I find this competition's terminology slightly odd. As I understand it passive house is not about keeping heat in or out but rather building a house that will create/maintain a comfortable living temperature which takes into account the location/aspect of the building in the design. This competition seems more about how well you can insulate a house.

PiH,

this is what I dislike about forum chats. It is easy to say 'this is wrong' and you are of course correct that the PH concept is more than my 'off the cuff' one line description but why not embellish or or correct rather than just criticise??? .

If you read the competition webpage it is difficult to ascertain what their goal is. It is easy to throw terms about such as PH or SBS but will they get a certificate to prove the it is to the standard. Will either be liveable space? As you say, PH is more than just my description of it but will the 'icebox' being built meet it.

As for if the average man on the street will understand what the results mean I do not know but can you show where they say what it is they are trying to prove and how this demonstration will do it?

It's a 1m³ box, full of ice, I think?

So it probably has no windows or doors or ventilation or foundations or fireproofing or PV?

And it doesn't need to keep warm, and will be gone before winter, so won't need optimising for solar gains?

So probably better not to over think it. It's a publicity stunt by PHI and some related organisations to grab some attention, which is not a bad thing.

Edit: just watched the video and it's an insulated garden shed.

Building Standards are defined by comparison with a building of the same shape and of specified U value in W/m2K, but AIUI passive house is defined by annual energy consumption per unit floor area in kWh/m²a.

So a tiny building with a high ratio of external area to floor area, would have to be a whole lot more insulated to meet PH standard, than to meet SBS. It would need thicker insulation than a full size PH has. So the PH one will 'win' convincingly which is the idea I guess.

Posted By: JontiWhat I am struggling a bit with is why you think the second post would alter in any way the meaning/interpretation of the first post.

Your second post explains a lot better what you were thinking about. Your first post didn't really do that. So PiH was entitled to respond to what was written in the first post and most of his post was explaining what he thinks the purpose of the contest is (or might be) rather than criticising you. So I think you're being oversensitive to his post and unduly critical of it in your own reply.

Posted By: djh

Posted By: JontiWhat I am struggling a bit with is why you think the second post would alter in any way the meaning/interpretation of the first post.

Your second post explains a lot better what you were thinking about. Your first post didn't really do that. So PiH was entitled to respond to what was written in the first post and most of his post was explaining what he thinks the purpose of the contest is (or might be) rather than criticising you. So I think you're being oversensitive to his post and unduly critical of it in your own reply.

The first post did not say in less detail what the second post did because after the first paragraph the second post was on another topic namely my take on what the competition was trying to show. That you appear to think the two posts were linked in theme explains your (IMO) strange conclusions. Maybe you're just overthinking this one

And you don't seem to be able to admit when you are wrong.