NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/consumer/house/17161

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!ecicrl!clewis
From: [e-mail] (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: glass vs. acrylic glazing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 06:29:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david cole) writes:

>   I want to add some cheap but effective exterior storm windows to some windows
>   on my house.  They are large (about 4 foot by 7 foot high).  I want increased
>   R value, reduced infiltration -- and some isolation from street noise.

>   My thought is to just get some acrylic sheet, cut it to size myself, and
>   stick it to the existing wood frame using 3M doublestick tape (intended for
>   exterior window plastic film, but available separately from the kits).  Then
>   I will drill holes every foot or so around the edge of the acrylic sheet and
>   into the frame, and put in screws.

>   The windows need to be removable -- but not often (this is Duluth!!).

>I think there are several problems with your plan:

>1) If you're going to be removing the storms annually and reinstalling
>   them, the screw holes in the wood will wear out rather rapidly.

Turn buttons sounds like a better idea.  Skip the tape - it'll become
a mess in very short order.  Use foam weatherstrip.

>3) Depending on the age and condition of your frames, they may be far
>   enough out of flat that you won't be able to affix the sheets.
>   Also, don't assume that the openings are strictly rectangular.

Acrylic is going to flex well enough to attach to almost anything.

>3) As with any fixed storms, you can't ventilate, or easily replace
>   storms with screens for the summer.  Also, you can no longer use
>   the windows as fire escape routes.

These are fixed windows, I presume.  If he uses fairly thin plexi,
it'll be almost as easy to break as the glass.

>4) The acrylic will develop microscopic scratches from dust in the air
>   and so on, and will become translucent rather than transparent.

And get very dirty in a way that you can't clean off.  In a year or
two it'll become rather unsightly.  Polycarbonate (ie: lexan) is
a much better choice in this respect.

>A big advantage of your proposed system is that it is aesthetically
>much more acceptable than aluminum storm (even black ones).  But I
>just don't think it will work.

It'll work as a storm, rather well.  I've seen plexi used as storms on
sliding doors.  Big problem is that it will be ugly in short
order - I've seen it completely opaque, and a grey colour.  The
real problem is the expense.  Acrylic is expensive.  Probably 2 or 3
times more than glass.  Polycarbonate even worse.  But Polycarbonate
is the only way to go if you're doing this for glass protection
(eg: stained glass weather/baseball shielding).

I'd almost suggest using heat-shrink plastic on the inside, until
he can save enough pennies to replace it with thermopane.  From the
outside, it'll look better.  Failing that, maybe have a glass
unit made up with an aluminum frame (tho it ain't gonna be light!).
--
Chris Lewis; [e-mail]; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: [e-mail]
Ferret list: [e-mail]