Considering the video is 3 hours long and you replied 1 hour after it being suggested, is it possible you didnt watch the whole thing and might be missing the convincing portion?
I started and it was ad hominem right at the start. So I judged it was not worth watching the whole thing.
Is there a section I should watch?
What are the arguments against him?
I have watched all his university class and most of his talk, 100's of hours of material. I am very familiar with his positions.
But when I first heard about him I had a strong reaction against his positions and his complicated language. I was primed by CBC to hate him and I was trying to find a good reason. At the same time my cursiosity was activated so I watch him more and understood more and more.
So yes, he is not easy to understand, it take a lot of effort but it's been worth it for me.
You might have missed that the story is about a man that owned a house in rural North Carolina, where, like many rural areas in the US, it's still possible to purchase houses for 200-300k.
Living in a dense, urban environment close to all the expensive 'luxuries' is exactly the type of life eschewed by the subject of the story.
It would be nice (but potentially difficult) to add the sensible and latent capacity for heating and cooling given 3 design days: humid, hot, and cold. The btu ratings are useful to compare efficiencies but not sizing the system
You didnt need to do that, though. It peobably wouldve been easier to use manual j (or some software) to estimate the heat loads in the house, with given set points, using weather station data.
I can find/closely estimate the heat loss easily. What is much harder to find is the heat gain/transfer into the room from 1920s cast iron radiators at 135°F flow and the balance of the system flow temperatures at those 45°F lower flow temps than originally designed.
Then, because the answer is almost always going to be "yeah, it's going to be really close...", I felt well-advised to prove it via experimentation rather than commit to changing the heating plant to a system that could not provide 150°F flow temperature.
The question is not about the general hydronic heating formula [nor manual J heat loss estimations], but rather "what will the delta T of the rad in this particular room, in this piping network [it's a converted gravity feed system, now being a pumped], using 69°F room temp and 135°F leaving water temp from the heat source?"
This is going to be a complex problem because of the shape of the radiator and you'll need to calculate radiative and convective components of heat transfer i.e. you'll need finite element analysis to do this. If you simplify it to a simple shape like a rod or slab you can get somewhere in a calculation, but this is only going to give an instantaneous measure because of heat transfer to the rest of the universe.
Alternately, to get a realistic measure, you'll need to set your boundary conditions about what the heat flow out of the room will be, which is a bit simpler to setup with U-values, area, delta-T, and heat capacity of materials. You'll also need to do this to every other room in the building simultaneously. This is a Manual J, or heat balance method or the radiant time series method load calculation that will balance out with the amount of heat leaving your radiator without knowing its specific shape.
For the, for lack of a better word, standard radiators there is a formula with a dT^4. But I totally agree, this isnt all that straighforward, given that for the dozons of installers, experts and home owners I have spoken, Ive heard dozens+1 methods for estimating. Estimating heat loss from a given building and estimating power output of a given installation of radiators, very few people seem to be able to calculate that.
If your heater can go low (mine bottoms out at 50 unfortunately), by far the easiest is to just test.
Our populace is very heavily armed. If you have an armed populace and a disarmed police force, that sounds incredibly ineffective. The whole point of the government is that they carry the power of the sword.
Our populace isn't homogeneous though. The areas that police target far more frequently (urban, non-white, lesser educated) are the areas that are least armed. Rural, white men with college degrees are significantly more likely to have guns, yet far less likely to be targeted by police. In most cases, they are the police.
One interpretation of this data is that police are systemically targeting lesser-armed areas where they have a fire-power advantage. Policing "their own people" is taboo and dangerous - they are outgunned. They post-hoc rationalize this racist bullying by pointing to all the crime they found, despite only looking in one place.
