*
. . . and while on this same topic, why is it that the R value stamped upon a bag of fibreglas is considered totally bogus by some contributors to this forum yet the R value accredited to cels, polyiso, expanded styrofoam etc., is considered legit? And if the f/g R values are bogus, why isn’t it considered false & misleading advertising?
Just curious. . . really
Patrick
Replies
*
. . . and while on this same topic, why is it that the R value stamped upon a bag of fibreglas is considered totally bogus by some contributors to this forum yet the R value accredited to cels, polyiso, expanded styrofoam etc., is considered legit? And if the f/g R values are bogus, why isn't it considered false & misleading advertising?
Just curious. . . really
Patrick
*
As someone who posts here - don't know if that qualifies me as a contributor in your words - I consider the R values stamped on the lable of fibreglass misleading because (1) I've seen a thermograph of a building insulated with fibreglass and could see how uneven it was, especially around edges; (1) because I've used both fibreglass and celulose and just looking at and touching the two in a wall or ceiling cavity I can see how perfectly the cellulose fits every irregularity and feel the solid, quilt like quality of the cels; (3) I learned how fibreglass R values were measured; and (4) I've observed that even roofs using the lable value of fibreglass to achieve an R30 loose more heat than cellulose at R20.
As far as why the marketing isn't considered misleading - I obviously think it is. Doesn't surprise me that legal authorites apparently don't. I remember watching doctors on TV saying how good cigarettes were for you. I've seen advertisements for asbestos. The "health food" industry sells billions of dollars worth of product each year - with totally unsubstantiated claims. Some of the same companies that market fibreglass also marketed a hardboard lap siding that has proven less than satisfactory. FRT plywood another from the same industry.
Then I look at the arguments of fibreglass proponents - like yourself Patrick - talk about the homeowners liking it or the house felt really warm compared to arguments against fibreglass which include citing specific quantitative research.
*BillIn an attempt to set the record straight I am not a "proponent" of f/g. I just know from personal, real application experience that it is better than nothing. Demonstrably much better than nothing. I have no illusions that it is perfect, ideal in every application, or even remotely better than anything else, except of course the absence of any sort of insulation. My goal here is to cut through the rhetoric, bafflegab, and B.S. and learn something. I have yet to achieve that goal here, or elsewhere, but I won't stop trying because the feeling that I've been sucked in by the F/g folks among others bugs my a**, at the same time I can't help wondering about the veracity of some of the things that are being promoted here so vigourously. I've got more snow to shovel. . . see ya laterPatrick.
*Bill Connor et al.The stated R-valuse are true only if the material is installed correctly. As long as we are stirring up the pile, I always wonder when I hear how lousy FG is--and my anti-fiberglass attitude is well known-why the Saskatchewan Conservation House with its 12 inch walls full of fiberglass, performed so well.For those of you not familiar with this house in Canada, it is one of the most energy efficient houses ever built.It requires no heat other than that supplied by occupants and appliances until the outside temperature goes to 5 degrees F. Gene L.
*
Good Lord, doya mean that those people who thought that I improved the quality of their miserable lives by stuffing the demon F/g into their walls and ceilings were right. . . they really did feel warmer. . . it wasn't just a nasty illusion, wishful thinking as it were?
Man. . . I'm gonna hafta rethink the position that I was rethinking vis-a-vis the possibilty that f/g was a communist plot being perpetrated by the corporate baddies who fudge test data, bribe building code poohbahs, and generally diseminate false and misleading data in an effort to hoodwink the American (and Canadian too)public.
Just when I had this whole conspiracy thing sorted out. . . way to go Gene. You really like to stir it up doncha?
Reeling. . . just reeling.
Patrick
*
Fred,
Yesterday I crawled in the old crawl space to give my
furnace an overdue inspection and cleaning. I looked over the space for other problems and the worst thing I saw was delaminating fg batts, pieces of insulation all over the vapor barrier, batts that seemed to have shrunk from the tight fit when installed. My house is 9 yrs old and it seems the floor insulation is only slightly better than none at all. Where does one go from here? There has to be a better way.
*
Fred
It sounds to me like your examples weren't so "carefully built" after all. I've never experienced either of those problems in houses, or reno's that I've built.
As far as the delaminating batts & shrinking in the other post is concerned, I can't help wondering if we might have a superior quality ( pardon the possible oxymoron all you f/g haters) f/g being manufactured here in Canada?
Patrick
*Further to the above:I tried to edit in another paragraph but the server is acting screwy, after I had my edit ready to post it kept asking me to sign in, over, an over, and over. . . so much fo the big$$$ software.FredAs far as f/g being a difficult installation; I can't think of an easier product to install in new construction, or to retrofit in most locations. Cells may be easier to blow into walls that aren't being gutted, but from what I've read on this board in order to satisfy building inspections in new construction one has to go to extrodinary lengths to install cells so that they can be visually inspected prior to boarding walls. It's not a product that lends itself easily to all installation parameters, f/g does. It might very well be ideal as a retrofit but I don't think it could be called particularly "user friendly". And on a personal note, any time I can cut a potential 'hack sub' out of the equation I'll be happy. I can't argue about the relative cost of installing the two products as I have no experience with Cells., but the product itself would have to be much, much cheaper than f/g (which I think is pretty cheap itself) in order to offset the install cost of cells. which require specialized equipment.Patrick
*
Fred, et al. You point is well taken. As any of you out there,who know anything about me, know I did the first Leger house totally with sprayed-in and blown in cellulose.And every house I have done over the last 20 years have had some cellulose in them. In 1980 I switched to sprayed-in Polyurethane (PUR) foam. But ceilings, except for one Massachusetts house, remained with blow-in cellulose.
As previously noted, my anti-fiberglass bias is well known. Agreed, that there is a vast gulf between what is possible with fg and what is really practical. My concern is that we not fall into the trap that "it can't be done with fiberglass." We need always to keep in mind that the value of insulation is no better than the quality of installation. Gene L.
*
Greetings Gene
What kind of R values do you install in your walls & ceilings, and do you have the same problems using PUR in new construction re: having it visible for building inspection? Do you have any other info. on the Sask. House, or maybe a web site. It would seem that they managed to do a state-of-the-art F/g install.
Regards
Patrick
*
Could you mention a few more "parameters" you refer to in your statement "It's not a product that lends itself easily to all installation parameters", especially in light of "I have no experience with Cells"? I suppose I would have had similar sentiments until I tried cellulose - doing it myself - and then I wondered why I waited so long. It virtues are apparent and its much nicer to work with. I haven't had to deal with the inspection issue but have trouble believing that so many inspectors are so inflexible that you can't blow in the cells after the drywall is on.
*PatrickIn a previous post you mentioned that FG was "easy" to install. I believe therein lies the problem. It is deceptively easy to install, but incredibly difficult to install properly. As I understand it to really nail down a fg insulation you have to measure to the 16th inch, and use something similar to a paper cutter instead of a utility knife. There are lots of products that look good in the lab, and then don't install well. Come to think of it, nearly every problem I have heard of in this industry is installation related. So can we count on meticulous installation of FG? Probably not.Philosophically I have a problem with a product where the most important step in the process is also the most difficult to complete.-Rob
*Bill. Not all building inspectors are inflexible,Joe Lstiburek has success with them in Nevada, but too many are. Too many of them are unaware of the alternative methods and materials section of the codes. And many choose to ignore it.What is the point of a uniform national building code enforced by hundreds of thousands of inspectors with hundreds of thousands of interpretations? It is for this reason that I advise builders to sit down with the plans approver and have it out, politely,in the office rather than have a STOP WORK ORDER issued half way through the construction. Gene L.
*
Hi Rob
When I used the term "easy" I was directly comparing f/g to some specific installation difficulties with cells.
I think just about every contributor to this thread and any others involving insulation (or any other building product) would state unequivocally that careful installation is omni important. It's equally important with cells, and perhaps easier to screw up with cells. Hackers & klutzes are everywhere, this doesn't mean that a 'perfect' f/g install. can't be achieved in the field by a knowledgable, competant person. Read some archival posts and you'll learn that Bill Conner in Chicago, had to phone FredL. in Vermont to get help with the machine settings when he decided to try his hand at blowwing in cells and then had to modify the blower to achieve the reults he was after. Someone else might have blithely carried on and unwittingly done a half-assed job. Does that make one product superior to the other? No. But it suggests to me that a product like cells that relies heavily upon technology to install is not "easy" when compared to F/g. This was,afterall, the point I took issue with in Fred's post.
Also, can you think of a single material, or element in a construction project where "the most important step in the process is(n't) also the most difficult to complete" for a ham fisted,inexperienced, incompetent or lazy person?
Make no mistake, I'm not a flag waver for f/g, I just don't think it's as useless as has been proposed on this board, and I object to the use of innacurate/exaggerated claims to support arguments.
Still trying to cut through the bafflegab
Patrick
*
Patrick - while I understand you are choosing to ignore my questions above, I find your example of my having to ask Fred about the blowing machine a little hollow. Maybe you were born with the ability to use power tools without any instruction and without ever having watched someone else use them, but I believe most of us mortals have had to learn. Were I so quickly able to learn to use a skill saw or router as I was the cellulose blower, I'd be very happy. And I have used both cellulose and fibreglass - and you stated you had not ever used cellulose - and keep speaking of the specific difficulties of installing it. For the second time, could you name some other than having to work out a slightly modified inspection sequence with the building department?
*
Bill
The "parameters" I was referring to(and I might better have used the word locale) were with new construction, and the efforts and problems that have been discussed on this board by those who have had to face the visual inspection requirement that you 'hope' wouldn't be necessary; I too would have to deal with that requirement. My lack of experience with cells doesn't prevent me from reading, or preclude me from understanding the discussions between those that have such experience. I freely admit to taking them at their word, just as I take you at your word when you talk about how much denser it feels, and how much nicer it is to work with. I have no doubt that it is a good product, but have no illusions that it is 'God's gift' and that everything else is less than 'pale by comparison'. If the opportunity presents itself I won't hesitate to use it in my next attic insul.job, where I think it's true benefits lie,(new construction or retrofit) but from what I've read on this board, and what was naggingly in the back of my mind anyway, I wouldn't use it in the walls, or Cathedral/vaulted ceilings of new construction. It seems to be ideal in some applications, and decidedly complicated in others. Just like pretty much every other product we use in construction.
Patrick
*
Addenda - I see you were posting simultaneously - so thanks. But I would still like some specific examples of why its harder. You can insulate a cathedral ceiling without scaffolding - both sides all from the ridge or two separate lines from the eaves or soffits.
*
Bill
I didn't ignore your other post, the server seems to arbitrarily identify certain posts as new, and, for me, it ignored yours. For this among other reasons I remain somewhat less than enamored with this new software! If you refer to the posting times you will see that I have already answered that post.
Please don't get so thin skinned, I meant absolutely no insult to you or your mechanical abilities, in fact I intended a compliment when I wrote what might have occured with a less concientous person. Good Lord, I was merely trying to make the point that it was probably easier to screw up a cell install. becuse of the need for technology (read machines etc.) than a F/g install. and while I can't bring that post up without losing this one in the process I think I quite clearly stated that, TWICE!!!
To answer your question, also for the second time, working out a "slightly modified inspection sequence" is nothing compared to blowing in cells into new wall construction or cathedral ceilings, and keeping it in place and not bulging out long enough for a visual inspection before boarding takes place!!! All of these problems can be solved by what I consider to be extraordinary means, and damn me if I think it's a totally inneficient and expensive way to achieve a few more R values!! As I stated in my other post, your favourite product has some ideal applications, but not where I would use it the most.
Patrick
p.s. Having now just read your 'addenda' you seem fixated upon retrofit applications which is obviously where blown in cells is perfect. I continue to try to point out that in many NEW CONSTRUCTION locales it is not ideal, in fact it would appear to me to be a royal pain in the a**.
*
Good morning Patrick. It is a bright sunny day in New Hampshire.
I did switch from cellulose to PUR because of any problems with cellulose.Indeed, back in 1977 the biggest problem I had was trying to find a spray-in cellulose contractor. My reasosn were to get rid of the double wall double wall and the so-called air/vapor barrier.Some years later I was involved in a house in California, and had the same problem. We searched the lenght and width of California trying to locate a sprayed -in cellulose contracor.An aside. California is claimed to be where every thing originates. Yet I could not find a a builder who knew what Tyvek or Tu Tuf are.
What does spray-in PUR allow me to do that cannot be done with other insulations? (1) Eliminate the double wall; (2) Eliminate the so-called air/vapor barier; (3) eliminate the sealing,by caulking, of the junction of the band sill or box sill or rim joist or joist header as it is variously called,and the sill plate. It also allowed me to eliminate the worry that the joist header was insulated. Because of the modified balloon framing I use insulating the joist header is done at the same time the exterior walls are insulated;(4) eliminate hand sealing of fenestration; (5) achieve a high-R wall without increasing or decreasing the house size.
I achieve R-40 in exterior walls. Ceilings are blown in with 16 inches of cellulose. Gene L.
*For the record - I posted at 11:14; you posted at 11:16 - which is why I simply apologized as a victim of simultaneous posts. I'm sure you were composing at the same time I was.I see a lot more room for errors and unconscientious installation of fibreglass batts then I do cells. I was astounded and amazed how simple and almost fun it was to pump into the walls and between the 2nd floor ceiling and attic floor. And I was using a free loaner - baby machine - by myself. Working with a real machine and two people would be much more efficient. The fg must be very precisely fit and must be in continous contact with the back of the drywall to get anything like the R values of the label. Much isn't - especially around pipes and conduit (or romex if allowed where you work) and irregular framing. And I wish you could present a problem in new construction where cells is such a pain in the butt - that is unless you are unwilling or unable to modify the inspection sequence to allow sheathing on both sides before the insulation. Is it that difficult to imagine putting insulation in after most of the drywall is up but not taped or after the sahething is up but not fully sided - or maybe the soffit not in?As for the software here - just click "new messages" while in the thread to find other posts you haven't loaded yet. I sorta keep an eye on how many new mesaages there are to be sure I find them all. And this is a feature or function that didn't work that way last week. Also, I open a second or third window so I can read various posts at the same time I'm posting. Very convenient.
*
Bill
Ignoring your sarcasm, it's not difficult at all "to imagine putting insul. in after most(?)of the d/wall is up. . . " This is obviously the only efficient way to do it, and I would hope that eventually you will realize that that is my point!
Perhaps in Chicago one is allowed to dictate inspection scenarios to the building department. In Toronto where I worked for many years, and where the building inspectors are known to cruise the back alleys & sidestreets of 'high profile' neighbourhoods looking for illegal reno's, and decks etc., one does not tell them anything except when they can come by to visually inspect each and every aspect of the job, in order of it's completion. That's V-I-S-U-A-L-L-Y, as in: if I can't see it it doesn't exist; or, tear down that d/wall I want to see what you did in there!!
Once again I'm referring to new construction, in retrofit a whole other mindset seems possible with inspectors.
Enough already
Patrick
*
Hi Bill and Patrick,
So I'm not the only one who has called Fred in the middle of the night to figure out how to get the blower to work? It didn't come from the rental place with no stinkin' manual!
Patrick,
I've done both FG and Cells. Much more of the former than the latter, but I find working with cells pretty easy. The difficult part is thinking through all the implications of changing the "normal" sequence of construction. The actual act of blowing them is pretty darned simple, and less irritating to the body than FG.
I have to say that where I live, they don't bother to inspect the insulation before closing. I guess they figure anybody who didn't put as much as they could into new construction in Central New York deserves what they get.
I would think that you could leave the "cookies" cut out of the drywall where you did the blowing, and the inspector could see that the wall cavity was indeed stuffed with cells. The way I've done it is to leave a six inch strip out in the middle of the wall, blow, then fill the last six inces with drywall. Before filling that strip, you have a six-inch exposure of the densepacked cells running all around the perimeter that could be inspected.
If there is room in this world for Win98 and the MacOS and Unix, surely there is room FG and Cells. Not everyone chooses the best tool for the job at hand the first time around. Till you've tried them all, how can you really know? Of course it is up to the end user to decide if their choice meets their needs ;-)
C'mon Patrick, just give the cells a try, you'll like it, really!
Still waiting for Unix to become the underpinning of my MacOS (This year!),
Steve Zerby
*What sarcasm? But lets take a hypothetical view. (We can all jsut wish the inspector will listen while the builder explains the approach and that all other visual inspections are done in ordinary sequence. Maybe the first one in a jurisdiction you'll have to cut a hole or two to show its solidified cellulose, or perhaps even a thermogragh - but that's only for real and I'm aksing hypothetically.) What problems or difficulties do you see using blown in cellulose in new construction?I really want to know. I hope you can step beyond this one-issue objection you raise (because I'm confident I can get by it in reality where ever I've lived) and explain all the magnitude of problems you forsee in installing cellulose in new construction.
*Not in the middle of the night! Just a Saturday afternoon.Hey! Come to Affordable Comfort '99 and we can take Fred out to dinner and really pick his brain (if we can get through all teh fuzzy cellulose)! I think it's in May downtown Chicago.
*Gene - Fred claims (and I agree) that the dense pack cellulose in the walls eliminates the need for the poly vapor retarder. Have I missed your comments on this?
*Hi Bill,I interrupted him in the middle of a photo shoot one evening. My blower had an adjustable blast gate, but I was just running it way too lean and getting next to no material out of it. Not knowing what I was looking for, I was spending 45 minutes to half fill one wall cavity. I called Fred and he was very gracious and helpful.It's looking more and more like I'll try to get to affordable comfort this year. It would be nice to meet you and Fred both.Steve
*Almost live! My machine had no gate or damper - so I was pumping like crazy but it wasn't dense. Fred helped me fashion a damper for a machine the likes of which he'd never seen I believe. Also laughed about the hose coming off. Live and learn.
*Patrick. I forgot to answer your question on the Saskatchewan Cnservation House. Located in Regina, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.it is a double wall-two 2x4 walls--connected with a common plywood top plate. The walls are 12-inches deep filled with fiberglass.The ceiling is insulated with cellulose. Suggest you contact the Saskatchewan Research Council, 30 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, (306)664-5400 and ask them if they have any information they could send you. I have a bound volume of technical notes on the house, but can't locate it.I've personally blown cellulose into my personal residences as well as non-personal residences.These were all double wall houses. As with any insulation there is a learning curve. My initiation with cellulose was in 1977, and learning continued for many, many houses later.By watching and asking questions, I learned how to do it.It's a bit messy, but really quite simple. Calculate the cubic volume of the wall cavity to determine how many 30 lb bags (or what ever the weight of the bag is) you'll need to blow in at a density of 3.5 pcf (pounds per cubic foot).For existing closed cavities there are two methods of installing cellulose: the two hole and the one hole method. The two hole method is the traditional and dominant method. One hole is drilled about 8-inches below the top plate and the second hole about 12-inches above the botton plate. In the one hole technique a 2 inch hole is drilled 1 foot above the bottom plate. A 1 to 1-1/2-inch hose is attached to the blowing hose. The extension is inserted into the 2-inch hole and moved up into the cavity until it hits blocking or the top plate.For more details see Cellulose in Chapter 17 Insulation in my book, _Complete_Building_Construction_ 4th Edition, published by Macmillan. Hope this helps. Yes we can wonder what if Dave Eyre and his group had used cellulose rather than fg. Would it have made a difference? And if it did would it be, as William James said "a difference that made a difference?" Remember that Canadian Fg used in the Saskatchewan Conservation House was a higher density than American fiberglass, ergo a higher r-value.. Gene L.
*Gene - Fred has commented that he doesn't think its possible to dense pack a "bay much bigger than 12 X 24 - like a 2X12 on 24" centers. That seems contrary to your dense packing staggered stud walls - which are basically uncompartmentalized it seems. Comment?
*
Bill
This really is getting tiresome, but as I do not wish to be accused again of ignoring your querie, nor take it on the lam like Fred seems to have done when the heat(?) gets applied, (Actually I now know how you feel,Fred, when you repeatedly explain your position to someone who just wants to argue) I will simply say that I have answered all your questions repeatedly, and given my rationale, also repeatedly. I just don't have the time to repeat myself yet again. If you're latest post isn't just thinly veiled condescension then feel free to re-read my posts. I wish you luck with your local building inspectors when and if you ever try to insulate new walls or cathedral ceilings and present them with 2" cookie holes to prove that you did a code acceptable insulating job.
In fact I would love to hear you prove that you can get by that problem as you so confidently suggest; but in reality Bill, not hypothetically. Go out and do a new wall cell install, and have it inspected.
BTW, It is my understanding that blown in cells aren't even allowed in new wall construction in Ontario (Canada) but I'm waiting upon the latest edition of the code to verify that. Just another minor detail that I'm sure you could get by.
Moving on without cells,
Patrick
*Hi SteveIf you read my posts you would know that my single biggest concern with cells has to do with new construction applications, and the problem of blowing in a product, under pressure, into a five sided box which has to remain that way until it can be inspected by diligent builing code offficials. This problem was also discussed in the thread "Blowing Cells in New Construction" Jan7/99 on this board. A guy in Virginia needed to have his insulated wall cavities open for inspection, another guy talked about shaving the excess with a board, someone else talked of stretching reinforced plastic, and fabricating masonite strips to hold it in until it could be boarded. . .I thought the object was to dense pack them, how do you dense pack up agaist plastic? I guess they all had to deal with dilligent code officials too.If you read my posts you would also know that I said cells were probably the ideal product for retrofits.As I keep saying, I'm not anti cells, or pro f/g, I just think there's ample evidence to show that they both have particular installation problems ergo, cells aren't ideal in every locale. Some people can't aknowledge that cells have any such restrictions. C'est la vie.Patrick
*
Hi Patrick,
Yes, open-wall inspections would pretty much rule out dense packing in my book. I know that folks have done it by stretching plastic tight and blowing before the board goes up, but that seems like too much trouble to me too.
When I did it here, as I said, I railroaded the sheetrock, cutting the bottom sheet so that the top of it was 6 inches below the bottom of the top sheet, leaving a six inch slot all around the middle of the room. Then I made a piece of rock 6 inches by 3 feet. I drilled two 4-inch cookies, one for each bay, screwed this board over the gap for two bays, blew the cells into those two bays, unscrewed the board and moved down to the next two bays, etc. When I was done there was a six-inch strip of exposed cellulose in the middle of the wall.
It couldn't hurt to ask your local code guy if that would be acceptable for his inspection needs.
If all the claims about the ability of cells to actually stop condensation and ice dams are at all legitimate (and I have no idea if they are or not), then it seems to me the most valuable place of all to use them would be in cathedral ceiling applications. Particularly in cathedral ceilings with T&G ceiling treatments that make it difficult to impede air movement into the rafter bays. Also, their effectiveness as an air barrier seems to be a compelling reason to want to use them in new wall construction as well, particularly in windy climates.
Foam would probably be even more effective in both these instances, but when you're a one-man crew like I am, foam seems just too logistically difficult.
I would hate to have to abandon an effective solution to a difficult problem because of beauracracy.
Steve
*Patrick,I am not a flag waver for fg or cels, in fact cels has a fairly poor R-value when compared to polyurethane or icynene. The thing I don't like about cels is the fact that it seems to rely on infiltration as a means of installation. Though, no one can argue it is the "greenest" material you could use.-Rob
*Gene, where can I buy your book - in an actual bookstore preferrably. I have looked at Borders, Walden, etc.-Rob
*Rob. My book is normally stocked by Barnes & Noble, at least that is what the local B&N clerk here in Nashua, NH tells me. The ISBN number is 0-02-517882-2.Gene L.
*Hi all,Speaking of R-values, I ran an interesting little experiment this afternoon. I have one wall in my house that is mostly filled with densepacked cellulose, but the last 6 feet of it are filled with Fiberglass because I didn't get to it till long after I had returned the rented blower. All details of the wall are the same for both sections: 2x6 roughcut studs, 1/2 inch ply sheathing and Tyvek on the outside, and 1/2 inch drywall on the inside. No vapor barrier. Deciding that my hand on the wall was not an accurate guage of whether one section of wall was colder than the other (as I had earlier reported to Patrick in the Cold Kitchen thread), I attempted to measure the core temperatures of each wall section.Room temp was 73 degrees. Outside temp was 23 degrees. I used an electronic meat thermometer that was supposed to have a range of -58 degrees to 302 degrees. I poked 1/8" holes in the drywall with an awl and inserted the thermometer.I measured the temp 2" into the insulation and 4 1/2" into it. In the cellulose section I got readings of 66 degrees at 2" and 52 degrees at 4 1/2" . When I moved to the FG section (making sure I had poked through the kraft paper) I got readings of 36 degrees at 2" and 28 degrees at 4 1/2". Astounding thought I.But then I took the thermometer out to check it against room temperature and the thing went wacko. Gave me readings of anywhere from -12 to 80 degrees, so somewhere along the line I guess I broke it. So then I tried an analog dial thermometer I use for mixing photo chemicals. It gave readings of exactly 57 degrees for both sections of wall when inserted to 4 1/2"So what does anybody make of that? What might be the best kind of thermometer to try this again with?Curiouser and curiouser,Steve Zerby
*Steve,I think you've hit upon the problem. You need specialized thermometers for this -- none of this meat and photato stuff -- real scientific equipment. I would use nothing less than an ASTM rated, scientific partial immersion thermometer, preferably one suited to ISO 9000 certifiable results. I can get you one for only about $320. Send your credit card number to my e-mail address, and I'll get one out post haste.
*ISO 9000 doesn't certify results. It certifies standardized manufacturing procedures, in theory producing consistent quality. NIST traceable would be more desirable, regardless of how it was manufactured.-Rob
*Hey, maybe I could get the Cellulose people to fund me building a test structure, say 20 x 40, half insulated in Cells, half in FG, outfitted to measure all kinds of stuff. I could put it right behind my house. I could store all my stationary tools in there! I could even test test it under real-world use as a workshop!Whatdya think?Hopefully,Steve
*You use to be able to buy infrared film at a good photo store (so drive all night to NYC already - you'll getback by morning). As I recall, its a very thick film and won't work in all 35's. Interior and exterior shots on cold and warm days would be interesting.
*Rob,Picky, picky. I guess I meant that the results would have greater credibility because the thermometer manufacturer was ISO 9000 certfied. Just for you, I recommend the FULLY immersible thermometer.Barry
*Hi Bill,Just so happens I'm gonna be in the big apple both this weekend and next weekend. Good thought. I shoulda thought of that myself. You know I was a photojournalist for 15 years? I still do some commercial work on the side, as it pays six times what I make as a builder. Too bad I hate the work so much. Steve
*BarryNot everyone understand cheddarhead sarcasm.Regards, Bill Conner
*Meat and Photato! LOL!Darn, and I thought I was pretty clever performing this little experiment. Oh well.Tell you what, you put the thermometer in the mail, and I'll send you a check as soon as I get it. d;-pDo I understand correctly that you are a cheesehead? Too bad about the Packers this year. Being a Minnesota Native I wouldn't know what it's like to lose a big football game. Not this year anyway. Go Vikings! Fifth time's the charm!Steve
*
Just tak a picture of the insulation an forget about all of this foolishness. There has been enough hot air generated by this thread to not have to worry about insulation.
*
Now there's a curious mind for ya. I guess you are right. Why would I want to learn anything?
Steve
*
Unfortunatly infrared film doesnt have long enough wavelength response to record infrared radiation emitted from normal temp. building materials. It will only show IR reflected from much hotter sources i.e. the sun. You would need a thermal imager to see the different surface temps.
*
Yup - read that today. Does NYS have a energy department or something that rents or loans thermal imaging equipment? I'm calling the Gov's hot line here to see if Illinois does.
*Tough question.........would it have anything to do with current financial wellbeing or more along the lines of leaving the world a better place than when you entered?
*
Patrick M.
Enjoyed your replys to prior discussions. You must have the patience of two Saints! Should you have time I'd appreciate your knowledge regarding insulation. It is a new house with drywall up and taped. we had wet spots from condensation and as I pulled back the plastic sheeting earlier, had noticed a very poor fg batt installation. Could we blow into the stud cavities with some form of insulation on top of the R-19 batts and hope it would pack inbetween the drywall and batts?
This new house has been a sheer nightmare and we have to be moved into it by Jan.31
posted problem on 1/13/99 "cold walls builder problem"for specifics of nightmare.
*Steve, The National energy Foundation In Washington is currently providing grants for research in this to qualified scientits and technitions. I'm sorry that I don't have their address but it might pay to look into this. Good luck!
*
Bill. In response to your 9.1 message. I don't know the perm rating of cellulose. Those who spay-in cellulose claimit forms a crust makes a vapor diffusion retarder (VDR) unnecessary. HUD told them that if they could prove their claims /HUD would be the no-need for a VDR with spray-in cellulose.
Now even if the claims is qestionable if not false, a plastic VDR is not necessary, as that function is handled by the gypsum board air retarder.
Cellulose has some qualities that are rarely mentioned or acknowledged by the FG crowd, and probably unkown to many cellulose contractors.The following information came from from Harold Orr in 1985. Harold is a building scientist and was with the National Research Council in Saskatchewan. He is also the person who supervised the installation of the so-called air/vapour barrier in the Saskatchewan Conservation House.
According to Harol The University of Saskatchewan built 3 balloon framed houses in 1919 for use by farm staff. The University's central steampower plant furnished the heat.
In 1926 the walls and ceilings of these houses were insulated with cellulose (have no information if they were dense packed)No vapour barrier (sic) was used
In 1975 4 houses, including the 3 mentioned,were put up for sale. Buyers had to remove them from the campus. Two of the houses were removed intact and as far as the National Research Council knows are currently--as of 1985-on new foundations and in use.The 3rd 1919 house was dismantled piece by piece and salvaged. The dismantled pieces were examined for moisture damage and the examination was photographed and made into 54 slides. No evidense was found of any damage caused by moisture or condensation.
For the remaining housee in uses there were no reports of any moisture problems of any kind.
Harolds conclusions are interesting/ "It sappears that the natural backwicking properties of cellulosic fibres (i.e. ability to both absorb and dissipate moisture), in addition to its resistance to air (and therefore moisture) flow due to a naturally higher density fibres, have, in this instance, significantly inhibited moisture accumulations that cause structural damage(re: all three houses were constructed without vapor barrier installations
Reply # 10 will follow later. I got your e-mail. I was busy with e-mail. It comes in bunches as a result of my responses on this page. Hope this starts some additional discussion. Gene L.
*Thanks Gene. I've taken apart some buildings with sawdust in the wall cavities and was surprised to not find moisture. Speaks well for the power of diffussion!
*C) all of the abovePlus it just makes for a more interesting existence.
*Fred,Have we seen any study of this? I'm dying to know what really goes on in the walls. The more I try to figure it out the more confused I get.I would be happy to build a test structure (and use it as a workshop;-) if there is some sort of funding for such a study.Seriously,Steve
*Fred. Even if plates do not shrink,we are off to a double whammy. The lower wall layer of sheet rock is rarely ever tight to the floor. When was the last time you saw the taper tape the bottom of the exterior wall gypsum board to the floor? The second whammy is the stapling of the Kraft flaps to the insides faces of the studs.Notice all the magazines that publish photos, furnished by FG manufacturers, showing the flaps stapled to the inside faces of the stud. Worse yet, this is a code violation. All codes require substantial contact between the fG facing and the sheetrock.Gene L.
*Bill. This is in response to your #10.After considerable research prior to building thr 1977 Leger house, I decided on sprayed-in cellulose. The double wall I used was 2 2x4 walls 24 "oc, with studsd alternating. the depth of the was is 8-inches.The spraying began and soon it was discovered that you cann not spray an 8 ich double wall, because there is nothing to support the insulation. the VDR--then called a vapor barrier-- was installed and the gypsum board installed. Next blown-in cellulose was installed.the blowing holes were covered with a VDR and the walls again sheetrocked with 3/8-inch board. This last bit cause much comment in the press and we received many letters about it. By the bye. I believe our attic was the first to be insulated with sprayed-in cellulose.I'm not certain I agree with Fred, but then I don't use single stud: 2x walls.The last double wall house I ever did was in my personal residence.The wall was 12-inches deep and composed of 2 2x4 walls with staggered studs--24-iches oc separate bottom and top plates.The space between the studs was 5-inches.The walls were open continuously around the house perimeter and from sill plate to bottom of rafters.When you are inside the house you are totally surrounded by cellulose insulation.Thus we had a 12-inch deep,182 feet in length and 15 feet high "open" cavity that had to be filled with cellulose. We rocked the walls in sections, starting at the lower level--this was a split-entry- and blew from from above from sill plate up. We blew to 3.5 pcf and no we did not measure the density to prove we had 3.5 pcf. We did open the wall several years later and found no settling. The walls could have been 18-inches deep, it would have made no difference.In another double wall house I know of- 1996-the studs were in line. The cellulose installer had never done a double wall and was concerned as to how to do it. After some consultation he decided to create separate cavities--16-inches oc--by securing insect screening across one side of the two studs.Another installer i know uses Tyvek in the double walls to make separate cavities.The last staggered 2x3 stud wall house I designed, 1989, presented a problem for the cellulose installer who has never done either a double wall of staggered stud wall.After several attempts to fil the wall he had the rock the walls then blow. I hope this answers your question Bill. Gene L.
*
Regarding sealing plate to drywall. The studs and plates I've known haven't always been the same dimension (3-1/2 or 5-1/2 dimension). If they were when I installed them, I would not bet that the stud with a knot on the end would shrink to the same extent as the plate at the point where it was nailed to the plate. This would leak as much as the stud that was twisted or not attached flush with the plate.
I have not seen it suggested that caulking might be useful to seal these areas (compartments). Glue is used/discussed but not for the same purpose.
As to sealing drywall to the floor. As a practical matter, getting the taper to go around the house at floor level would be just another challenge. Wouldn't it be easier to caulk the plate to the floor and then caulk the drywall to the plate?
Regards, GT
*Hi GeneIn an post in another thread I wondered if perhaps Canadians had access to a better quality F/g batt that you folks do . . .you seemed to confirm this in your review of the Sask. House. FYI: I haven't seen a Kraft backed or enclosed f/g batt for sale in Ontario in over 15 years, maybe longer. I've run into them in walls in Reno. work but never seen them in new construction. They've gone the way of the dinosaurs around here!Regards,Patrick
*
GT. If one is to caulk the sole plate it is best to caulk the bottom of the plate. Typically a bead of caulk is applied to the junction of the sole plate and the subfloor.Testing by Holometrix shows this to be ineffective. Caulking under the sole plate is SOP in the Arkansas House.The only negative of this procedure is that the weight of the exterior wall framing causes the caulk to creep.How much this reduces its effectiveness I do not know. My method of framing makes it unnecessary. Gene L.
*
Gene- I was interested to here that you have built some double wall houses. Being that this method seems to have lost some favor among building professionals, trying to cut labor costs and moving to panels etc, it has been difficult to find concrete information on this method. I am interrested in your thoughts and insights on double wall. I am a log home builder, now building my own house in the Northern climates. The labor intencity of the system is not as much of a concern to me as I will be building it myself. Any first hand information or direcetional paths I could take would be appriicated. thanks, matt
*Gene- I was interested to here that you have built double wall houses. I am interrested in this method. Any concrete information anyone can send my way would be appriicated. Matt
*
Bill. In my post #23 there is some confusion in my explanation of the sprayed-in cellulose. We discovered that you cannot spray-in wet cvellulose into an 8-inch cavity--at least not in an open one: double studs staggered, because the insulation cannot support itself. So we sprayed the outer 2x4 wall. The VDR and gypsum board were installed. Holes were drilled into the gypsum board and dry cellulose was blown-in. We filled the openings, taped a small piece of VDR to the holes and glued and nailed a 3/8-inch layer of wall board to the existing gypsum board.By the bye. Te opening betwen the inner and outer studs made the wall insulation continuous with the attic floor cellulose. I believe this was the first house, or at least the first energy efficient house ever to have sprayed-in cellulose in the attic.Gene L.
*Gene - I presume your coal of continous wall-to-ceiling cells was to thwart conduction in framing. Trying to imagine a complete inner and outer structural farme with NO contact between the two. I'll look forward to illustrations someday.But it seems that it may indeed not be possible to dense pack a cavity bigger than - say - 2X12's on 24" centers, thinking regular blown in cells (dry) at 3.5 to 4 pcf. The netting or housewarp used to compartmentalize is interesting though...Thanks. Would really like to see sketches of these concepts someday.
*Matt Edmunds. I'm assuming--dangerous-you know all about basic house framing. Starting with the basement. Do not use metal foundation window bucks.Today you can buy all vinyl basement windows.Seal the sill--mud--plate to the foundation with an EPDM Gasket sold by Resource Conservation Technology, Inc., in Baltimore, MD. (410)366-1146.To break the conductive path between the exterior wall and the subfloor I use a modified form of balloon framing--this is my trade mark if you will.This modified balloon differs from classic balloon framing in that the outside wall studs are not connected to the floor joists.The outside wall is going to be placed down on the sill plate. Begin bu offsetting the 1st floor platform from the edge of the foundation by 4 inches. Now frame the platform.Butt the floor joist to each other over the built-up girder. I frame, depending on loads and spans--everything 24"oc.in-line: trusses/rafters over outside wall studs, which in turn are directly over floor joists. A 2x joist header is unnecessary. Use a 3/4-inch or even a 1/2-inch of plywood to get more room between the outside wall and the joist header.Frame your exterior wall as usual. Remember no solid headers--they must be insulated, and if you prefer use box beams. Raise the wall and keep it vertical at all times. Now slowly move it along the sublfloor to the edge of the subfloor. Keep it vertical and let it drop down onto the sill plate.IT MUST :-) be kept vertical. Repeat this with the remaining walls. Decide on the depth of the wall you want and frame the inner wall and locate it on the subfloor. You can offset the studs so that each inner stud is between the outer studs, or frame the inner studs so they are in line with the outer wall studs.Use separate top plates.The corners are two-stud corners. The third stud is not structurally necessary.Prest-On gypsum board clips take care of the missing sheet rock return.See page 267 for illustration of the clip, and page 275 of my book, _Complete_ Building_Construction_ 4th Edition, published by Macmillan.It illustrates why you want two-stud corners, and the problems 3-4 stud corners create. If you plan on a two story house the inner wall is the load bearing wall that carries thr second floor. The floor joist do not extend out to the outer wall, but stops at the inner wall. This isolates the inner and outer walls, thus breaking the thermal short circuits. The outer wall in this configuration carries only the roof. Keep in mind that the two walls are basically only tied together at doors and windows. Long spans of windowless and doorless walls must be tied together every 6 feet with 1x3 strapping across the bottoms of the wall top plates.When you frame the rough openings for fenestration--doors and windows- make an allowance (there must be enough space betwen the jambs and wall rough opening to allow them to be foamed shut)for the fact that these openings must be framed with OSB or plywood. This ties the walls together and prevents the cellulose from spilling out. Plywood/OSB can be omitted from over the windoow stools/sills. These openings allow monitoring of the cellulose in these areas.The bottoms of the headers are tied together.In two story houses you repeat the 1st floor framing. First time around I'd extend the plywood subfloor out to the outside wall.There is no outside wall to drop the 2nd floor outer wall down on to.Truss the roof. A truss roof frees one of the need for interior load bearing walls. In my system of framing there is no wiring, plumbing, piping or ductwork in exterior walls or in the ceiling below the attic. Now you install the gypsum boards to the ceiling. Use the longest pieces you can buy to minimise butts and joints. The only penetration of this air retarder is the stack vent. However, it can be effectively sealed.NOTE: go into the basement and put a sheetmetal collar around the stack vent to seal it. Now you install the interior partitions. There is no penetration of the interior wall top plates into the attic space.No need to spend hundreds of dollars in time and material to seal these leaks.We have broken one of the most conductive paths in a house, and made attic ventilation unnecessary. There is nothing leaking ino the attic space.You don't need a vapor diffusion retarder in the ceiling. Add several coats of latex paint to the ceiling gypsum board and you have both the air retarder and VDR. Secure the truss bottom chords to the top plates with a Simpson Strong Tie H! hurricane fastener. Put the fasterne on the outside of the plates.You now have the basic techniques I've used for the last 20 years. A Chicago area buider named Perry Bigelow has a full time sealing specialitst whose only job is air sealing using a variety of caulks, foams and gaskets. He spends an average of 30 hours per house at a cost of $500.00. My framing techniques eliminate just about all of this sealing.The worry about whether the joist header is insulated vanished because it is done at the same time the exterior wall is insulated. What do you do about wiring? Use Electrostrip Surface Mounted Wiring. Use wall mounted lighter where they would be normally installed in the ceiling (this is not a problem in the first floor ceiling of a two story house).for ceiling llghts use swags. This framing challenges one to be creative. Hope this helps. Gene L. Now for the thousand questions.
*Bill. It is not my intent to ridicule those early attempts at energy efficient houses. But they were in many ways jokes.Why? Because the wholesale changeover to 2x6 studs was the only thing that changed.All of the 11th commandment framing remained in tact. Both the active/passive solar groups agued for active solar systems and mass and glass. The house was totally ignored. One of the few exceptions was Frank Holtzclaw's Arkansas House.Although I believe he made a mistake with the 2x6 studs, he made other changes as well. 24-inch oc in line framing. 2-stud corners, mid height backers to replace backers, nailers, flats, tees, stud pockets, partition posts; raised heel trusses--so-called Arkansas truss; insulated box beams to replace solid headers; 2x3 partitions to make up for room lost to 2x6 studs;no headers in non-load bearing walls and gable walls; exterior wall sole plates sealed to subfloor and so on. To show you how little thought was paid to the house, in 1980 DOE awarded a prize to some body who insulated the joist headers. Something I had done in 1977. As a rsult of this nonsense I came up with Leger's first Law: In a solar house the only thing that maters is the solar system. In a MESH house the only thing that matters is the house. Leger's 2nd law was based on a statement by Larry Spielvogel: Any house that has to have solar added to it was never properly designed.So yes I was concerned to break the thermal bridges of conventional framing. A slight correction. I may be at fault here. It is not true that the double wall has NO connection between them. Minimal yes, but nevertheless there. The walls are tied together at fenestration-windows and doors.And every 6 or 8 feet in long runs of no fenestration.As noted previously, I've never measured the desity of the open wall vavities' insulation. But we've done it and found no settling in the walls. Bob Vogel of Site Specific, of Acworth, NH, an insulation contractor is the one who came up with the idea of compartmentalizing the open cavities.He uses TYVEK rather than the screening.He has also sheerocked open cavities and blown the uncompartmented cavities and dense packed them. Indeed, although a wall can be blown to a light density as well as a high desisty,I can't imagine why all the talk about dense pack. I never in the pre dense packs days ever thought of any density less than 3.5pcf.Gene L. The last 2x3 staggered stud wall I did was in 1989 and it was sheetrocked--afeter several failures to blow the walls--and succesfully dense packed in spite of lack of compartments.this waa a 6-ich wall. I just posted here a response to Matt Edmunds request for info on double wall construction. Let me know if it helps you visualize the double wall as I would and have done it. I'll prepare some sketches.
*Gene - Thanks. Your description above made the tieing together clear - 1X3 every 6' or ply/osb through the windows and doors. You've also talked about this system with studs rotated 90 degrees I think - correct?
*
Hi Fred
Now that you seem willing to acknowledge that Canadian F/g is possibly superior to the U. S. variety, can we take it one step further and acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, 'Saskatchewan House' outperforms it's U.S. counterparts because it benefitted from a superior product, AND a carefully thought out and executed combination of F/g and poly. vapour barrier, and not dismiss it's performance and lack of condensation induced rot, to a "highly permeable exterior sheathing" as you so summarily dismissed it in your post(20)?
Given what Gene L. calls the 'received wisdom at the time', Canadian researchers put together a design that relied heavily upon a completely sealed, contiguous interior Vapour Barrier and they made it work. . . if other buildings fail using this concept it only points out the inherent difficulties in doing the perfect job required, not that the materials, or even the concept, are necessarily totally useless.
FYI about Kraft enclosed batts being outlawed in Canada, it has long been my understanding that the reason had to do with the then new code requirements for Vapour Barriers, and the fact that the Kraft paper was being substituted, and wasn't up to spec. as a V.B. At about the same time, the Canadian Gov't, in reaction to the first(?) international oil crises, offered 'off oil' and insulation grants to homeowners which caused a boom in blown in cellulose, mostly by fly-by-nighters with limited install. experience, questionable product, exaggerated performance claims and tail light warrantees, which to this day make many people up here totally derisive of blown in cellulose.
Pinking up nicely in above freezing temps.
-Patrick
*Gene,Thanks so much for the full description. Once you describe it, it seems so obvious. Perhaps your post should be a whole new thread, I expect there will be lots of comment. Call it Gene's Reformed Church of Stick Framing :-)I think I can picture everything, even the second floor detail. I am curious if the two walls are stronger, weaker, no change in terms of wind and seismic shear. Do the limited connections between the two membranes of the wall limit it's shear strength? How would you increase that without compromising the thermal break? Do you need to use full size framing for both walls in a 2 story house? Or just one? I would imagine the interior one. (thinking materials costs here) How about bay windows or alcoves? Do they need support from the foundation instead of the normal cantilever of the floor platform? Thanks again for sharing all your knowledge with us.Congregationally, Lisa
*
Lisa. unless you read my most recent post--as you know everything on this page after January, 1999 has been lost--I'll have to retype it. My main point was that I read in the Jnuary 1999 issue of _Contractor_ Magazine--mechanical trades publication--the Kansas has found vinyl ch loride in rural wells. Also found in well in Missouri.So if your are using well water have it checked out.I'm still trying to find out about health concerns over use of CPVC pipe. Ill keep you all posted. GeneL.
*Rob Susz. don't know if you got my answer befor it was lsot because of the latest crash.#1. Yes. But I later stopped tying the top plates on the lower level by extending the 2nd floor plywood over them. #2. This would seem to be the case. How could any air get through all that cellulose? But unfortunately the conventional wiring leaks. In the first Leger House we had a vestibule, air-lock on the north side of the house. Received wisdom said they were necessary. But as I later found out they are not, as far as saving energy is concerned.Anyway part of the kitchen north wall was "ïn" the vestibule. The wall was 8 inches thick, and the outer 2x4 wall was sprayed with cellulose amd the inner wall filled with dry cellulose. The exterior sheathing was DOW styrofoam, and this was covered with gypsum board.I broke my own rule by installing a multiple switch box in this part of the north wall. While the house was being blower-door tested I felt air coming through the openings in the swith box cover plate. I never again broke my rules and kept all electrical boxes and wiring out of exterior walls.Of course the NEC code must be followed.So one surface mounts the GFCI and runs plastic conduit. I think one has to ask if cellulose seals as well as some claim, is Icynene necessary? I've done a few hybrids: PUR foam/blown cellulose. The R-value of Icynene is not that great, and it is expensive.So one assumes that you want the foam for sealing purposes rather than nay claimed R-value? He's a tip to try. Buy several rolls of plastic sill sealer.(By the bye. Don't use this stuff under the sill plate. Seal the sill plate with EPDM gasket). Now cut it to the width of a stud 1-1/2-inches and install it over every stud as well as over the top plates and sole plates, BEFORE:-] you install the sheathing.This will give you an excellent seal.Placing the outer wall down on the sill plate breaks the thermal bridge between the platform and the stud wall. The bridge between the stud wall sole plate and the sill plate can be broken with plastic seal sealer or thin fan fold. There is no connection between the external wall and the band joist. The 4-inch indent of the platform leaves a 1-inch space between the outer wall and the band joist RFBI is unnecessary as the band joist is sealed and insulated as the same time as the wall is insulated. You don't even think about it. That is its beauty.Prospective framers are taken to dinner--McDonalds? and the whole process of this "radical"framing explained. By showing them what's in it for them you avoid "we need more money." Have electrician give you an estimate for conventional wiring and then explain to him that there will be no wiring in exterior walls or in ceiling belwo the attic. Tell plumber and HVAC people about no plumbing and ductwork in exterior walls and ceiling below the attic.Wall board contractors are also taken to Wendy's. You explain about sheet rock clips, floating corners in exterior walls and at the junction of ceiling and walls.Less screwing, the quicker they get on to the next house.Explain about coming back because of the partitions. But tell them the time they save not having to fit ceiling below attic rock arounb partitions.For me there is more satisfaction in this approach than there will ever be in the received wisdom way of framing. This is a thinking man's house.But, and this is a big BUT, once you have mastered the technique both in your head and in your gut, you no longert think about it. It becomes second nature. Gene L. You don't need SIPS to build a tight energy efficient house. Do not do a SIP for those reasons. Do it because its cheaper than stick building...maybe?
*Gene,I have problem understanding how you wire the ceiling light fixtures,I have a hard time visualizing how you do it .Do you seal the box with some kind of foam ??? I don't understand the term "ceiling below attic" (100%of my experince has been with trusses). I understand you rock the ceiling 1st and then install partitions. thankx
*Any know health concerns in regard to PEX?Jerry
*
Gene,
I'm very sorry to do this, but I didn't get a chance to read your last post before the crash. This is the first time I've had a moment to peek at the board since last week sometime. So what levels of Vinyl Chloride and where. Kansas is a kind of big state (ok, not like CA or TX). Actually, I'll go find the issue myself, but others might also be interested. We are in town so on town water (for whatever THATS worth these days). Matter of fact, I'm within walking distance of one of the last great small town downtowns. You know, the kind that the new urbanists are trying to recreate...
Hubby is a chemist so we keep a fairly close eye on water and whatnot, and we have no CPVC in the house. Copper and cast iron and some strait PVC DWV. I am also interested in using PEX for the kitchen remodel coming up in a year or so.
I'll check back later to see what's up.
Swamped in the drylands, Lisa
*
Steve. Ceiling below the attic is the attic floor. I iuse this term rather than having to say, in a one story house it is the ceiling, and in a two story house it is the second floor ceiling.
The ceiling below the attic is rocked before the partitions are installed. In a two story house the first floor ceiling is rocked after the partitions are up.
Ceiling lights can be handled in a number of ways; Swags, soffits, wall mounted rather than ceiling mounted, tracks. Penetrastion of the ceiling air retarder is to be avoiced. You must work with the buyer to arrive at an acceptable solution to either eliminates wiring in the ceiling belwo the attic or minimise the penetrations. Any penetrations must be carefullu sealed. I hope this helps GeneL
*Lisa. We just got about 3-inchesd of light snow. i can live with that.While discussing my new stud wall with a structueral engineer, i descrbed how the 1st Leger House was framed. (By the Bye. It has no structural sheathing on the exterior. RFBI--DOW styrofoam over studs.However, the double layers of gypsum board offset that somewhat. Even the ICBO code,UBC,allows for a small contribution from the sheetrock.) He said it was a structural engineer's nightmare. But it and the many other houses I built have withstood the often dangerously high winds. Indeed, I recently spoke to the owners of a house I designed and built using my new stud wall. This house was insul;ated with structural grade PUR foam. He told of high winds tearing off roofing and siding from his neighbors houses. But claims he never felt even a tremble from the winds.His walls are framed with 2x3s, 24-inches oc.If I wre building with a double wall it would be merely amatter of say reinforcing every 3 feet.This inteferes not with the thermal break bnecause the bracing is surrounded with insulation.We leave a space between the end of the 2x3 bracing and the esterior sheathing. Of course with RFBI on the exterior this is unnecessary. If using RFBI I'd brace each side of the corners with full 4'x 8'sheets of structural Thermoply. and add a sheet of thermoply every 25 lineal feet. Not that this is a seismic requirement.You ask "Do you need to use full size framing for both walls in a 2 story house?" I'm not certainI understand your question.Vergessen sie nicht,remember, the inner wall is load bearing in two story houses. I've never done bay or bow windows in a double wall house. but have done them in houses using the stgered stud wall.NOTE. Patrick suggests that the staggered stud wall is acrually a double wall. Gene L.
*Gene,When you say 2x3, 24" OC, do you mean 24" OC from one stud on the inside face of the wall to the next stud on the inside face (meaning there is really only 12" to the closest stud on the outside face of the wall?) Or do you mean 24" from one stud on the inside face to the closest stud on the outside face?Also, What does the PUR in PUR foam stand for?Steve
*Steve. The outer 2x4 studs are 24-inches oc. The inner wall 2x4s are also 24-inches oc., but offset so they fall between the outer wall studs.See diagram below.[ [ [ [ [ outer wall studs. [ [ ] ] inner wall studs.PUR is poly urethane foam. GeneL
*Thanks Gene.I just got your book in the mail today and have been devouring it.Steve
*
Gene;
What density of foam do you use?
I remember insulation quality foam starting around 3 lbs/ft^3. I've used structural foam that was around 12 lbs / ft^3.
I always appreciated the fact it blew (expanded) with CO2 propellant. Polyisocyanurate & styrene are not people nor ozone friendly.
Cheers; JE
*
JohnE. The PUR I used was less than 3pcf. I use a type of framing with 2x3s that structural engineers claim will not work with dense pack insulation. But that is not the reason I used PUR. And I have done a few houses with this 2x3 wall and densepack cellulose. The houses have been standing for 7 years now and have not falllen to high winds.
SOMEBODY HAD SOMETHING TO GAIN BY BANNING FREON.
A writer named Karen T. Litfin wrote abook about the meeting in Montreal 1n 1987 that led to the Montreal Protocol, and the agreed uppon phasing out of CFCs. Her book is entitled _Ozone_ Discourses_. She says, She says almost no scientists "advocated the virtual ban on CFCs that was promoted by the U.S. delegation." Not everybody believes the ozone depletion theory.
There is a Latin phrase Cui bono? Who profits? Somebody had something to gain by th ban. GeneL.
*Lisa. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment sampled over 120 drinking water supplies during the summer of 1998. EPA's region 7 which oversees Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa is involved in the testing. Here's a toll free number for EPA'a Robert Morby 800-223-0425. It does not work in New Hampshire.If you have more question I did not answer let me know. GeneL.
*Not to be wise, Gene, but everyone had something to gain by banning freon. My bet is that the Freon (is it a trademark for CFC?) & refrigeration manufacturers had plenty of clout. Scientists (and it is hard to find two who agree exactly on anything -- believe me, I've tried to order pizza with these people) may not have said a complete ban was necessary, but apparently the Americans policymakers decided a ban was the only feasible approach. One can argue whether the CFC ozone-depletion theory is valid, but I don't see evidence of an invisible hand in this.Have you heard the recent talk about global warming from CO2 buildup? And I thought CO2 was benign and friendly. I hope they're NOT right -- we stopped CFCs but ban all "burning" in the world???. And then there is all those flatulent cows we'd have to feed Bean-O.But I digress.
*
Gene, et al;
Somewhere in the late 1980's, I sat next to a chemist on a plane. We talked on many things including the CFC ban. He was part of the community that believes (believed) water treatment is the largest source of free chlorine radicals in the atmosphere. Free chlorine radicals is the blamed ozone eaters.
IMHO, it is a cumulative affair. The burning of fossil fuels dumps all the CO2 into the atmosphere that has been stored for millions of years. The industrial revolution has released many unnatural compounds to atmosphere. Smelting sites used TALL stacks not for the draft effect, but to send the @#$% into the next county or country. (Reactive) CFCs were an easier target because there is economically feasible alternatives. Water treatment facilities are usually government operated. Even if chloride was banned from industrial use the government would probably grant itself an exeption for the next millenium.
Who's the winner if we all lose?
Cheers; JohnE
*
I guess Gene's conspiracy theory was what sparked my interest. I read an interesting summary of the ozone/CFC debate -- in accord with what I already believed -- at http://www.sciam.com/1197issue/1197profile.html Proof of the theory came surprisingly late in the game. The phase-in of the ban over some 20-30 years allows a great deal of time to explore alternative blowing agents.
... also in the current issue of Scientific American is celebration of your beloved topic, water bonding http://www.sciam.com/
Freddy, I must complement you for promoting the only 100% recycled insulation product on the market. You are a conservationist! Oops, you said conservatIVE. Not that anyone seems to care about conservation in an age of SUVs and 90¢ gas.
*Andrew. Freon is a trademark of DuPont. Fred's statement, "The effect of banning CFC's on the human race is entirely negative so far. Maybe the balance will change over time, but as far as I can see into the future, this ban makes no sense.", seems to suggest that not every one benefits. There is a discussion group on dej a news--sci-energy, re: CFCs. As one or more of the disscusants state, " there are still a lot of climatologists who have severe (and unanswered) doubts about it... It's been explained how CFCs "might"affect ozone, but it's nothing like a sure thing." De novo, CUI BONO? GeneL.
*Andrew. Go to Idaho Observer's web page and read a very fascinating article on a safe and inexpensive CFC replacement. Idaho Observer is a monthly newspaper? GeneL.
*If you folks want to really explore conspiracy theories why don't you look into the present panic over asbestos and it's seemingly lethal effect from being in it's mere presence.Gene - I scanned your book last night ( just got it) and I wasn't fully satisified in my quest for knowledge on your staggered stud wall. I have made sveral sketches of how I would do certain interconnections, top & bottom plates, rafter connections, etc. But I was hoping there would be more of this in your book. In previous posts you mentioned pictures and videos. Is it possible you could reproduce these for me (and probably others) for a fee. Or better yet, what state are you in? Can I buy some of your time and perhaps a walkthrough of one of these houses in progress?-Rob
*Rob. on a number of recent posts i've made it clear why the staggered stud wall was not included in my book. When I was given the job of revising the book, I was told that it needed only a 20 percent revision. After readinmg 700-800 pages of the original I said it needs a complete revision.But a pissing contest ensued between Macmillan and their agent, through whom I worked, and the complete revision was out. As it was I had to cut out lots of illustrationshun. Had I been allowed to complete the revision the book would have been 1000 pages.Send me ytour fax number and I'll send you some sketches. In my 2x3 staggered stud wall(SSW) there are no 2x6s framing the window or doors openings.I currently have no houses under construction. And even I I did have units under construction you would not see a SSW, b ecause I abandonded the SSW because it does not work in two story houses.I now use the new LEGER STUD WALL. I was recently involved in a project in Leominster, Massachusetts that would have used my new stud wall but that never happened. The project was built conventionally with 2x4 studs/i-inch RFBI in preference to 2x6s. Sorry you did not find what you were looking for. GeneL.
*Gene,I might have missed it but explain all the details of a Leger stud wall.Not fond of standard 2x,Jack : )
*Joe, sorry to bore you with all of the pathetic questions. You do realize that the more answers you find, the more questions it will generate. This is a fact of science - chaos theory perhaps.I think what I was hoping was that Gene could "Teach" us a thing or two. But I guess you propose the best method would be to duplicate Gene's lifetime of effort and go out discover the same thing? This is not exactly efficient technology transfer. I am intersted in learning, and Gene appears to be intersted in teaching, I have offered to pay him for his time, is there something wrong with this situation? I have built several buildings both on my own, and as a CM. I did things I thought were innovative but they are old hat to people on this site. I usually referr to this as "reinventing the wheel." Since I was a child I have always had great innovative ideas that I never fully told anyone about or explored, unfortunatley my parents were not able to recognize their importance. There have been three results (keeping this general) First, A new product is "invented" that I conceived of when I was eight years old; Second, Someone else takes my idea and gets credit for it (I don't particularly care); and third I share this idea with someone else (after years have gone by) and it immediately inspires them to have a profound thought, take it to the next level, or otherwise improve upon it. What am I getting at? Unless you document and share your ideas you will never get credit for them, never make money from them, and thirdly and most importantly the ideas will never get improved, refined, and implemented. Gene appears willing to share his ideas, and I am willing to have a discourse and try to better them. I may not have nailed in thousands of pounds of nails thus far in life, but I probably will, and wouldn't it benefit us all if they are nailed in the right way, in the right places, and for the right reasons? In my quest for efficiency in the most important of my resources - time - I try to gather as much info as I can in the shortest amount of time possible. I am fully capable of designing and building experiments but they are awfully time consuming and there is always some risk involved.In my area no one has built anything like this, so without hard data or proof or experience with these structures (my experience or the experince of others) I probably will not be able to be truly innovative in my next project. I guess I would say that Gene's construction techniques now have a "track record" that lends itself to easier acceptance in other parts of the country.I have bought Gene's book and I am not even slightly disappointed with it. I have learned alot, and remembered even more in the three chapters I have read. I have several hundred books relating to all aspects of science, construction, machine design, hydraulics, pneumatics, etc. Gene's book does a very good job combining building science, pure science, and construction practice. But , as he has said himself, it was a compromise with regard to innovative wall framing.So Joe, how do you determine which families you will experiment with when you build their house.-Robp.s. - I have edited this twice now, I am officially done ranting.
*Okay - I missed the cutoff for the third edit.Ultimately I would like to have a discourse with Gene about his ideas, mull them over, try to improve them, but ultimately I WANT TO IMPLEMENT THEM....PROBABLY THIS YEAR.Any profound thoughts or gained knowledge we have die with us when we die; unless we share them with others. Ultimately it is to the detriment of society to not share them. Can't do much with 'em when we are dead - kind of like money, only more precious.O.K. - Officially done for the day-Rob(Your basic dullard)
*Hi Joe,I for one am very grateful that Gene spends his time here and suffers us fools gladly. Were he to spend less time, I would certainly understand, as we are all busy people, but I don't see the point in trying to discourage his good will.Amazed,Steve
*Bill Conner. Here is what you said Fred said: " Fred claims (and I agree) that the dense pack cellulose in the walls eliminates the need for the poly vapor retarder." Have I missed your comments on this? As you'll recall i wrote an extensive reply to this based on Harold Orr's 1985 report on cellulose insulated--no VDR--houses. Fred did not say, as I incorrectly stated, that DP is a VDR.I stand--or sit--corrected and tnx for bringing this to my attention. GeneL.
*Steve, Rob, Fusco, et al. I am flattered and most grateful for the positive response from you to "my" book. My only regret with the book is that I was not allowed to do a 100 percent revision. Then you would have all the diagrams and explanations of much of the stuff I mention on this and other pages.. the Leger Wall excepted..I apologise if I misled anyone into thinking they would find, in my book, all the information and schematics on the double wall and the 2x3 staggered stud wall (SSW). The new Leger Wall is a result of the SSW not working in two story houses.It could be made to work if we chose to hang the 2nd floor floor joists from the studs.But this defeats the reason for putting the outer wall down on the sill plate. My modified form of balloon framing breaks the highly condutcive connections of classic balloon framing and the conductive path of the wall platform connection in platform framing. To hang the joist would be contrary to my modification. Some five or more houses have been built with the new Leger Wall. However, in all cases the insulation was structural grade sprayed-in polyurethane (PUR) foam.Ceilings were blown with DP cellulose. The PUR was necessary for many reasons one of which was that the studs were framed in the weak direction.(A stud has two directions: the weak direction; the wide face, and the strong direction: the narrow direction or face)Research conducted by NAHB Research Foundation for the Society for the Plastics Industries(SPI) found that PUR of the proper density has structural capacity. Our structural engineer agreed and said that with PUR and the studs in the weak direction we did not need his services.Several years ago I was asked to write the program for a Low Energy Homes project.Because the insulation was to be dp cellulose the stud wall was submitted to a structural firm for analysis. The engineers found that the wall filled with cellulose would not work with the studs in the weak direction. But it would work with the studs in the strong direction. That engineering cost several thousand dollars. Patent protection is under consideration. I hope this clears up any confusion I may have caused. And again thank you for your support. GeneL.
*Gene -- where do you stand on TJI walls?Cf. Ron Schroeder
*Just guessing...so...He stands....back....and admires them?Real time poster,Jack : )
*In a post dated Sept.24/98 in reply to "Blown in Insulation" posted by Bill Lynch, Fred writes " The insulation itself will block convective wall wetting and provide massive additional moisture storage capacity (the diaper effect). This is all very good for the durability of the walls." Is this not saying that dp is a VDR? Or are we going to split hairs on what a VDR is, formerly known as a Vapour Barrier, then an Air Vapour Barrier. Acknowleding that the change in name/terminology was brought about by the theory that poly wasn't functioning as a "barrier".I have not had the time to scour the archives to find the quotes that I think are there that would back up my earlier comments when I queried some perceived contradictions in Fred's science. I'm sure there are others, like myself, who read these posts carefully, take them at face value, and then are left scratching there heads days or weeks later when the "thinking" gets modified a little. Which isn't to suggest that the "thinking" shouldn't get modified, far from it, but it should be heralded as such!!!I'm not likely to have the time in a month of Sundays to find any other contradictory quotes, and I have no desire to start a witch hunt, or sit back and snipe at anyone, so please don't get your shorts in a knot.The truth be out there along with the dragons.-Patrick
*Patrick - I kind of understand your confusion. As I understand and believe it to be, any solid material will block air - drywall, plaster, plywood, etc. Stopping the air stops 80% (or is it 95%?) of the moisture - convective wall wetting. Dense packed cells will function as well as plaster, etc. for this purpose.But, all of these materials allow moisture to diffuse through them. Their "permeance" (perm rating?) is not low - they are not waterproof.Thus, the poly - which is to stop both convective (air) moisture transfer as well as difussion could be replaced by a solid material which would stop the convective portion.I agree the various terms used for the poly did not help to clarify the situation. Or to answere your question, no, Fred did not say the cellulose is a vdr. He did say a vdr is not necessary because it accounts for a small fraction of the moisture.The bonus is it also stops convective heat loss as well as conductive heat lost.
*Hi Patrick,Yes, what Fred says is that DP cells stop *convective* wetting. That is to say, moisture carried into the wall cavity by air movement, not diffusion of water vapor.Cells are an effective air barrier, not a vapor diffusion retarder.In one of Fred's other posts he said something to the effect that walls get 90 percent of their moisture content from moisture laden air infiltrating the walls and 10 from diffusion of water vapor through the wall. The Cells don't stop the diffusion. Drywall on sheetrock is what is left to do that job. Or poly if you wish, but Fred also advises against poly saying that it slows the drying of walls, which he says occurs largely via diffusion.Sounds reasonable to me.Steve
*SteveOnce again we are being confused by changing terminology for the same installed item. My original post, and the one by Fred that I was questioning seem to have been lost in the last Breaktime meltdown, which is most unfortunate. Because of this I had decided for the time being not to pursue it, but because Bill questioned my observation, and then Gene sort of backed up my observation by using a quote from Bill, which Bill took exception to. . . I posted again.Call it a Vapour Barrier, Air Vapour Barrier or VDR, it is still the same ITEM, in this case poly in between d/wall & insul. be it in a wall or in a ceiling. Forget the argument about whether it does its intended job for the moment!!! I was questioning a contradiction in Freds thesis. He now says that dp cells allow moisture through and that he "depends on it". This is a contradiction of earlier statements that quite clearly stated that it did not let moisture through (read the quote in my post above 44.1). We all now know, I think, that Convection is much more damaging than Diffusion because Convection lets significantly more moisture through. If drywall functions as a Diffusion Retarder, what stops convection? In earlier posts Fred quite clearly stated that cells performed this function. For the purpose of this discussion I don't much care about the small amount of moisture caused by diffusion I do care about Convection, and I care even more about whether dp cells can stop it or not!!! I also know that an exterior Air Barrier is an integral item. I have come to an understanding of this issue by reading between the lines, god help anyone not willing to study what 'isn't written' by those "in the know".diffusivelyPatrick
*Patrick,DP...b Dense Pack.......cels......b Stops the convection along with the painted drywall...b Dense.. more dense/less convective.....verses...b less dense/more convective.b Just Jack...Scratchin....the bed calls.
*Patrick - I don't believe I ever said nor do I beleive Fred has said that dp cells is a "VDR". I said to Gene "Fred claims (and I agree) that the dense pack cellulose in the walls eliminates the need for the poly vapor retarder." Note, I'm not saying cells "is" a vdr - only that it seems to eliminate the need for one.I also don't believe that a vdr is the same thing as an air barrier, though the poly might do both in some designs.
*Hi Patrick,Geez, the limits of this whole discussion board thing are frustrating sometimes. Wouldn't it be great to have a party sometime and all be able to talk face to face over a bunch of Brewery Ommegang Belgian Ale?>>If drywall functions as a Diffusion Retarder, what stops convection? In earlier posts Fred quite clearly stated that cells performed this function.<<I don't really know who said what to whom or when. I too am just trying to piece together an intuitive understanding of the whole process. It's my understanding that the DP Cells effectively stop air movement 1)into and 2)within the wall by packing themselves together so tightly and packing themselves into every crack and crevice in the wall as well, thereby sealing any electrical boxes, nail holes, misfit drywall, etc. Though the cells themselves don't function as a VDR, they ought to eliminate the need for a VDR beyond the painted drywall, since you've eliminated 90% of the moisture getting into the wall, and what moisture gets into the wall is diffused throughout the entire wall rather than being carried around and through the hydrophobic FG on convective currents only to condense out on the colder surfaces.Further it is my understanding that since the only way this wall can now dry is via diffusion, (since no air can move through it) you are better off not going to any effort to slow diffusion to either side, so that the wall can dry more rapidly during times of non moisture-loading conditions on either side of the wall.Now I'm off to tip a glass or two ;-)Steve
*Steve,I think you're b floundering "dead on" thru this mind encumbering shredded newsprint topic.b As if all the little letters suddenly landed back in sequence...Jack : )
*Gentlemen. We are making progress. And since we all seem to want to get it right a few suggestions are appropriate.The 1985 ASHRAE--do we all know what this is?-Handbook of Fundamentals is the last time that handbook used the term barrier. Also note too that the model building codes have changed over to retarder.This change over has caused no end of confusion. The change was brought about because after years and years of being told that the major culprit in moisture movements was diffusion,and the way to stop it was with a vapor barrier, Canadian Building Scientists finally found out that it is moving moisture laden air that is the culprit.If we "stop" the moving air we "stop" the moisture. And they also discovered that we really cannot "stop" this movement. WE can only retard, slow down, control the movement. Ah, but very, very few materials can stop moving air or moisture.So we best call the majority of materials retarders, and carefully use the polysemous word barrier with steel, some plastics, glass. It has long been argued that plywood is a vapor barrier(sic) and when applied to the exterior studs it is a vapor barrier on the wrong side.And since we have a poly vapor barrier(sic) already on the inside of the wall it will rot away. There are many out there who still believe this.But it has not happened. We now know that the permeability of plywood is humidity dependent.As the relative humidity increases the perm rating of plywood increases. And so it goes with many other materials such as the Kraft facing on FG batts, and other materials we have long called air/vapor barriers. Did you know for example that you can breathe through a concrete masonry block? This is not to say that a single mateial cannot serve as both an air retarder and a diffusion retarder.See the 4th paragraph on page 435 and continuing on to page 346, of my book _Complete _Building_Construction, 4th Edition for more information on this topic. Patrick says, "Acknowleding that the change in name/terminology was brought about by the theory that poly wasn't functioning as a "barrier". I believe the above discussion negates this, Patrick, or am I again misreading you? GeneL.
*Thanks to all for one of the finest threads I've read to date. I thought it was going to get lost at 43, I'm glad you all stayed on track. I think it's one of the more important, yet under-appreciated and misunderstood facets of construction. I'm truly apppreciative for the exchange of words.
*FredAs usual I'm neither looking to "dismiss the technology", nor "hunt for contradictions", what a petty occupation that would be. Words are all we have on this forum,(except for Fusco's graphics) and some of us, surely not just me, not only read and understand but also remember. You do your readers a great diservice by stating that it couldn't "matter less" if you make a few mistakes (with words). How do you propose to remedy the ailments of "polybattventism" by being so cavalier. I suspect that you don't really believe that and I must admit that it never occured to me that some one as zealous as you would make those sorts of mistakes. Unlike others on this forum your writings are usually quite lucid. I will remember your last paragraph in post 47 and keep it ever handy when reading your future discourses!! It is a shame, though, that you didn't choose to address the apparent contradiction that I spoke of.GeneI don't follow your final point about the preceeding discoure negating my opoint.Disfractiously-Patrick
*BillI think that what you cells salesmen mean, but aren't clearly stating is that dp cells acts as a convection barrier but allow diffusion. By this definition cells ISN'T a VDR nor does it ELIMINATE the need for one, the drywall performs that necessary function. This lack of a clear, concise statement leads to all sorts of misconceptions, and misunderstanding. It's too bad that merely questioning the details ( which couldn't be more important despite Fred's dismissiveness) causes all kinds of personal angst.Resolutely-Patrick
*SteveWell said. If I had read your post before replying to Bill's above I could have saved myself some typing time. I have understood the meat of your discourse for some time now and was merely responding to a contradiction voiced by the Guru of cells, which he now blows off as a simple mistake in wording.C'est la mot-PatrickOmmegang Belgian Ale, eh?
*Patrick, above you wrote:"In a post dated Sept.24/98 in reply to "Blown in Insulation" posted by Bill Lynch, Fred writes " The insulation itself will block convective wall wetting and provide massive additional moisture storage capacity (the diaper effect). This is all very good for the durability of the walls." Is this not saying that dp is a VDR?"How is that any less clear than what you now write:"...that dp cells acts as a convection barrier but allow diffusion."So yes, if it stops convective wall wetting you could say its a convection barrier, but I believe trying to label components rather than address function and performance is what brought us here in the first place.Your emphasis repeating that cells are not a VDR is perplexing since I just stated that.As far as the need for a vdr I believe a wall insulated with dp cells will last a long time allowing moisture to diffuse through it; since fibreglass doesn't block any transfer of moisture - and actually hastens the wetting of adjacent building components - an impermeable or permanance membrane may help.As far as selling cells - I don't make any money at all from participating in this discussion. I'm in favor of better building performance - maybe it will help keep my 6 and 8 yr old boys from ever having to go to war to protect the oil reserves. I'd like that.
*I have to make a few statements1 - I am growing increasingly afraid of hitting the "all msgs" button in this thread2 - Even printing this out and diagramming it like a footbal play didn't help with the confusion3 - regional lingo appears to be an issueFor these reasons I would like to make a suggestion. Can people like Gene, Fred, et. al. start a topic called "preferred thermal and moisture protection system." (Did I quote the AIA category or what?) In this thred these people could state their OPINIONS & BELIEFS as to what would be the best wall or roof system to build, or their preferred method for retrofitting.For example - DON'T QUOTE MEFred L - New Wall - drywall, poly, 2x6's with DP cells, 1/2 cdx. Roof, drywall, poly, no penetrations, 3 1/2" minimum of DP cels, 5/8 T&G CDX, 15# felt, shingles, no vent.Then explain the function of each. Additionally perhaps add options like rigid foam board, foil faced ISO board, non-foil faced ISO board, is plywood or OSB a vapor barrier? Perhaps add a glossary to define terms used. Also, state your beliefs on using alternate systems such as structural foams, icynene, etc. Fiberglass should probably not even be mentioned. Also maybe include "special considerations" such as metal roofing, rubber roofing, fiberglass roofing, vinyl siding, adjacent construction. This way when naming actual products regional jargon gets eliminated.I realize I am asking you folks to publish a small book, though this thread takes half a ream of paper with less than astounding clarity. I for one will offer to compenstae you folks for your time. Remember these would only be opinions & beliefs. Though there are perhaps some obvious facts. Perhaps address the theoretical vs. the installed performance. I promise to not be argumentative, in fact I vow to not even post.-RobMaybe this could condense 120 replys down to 20 or so
*Andrew D. When I firstheard of Rick Schwolsky's 1980? superinnsulated condominium? project in Vermont using 2x10s or 2x12s I said, "Good grief, why does he not do his homework?"I am opposed to the use of 2x10s, 2z12's or their TJI substitutes in exterior walls.Yes, I know the Swedes for years have used an I joist as a wall stud.My opposition is not based on what I believe, but on cost analysis done by Dave Eyre and his group while planning the Saskatchewan Conservation House.More insulation = higher R-value= deeper walls. Since Fg is the dominant insulation if one wants an R-38 wall one need a 12-inch deep wall. But before we get into this, consider what happens with deeper walls. Deeper walls mean less interior room. The Akransas House designers recognized this and called for 2x3 partitions to make up for the room lost to the 2x6 studs. A given house width and lenght is decreased- with a 12-inch wall-by approximately 1-1/2 feet. Or the width and length must be increasee by 1-1/2 feet to keep the original floor area. This increase will cost thousands of dollars extra. As I noted in my post on 2x6 walls, the Saskatchewan Conservation House designers did not just decide to use a double wall. They analyzed 17 different wall combinations: single stud walls, double walls, and with the walls various combinations of insulation, exterior sheathing and so on. They graphed the results and founbd that for an insulation R-value of R-35 the wall costs increased linearly with depth.Thus the double wall was the least expensive way to achieve that R-value. But with single stud walls the costs followed a 2.5 power law. In other words with 2x12 studs forget it.Thus in a single stud wall especially with TJIs you have a tripple whammy:(1) the lost or increased space; (2)the high cost of TJIs;(3)the thermal bridging.I have argued for years that we need better walls not deeper walls. My own analysis led me to disagreeing with the Canadians about the double wall and to a modified single wall and sprayed-in PUR foam. The Swedes all may have abandoned the I joists stud wall and replaced it with what they call the RW lightweight stud, and the Kartro stud. The Kartro stud appears to be composed of 2x2s which are spaced apart the required distance. The space is then filled with rigid? ugh, fiberglass insulation. I'll keep you posted as I receive more details. GeneL.
*To admit my own silliness, I was fantasizing about TJI's for their predictable straightness, after a recent sweaty joist-shaving experience (unlike Jim Lewis I did have an electric planer). I like accurate planes (as a pilot and amateur carpenter).Does your preference for a modest variation on the standard 2x4 wall suggest that one should pile as much rigid foam on the outside as practical? I still can't picture how one attaches siding to 2" RFBI without 16d nails or 3" screws! Yet I have a certain yearning for the cool fortress-like bearing of the Southwestern adobe houses.Please do keep me/us posted. I certainly know a great deal more than when I started. Much of this makes solid intuitive sense, research aside; I'd like to see more field examples, for which FredL has been invaluable. Now if Gene could just scan in a few sketches... But how much free help can one provide?!? Where is the Complete Building Construction? (Hey, did ya know you can do genuine underscores with [u], where [=<. Just took a shot in the dark, it works.)
*FredYour site has really hit home for others I have sent there. Pictures like these are just another example of findings and facts prevailing over advertising crap. Adding those 12" batts did absolutely nothing right? What percentage of homeowners leaving home depot with their attic blankets strapped to the roof of their 45 mpg Honda realize any benefit from them?-RobP.S. - What's your opinion of sprayed polyurethane foam in the attic of the second picture?
*I thought it was clear in my statement. Why would I argue with Gene in this area when I am admittedly unarmed?-Rob
*Yep, You're right. I am superior to any mere mortal.-RobP.S.Discourse: noun 1) Conversation 2) formal, orderly, and extended expression of thought on a subject.Argue: verb 1)to give reasons for or against something 2) to contend in words: dispute 3) debate 4)to persuade by giving reasonsThough they are synonyms I'll stick with discourse due to the intellectual and generally pleasant connotation (number 2 in the definition especially). To me argue has a negative connotation associated with it (i.e. dispute). If you want to argue that's fine, but it does take two, and I won't be one.
*Hi Patrick,Brewery Ommegang is a microbrewery that's just outside of Cooperstown. They sell Ommegang Belgian Ale and an even better swill called Hennepin Ale.It might even give your very fine Canadian beverages a run for the money!Steve
*andrew d. No I do not advocate 2-inches of RFBI on the exterior. Indeed, this is what is wrong with the Scandanavian strapped wall. It is so conductive because of the 2x2s or 2x3s strapped horizontally to the vetical 2x6 studs, that one is forced to add 2-inches of RFBI to the exterior.My point with the 2x4 wall was that one need not use 2x6s to get high R wall. GeneL.
*GeneWhy would they strap horizontally behind the RFIB and not on top of it. . . on the exterior? Surely sandwiching RFIB between would cut out the thermal bridging ie: Exterior finish siding/strapping/RFIB/framing/. . .etc? i Confused (it's a state of mind)-Patrick
*Doesn't anyone just build HOUSES anymore? This joint is starting to sound like Mission Control."Roger, all systems go for the RFBI crosshatch to the EFIS toenail EPDM countermeasure IE OSB fraglemas FG in the ICF. Proceed"
*Andrewi "Just building houses"got toooo friggin' boring man,everyone else was jumpin on the acronym bypass so we thought we'd get a little too.Speakin' of joints have you got any???-Patrick
*A-ha! Illegal drugs! That explains it.Yeah, the cars are following the same trend that leaves me understanding no more than the gas goes in here, the oil here, and the key here. I get confused when the "check engine" light comes on. I check, it's there, the light doesn't go out. Go figure.
*Hey JoeWhile I've noticed some jerking knees, and some cultural smears, a few redneck grunts and some burning ears, I've never noticed "stuffy". . . we're too well ventilated for that.Must be that hole in attic we haven't sealed up yet. Now Huffy? We do get a lot of huffy!!!On the subject of illegal drugs, I was just lookin' fer some joints, ya know? The kind for joinin' that ABC to some PBX, I got some plumbin' to do. . . maybe it's a cultural thing!?Chilin' down in Ontario-Patrick
*Who me? I was kidding, I guess I forgot to tack in a smiley :)
*
Greetings,
This is my first posting in Breaktime. So far I've found the discussions very interesting.
I like opinions / reactions to the following wall section for a house project.:
1/2" drywall,, 2x2 horizontal crossstraping on 24" centers, 1 1/2" rigid foam board, 6mil VB, 2x4 studs on 16" centers, full depth foamed in place polyurethane, 3/4" sheathing (plywood or OSB), 3/4" rigid foam board, felt and 3/4" stucco (real portland cement).
This is for a house in west central Wisconsin.
Thanks for your help.
Rich Palmer
PS: By the way, I am an architect so have pity and be kind with comments on anything glaringly ignorant. :-)
*
Rich,
Build this,
1/2" drywall with plate gaskets and 2 stud corners and no-break wall intersections, 2x4 or 2x6 studs on 16" or 24" centers, dense pack cellulose, stucco system drain plane, 3/4" rigid foam board, 3/4" stucco system of your choice done to manufacturers specs and comforming with the latest known details to arise out of the mid-East coast Stucco disaster area.
Thats all I'll add and refer you to Building Science Corporation...
Less is more,
Jack : )
*
Jack,
Thanks for the response. I checked out the Building Science Co web site. Good info. Do you know the rationale for keeping all the insulation on basement walls inside the wall? I have seen systems that put the rigid on the outside of a poured or block basement wall to keep more thermal mass potential in the building. Any comments?
Thanks,
Rich
*
Patrick. Sorry for the confusion. In the Scandanavian strapped wall the strapping is nailed to the interior face of the exterior studs not on the exterior.
ANDREW D. In 1977 Leger's third law stated. "Someday soon, I hope, when we build houses correctly, there will ne no double wall houses or double envelope hpouses or strapped wall houses or active/passive solar houses. There will only be houses." GeneL.
*Rich Palmer. Some of us placed the RFBI on the exterior of the foundation to act as a buffer between the earth and the foundation wall, not to keep the mass of the concrete "inside." In a correctly designed and built house there are no large temperature swings or overheating, which require extra mass to handle. This is the main difference between heavily insulated air-tight housee and solar houses. GeneL.
*
Gene,
Thanks for the comment. Do you have any comments on the proposed wall section I left in my previous message (#53)?
Rich Palmer
*Fred,Thanks for the comment. Very good point about bug highways. I hate bugs! Richever read any robert heinlein?
*
Gene
Re your comment
i " In a correctly designed and built house there are no large temperature swings or overheating, which require extra mass to handle."
Surely in an older house, that wasn't "correctly designed" the extra mass of the concrete foundation would be a big help.
Also, upon perusing the
i "Building Science"
website I was surprised to see Joe Lstiburek (whom you have mentioned to us as a source of good info.) promoting the use of some details that you vehemently disagree with: 2x6 framing,& attic ventilation,as well as other details such as EPS (beadboard) instead of poly against interior basement walls. He also seems to be using f/g as insulation (along with exterior XPS) judging by the symbols on the detail drawings and the text on R values between studs???
-Patrick
*
Any opinions about icynene insulation?
Rich Palmer
*
Rich Palmer. I fully agree with FredL. the fear of lawsuits was the main reason for my no longer using RFBI on exterior of foundation walls. Fortunately I never had any problems, but why tempt termite god?
Unfortunately, one is not totally safe even with interior insulation. Suggest you read the article, "Insect Infestations in Buried Foam,"published in the October 1998 issue of the Journal of Light Construction.
Then wall section your described in your #53 message is, frankly, unnecessary overkill. It measures 9-1/4 inches deep, has an R-value of approximately of R-40, and is very expensive and labour intensive. The width and length of the house must be either reduced or increased to accomodate this wall. That adds housands of dollars to the selling price.
Using the 2x3 staggered stud wall with 1x6 full width rough sawn plates gives an R-28 with DP cellulose and the 3/4-inch RFBI on the exterior. With Icyene you'd have approximately R-29.25. With sprayed in PUR the R-value is 47.25. Clearly, if DP cellulose seals as well as claimed then it is the choice rather than Icyene. Do you need an R-47 wall, and can you justify the cost?
Oh yes, the 2x4 strapping is unnecessary when one uses SMW(surface mounted wiring).GeneL.
As for Icyene. the Small R-value difference between it and cellulose, plus the cost of Icyene gives one cause to pause.
*
Gene,
Thanks for the comment on that proposed wall section. No I don't need an R47 wall but I am curious what you think or know about air quality issues when using sprayed in PUR.
Rich Palmer
*
Rich Palmer. I fully agree with FredL. the fear of lawsuits was the main reason for my no longer using RFBI on exterior of foundation walls. Fortunately I never had any problems, but why tempt termite god?
Unfortunately, one is not totally safe even with interior insulation. Suggest you read the article, "Insect Infestations in Buried Foam,"published in the October 1998 issue of the Journal of Light Construction.
Then wall section your described in your #53 message is, frankly, unnecessary overkill. It measures 9-1/4 inches deep, has an R-value of approximately of R-40, and is very expensive and labour intensive. The width and length of the house must be either reduced or increased to accomodate this wall. That adds housands of dollars to the selling price.
Using the 2x3 staggered stud wall with 1x6 full width rough sawn plates gives an R-28 with DP cellulose and the 3/4-inch RFBI on the exterior. With Icyene you'd have approximately R-29.25. With sprayed in PUR the R-value is 47.25. Clearly, if DP cellulose seals as well as claimed then it is the choice rather than Icyene. Do you need an R-47 wall, and can you justify the cost?
Oh yes, the 2x4 strapping is unnecessary when one uses SMW(surface mounted wiring).GeneL.
As for Icyene. the Small R-value difference between it and cellulose, plus the cost of Icyene gives one cause to pause.
*Patrick. Whenever I start a sentence with "In a correctly designed and built house..." I mean that certain thing need not be present to make the house work. Yes, they must be present in houses otherwise designed and built. By the bye. I've neve seen or visited Lstiburek's web site. In fact I didn't know he had one.I have all of his books including those that go back to the 1980s.I can't speak for him except to say that he writes for the average builder...whatever that is or means. That this is the case is seen in that he gets no more radical in framing than the Arkansas House techniques(which he does not acknowledge), and which many builders vehemently disagree with. It is obvious from the responses and questions on this web site that his arguments (as well as FredL's and mine)are too much for many on this web page: where the VDR goes depends on the climate your are in. Do not ventilate attics or crawl spaces in hot humid regions including the northern part of the country, and so on.Yes, one does wonder why if he knows the small difference between the 2x6 R-19 and the 2x4 R-11 walls, he does not recommend the 2x4 with RFBI as the better less expensive way to go? As you read him notice that he argues that whatever you do do it correctly, not the way it always been done. Not that he's totally dismissive of the old ways. We get into to trouble when we ignorantly dismiss water shedding techniques, for example, that have withstood the test of centuries. And wwe get in trouble when we do not understand why some of the old ways are no longer appropriate, and often never were correct. the trouble continues when we do not understand whay certoin things are done. too many of us know the How but not the WHY. Consider his using expanded polystyrene (EPS)bneadboard on inmterior of foundation walls. Why EPS instead of Poly? How does the foundation rid itself of moisture if it is not allowed to dry out because it is surrounded with impermeable materials? There are times whenpermeable EPS makes good sense. Some food for thought. GeneL.
*asimov not heinlein. The latter bites, haven't read the former since I was a kid.
*
Fred,
No, nothing as cerebral as Asimov's Foundation trilogy and follow on books.
The reference was to Heinlein's Starship Troopers,
the book not the recent movie.
Rich
*
Gene, here's a question about foam. It must offset LOTS of other things, and save a lot of lumber for the wall to be only "slightly" more expensive. I have spoken to two foam contractors recently about my roof. One was local, one was large operation in another city. Prices $3.76 psf for 3 1/2" sprayed-in-place; $2.79 psf for 2" skim coat. Both were 2# foam. This was for 900 sf total. As is obvious from pricing above, the price per inch tapers off with depth. Does the tremendous increase in S.F. help that greatly? I guess the question is what do you end up paying psf for foam-in-place?
-Rob
*Well, perhaps "bites" is a little strong. I was disappointed when I tried to slog through "Stranger in a Strange Land."The best of Asimov was "I, Robot". When I was in grade school I worked through the library science fiction shelf alphabetically -- Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke. Then something else drew my interest. The reader reviews of Clarke's hack "3001" were hilarious -- talk about a falling star.Is this chatter within Sean's mandatory topic "Heating, Insulating and Venting a House"? (And should be spelled out, Sean. Plus only a lawyer would insist on the awkward second comma -- yes it can make a big difference in law!) Let's see, books are made out of paper, which is used to make cellulose insulation, and paper is made from wood, which used to be used to heat houses, and ... if you wave a book really fast in front of your attic gable vent, the vent might actually do some good.
*Rich. Te danger of PUR is during spraying and is harmful to installers. With proper protective clothing there should be no problem. I'm not aware of any health problems--but then there is always some one sensitive to something--from installed and covered PUR foam.I've used it for 20 years.. By the Bye. There is now a soy oil based--as opposed to a petroleum based-PUR foam.GeneL.
*Rob. for years I paid $3.65 sf for 5-1/2 inches of sprayed-in PUR. The last time Iused it I paid bwtween $4 and $5 ps for 6 inches of PUR. I paid only for the actual amount of foam by telling installer that the wall framing was no less than 20 percent of the wall area. GeneL.
*Pentane blowing agent? CFC/FFC's? I think a petroleum-based gas would contribute to smog? Fire?Just what multiple of cost is PUR relative to cellulose or Fiberglas® or XPS/EPS, taking into account the R-value per inch? (I.e., 3" of PUR = 4" of the others.)
*Price multiple for, say R-19? (And you're fast on the keyboard!)
*The 2" skim coat is R14 at $2.78 psf (rochester, NY), the 3 1/2" is R24 at $3.76. Extrapolate to find R19=2.71 inches @ 3.24 psf. For comparison sake, 2.7" felt paper faced polyiso board (R20)is 62.5 cents psf material cost only. Obviously foamed in place is a different animal but per R-value this is apples to apples. 2" Extruded Polystyrene board is R10 at 60 cents psf material cost.-Rob
*Ouch. I imagine cellulose would be even cheaper -- let's see, it was about $4 for 4 cubic feet, about 16 sf @ 3.5", so about 25¢ per sf, maybe 50¢ installed? But that's R-13, equivalent to the 2" "skim coat." So 5x cost factor?
*My RS means book from 1994 says 1.56 psf for 3 1/2" cellulose. That's the regionally non-adjusted number. I can't get local cels contractor to call me back, but when he does I'll tell you.-Rob
*
It's interesting that folks here who use fibreglass have to insulate roofs to R30 or R40 to stop roof ice and others can get away with R20 in cels to the same effect. I wonder what was used in the example houses that energy codes are based on - does anybody know?