


Most certainly. Folks who replace windows to save money on energy, thinking or hoping that they will get their money back in a reasonable amount of time, will likely be disappointed.

If one is going to replace windows anyway, because of non-functional older windows, that's where it's wise to go with the most efficient you can get. Having just gone through this, the cost difference between least efficient and most efficient is quite small. That is money you will get back in just a few years.

 

[andyd]

The Victorian window was a 2 over 2 double sash window. Sash weights , etc. You ordered your windows by the pane size. Back in '78 when I put a new first floor under the front gable. This is what I did. New wood single pane sash. A modern track system that allowed for tilt in sashes. In '02, I upgraded to double pane sashes and new tracks. The addition is framed out in 2x6 for R 19 fiberglass. It was house wrapped, and every time I open up an exterior wall it was used When ever, I opened an exterior wall in the original frame, the interior side of the wall was furred out 2 inches before the blue board went on. I have 3 different sources of heat and prefer to use none of them. too much. My thin blooded spousal unit of 40 yrs gets toasty with electric baseboard. I can heat the rest of the house with either wood or oil. Wood cost less than oil. But there is work involved. Oil is the same price as 87 octane gas.

 

[zzyzzx]

Why not tack up some faced insulation over the windows instead? Most houses built after a certain year (more than 20 years ago) have way too many windows anyway.