|
Zhentar posted:If you're going for a 1,000 service life, 18" of spaceship insulation isn't a bad choice, per se. You could probably save quite a bit on cost by picking a more practical material that doesn't need to maintain integrity at 3000°F or endure rapid temperature swings of several thousand degrees, though. Foamglas comes to mind (in fact, at a basic level it's pretty similar to spaceship insulation). I wonder if I could get Whipple shield siding somehow... Leperflesh posted:Find a seismically inactive area that doesn't get a lot of rainfall, and then TooMuchAbstraction posted:Carve your house out of a single piece of rock! Though I wouldn't be surprised if many types of rock are also somewhat water-permeable. At least they probably won't rust. I feel like at this point we're out of house territory and into "dwarven fortress" territory atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 14, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
I'd consider putting in a solar heater for a swimming pool but that's a pretty specific use case and isn't cheap to do, unless you want 500+ feet of black garden hose on your roof
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
I wanna build my own solar air heater to supplement heating in my garage, it's a project "for later".
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Oh and we also combine this with an air circulation system that has a heat exchanger to extract heat from outgoing air and heat up incoming air. That's standard stuff in "energy star" or "green" construction around here. Code minimum in my area (which is fairly similar to Finland's climate) is around 400mm & 150mm, respectively, and is what very nearly everything gets built to because the average person thinks of "code" as a high standard to strive for, rather than the absolute lowest quality you're legally allowed to build. In warmer climates, you can also use an "ERV" ventilation system that not only exchanges heat between the incoming and outgoing air streams, but humidity as well, saving energy from dehumidifying air in cooling modes. canyoneer posted:I live in the southwestern US, and solar water heating systems work really well in this climate because we don't freeze. They're on every house in Israel. The big problem with solar water heating is that you can't resell the surplus. Even though you've got high efficiency on paper, you end up wasting a lot of it if you're reasonably efficient with your hot water usage. And with the advent of heat pump water heaters, solar water heating becomes even less compelling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
All of you guys wanting to build houses that last a long time are thinking way too high tech: And those have stood for 5,000 years. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Those were built by aliens, though
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:All of you guys wanting to build houses that last a long time are thinking way too high tech: Yeah, but the roof is clearly going. Give it another 10k years or so and your resale value will be totally shot due to all the deferred maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:All of you guys wanting to build houses that last a long time are thinking way too high tech: Downside: tends to be the death of their owners, to say nothing of the numerous disembowelments. Numerous code and safety issues such as doors that can't be opened, outlet spacing, and insufficient interior lighting. Massive property taxes  And you still have to deal with the methheads digging up a piece to sell for some quick cash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Also, the security system, while elaborate and effective for some time, eventually failed and is a huge liability. Your home insurance is going to be through the roof due to the risk of a wrongful death suit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Yeah, but the roof is clearly going. Give it another 10k years or so and your resale value will be totally shot due to all the deferred maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Yeah, but the roof is clearly going. Give it another 10k years or so and your resale value will be totally shot due to all the deferred maintenance. Yeah, but look at how much acreage you got. It will always be worth something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:Yeah, but look at how much acreage you got. It will always be worth something. Lot setbacks are insufficient 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
kastein posted:Lot setbacks are insufficient Good luck with fining or arresting a mummy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:Yeah, but look at how much acreage you got. It will always be worth something. Not as much as you think 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
On the plus side, there are restaurants close by.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Here's a neat thing I saw today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
The Human Cow posted:Here's a neat thing I saw today. Hmmm, using the wall itself as the wall plate!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Maybe it's actually a switch for a trap door and you hide it behind a painting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
That's the switch for the glory hole auto door opener.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Somebody drywalled over paneling and...just did that to the light switch instead of bringing it out. This was in a laundry room with a dryer that just vented into the inch of space behind the dryer, so it's not even the weirdest thing in the room.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
The Human Cow posted:Somebody drywalled over paneling and...just did that to the light switch instead of bringing it out. This was in a laundry room with a dryer that just vented into the inch of space behind the dryer, so it's not even the weirdest thing in the room. Totally not a fire hazard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Imagine the amount of lint and mold back there. Ughhhhhhh...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
From the OSHA.jpg thread:
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0wuXUMJPdM Totally safe use of forklifts
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Totally safe use of forklifts Proving that you can get good enough at doing something wrong that it almost looks right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:From the OSHA.jpg thread: Daaaaaang. He's missing the fourth ladder. The one that's supposed to hold up the other end that's on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Daaaaaang. Two things: *It's actually not a ladder but a ramp you use for getting an ATV onto a truck, or your dock over the rocks when you pull it out for the year. *Make sure you don't miss the brick holding one foot of the ladder up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
All this needs to be perfect is a second ladder on the first vertically-oriented one so the guy can climb even higher and work on a taller building.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
It's quite impressive how someone can misuse a self-levelling ladder like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
c0ldfuse posted:Two things: I didn't miss it. I just didn't see the need to comment on it since it's so clearly the right way to use that ladder. I am disappointed that's a ramp, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Still working on workshop plans. Since I don't plan on finishing the interior (no drywall), I need an alternate fire barrier. The local building office suggested using a stucco exterior, but from what I've read that's really labor-intensive to install. Does anyone here have a recommendation? The fire barrier would need to be 1-hour rated. A local contractor friend of mine suggested James Hardie products (looks like some kind of cement board system) or DensGlass products (fibreglass gypsum board), but I wasn't able to find fire rating information for either of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Is there a specific reason why you are avoiding drywall? The easiest thing might be to just use drywall. You'd only need to tape it, not float it out and texture it. (So it'd look like a garage) That isn't too difficult to do. Hardie board and such go up just like drywall and have to be taped just like drywall, but hardie board is heavier and harder to cut, and you use fiberglass tape and thinset to do the taping.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Amykinz posted:The easiest thing might be to just use drywall. You'd only need to tape it, not float it out and texture it. (So it'd look like a garage) That isn't too difficult to do. Hardie board and such go up just like drywall and have to be taped just like drywall, but hardie board is heavier and harder to cut, and you use fiberglass tape and thinset to do the taping. And it carries no fire rating. Seriously, 5/8" drywall is the cheapest and easiest way to get 1 hour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Amykinz posted:Is there a specific reason why you are avoiding drywall? Two main reasons to avoid drywall. First is that it covers up the wall cavities inside. Since I'm not planning to put in insulation, those'll be bare by default. This'll make making changes (e.g. if I decide to run a water line, or need to add outlets or something) easier, and also mean I don't have to dick around with a studfinder every time I want to put up some shelves or something. Second reason is that I'd like to have the ceiling be as open as possible. This is partly just because I'm a tall guy and thus like tall ceilings (and I have precisely zero tall ceilings in my house  ), but more importantly, I have a couple of skylights planned that wouldn't be much good if they're covered over by a "proper" ceiling. Yeah, I know you can set up light tunnels and stuff like that, but those would interfere with using the ceiling joists to support storage areas. So basically I'd prefer if the fire rated stuff was on the outside of the building rather than the inside, so long as I can achieve the necessary fire rating. Are fiberglass tape and thinset significantly more difficult to work with than drywall tape and mud? Supporting the weight during installation is a potential issue, though it might be doable with strategic use of temporary shelf supports clamped to the studs or something. I guess that depends on if you can install top-to-bottom or if you have to do bottom-to-top. EDIT: oh, well, if hardie board isn't fire rated, then screw that. Hrm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Are fiberglass tape and thinset significantly more difficult to work with than drywall tape and mud? Yes. Particularly the thinset. TooMuchAbstraction posted:EDIT: oh, well, if hardie board isn't fire rated, then screw that. Hrm. It is dense enough that it transmits too much heat to achieve adequate protection. You need to be looking at certified material manufacturers assemblies. This is how you prove the fire rating using the provided materials......simply applying whatever rated material in whatever manner works for you is not enough. Here is an example: http://www.usgdesignstudio.com/wall-selector.asp Your AHJ will be looking for a document/cut sheet like this if they don't already know and recognize the material and construction type you are proposing, so be ready with one in your plans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:and also mean I don't have to dick around with a studfinder every time I want to put up some shelves or something. A few extra points to make about drywall... 1. If you don't finish or paint the drywall, you'll have all your screws visible but covered with a line of drywall mud. This makes it super easy to locate your studs when you want to hang poo poo. You really don't need much ability to do the first pass on taping if you're not going to texture or paint it. If you can put peanut butter on your own sandwich you can figure out taping. You'll be doing something like this:   2. You could try to drywall above the rafters so you have a 'cathedral ceiling', and then you get your storage space and easy skylight instillation. 3. You can install bottom to top, then you just sit the next sheet on top of the sheet underneath. A drywall lift would make things much easier for you and aren't that expensive to rent. Amykinz fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Amykinz posted:A few extra points to make about drywall... Actual drywall installation doesn't scare me, no. I've done it before; it's a bit tedious but hardly difficult especially if you don't care much about making a smooth final surface. Did you mean applying drywall on the top or underside of the rafters? On top would be a little weird because then it'd go rafters -> drywall -> presumably some plastic sheeting -> plywood -> shingles, and if the drywall ever got water damage you'd have a devil of a time replacing it. On the underside would probably work okay, though I'm unclear on how you'd manage the area around the ties joining the rafters to the top plate and ceiling joists. Is this one of those things where any "holes" in the barrier render it useless, or is it okay to just do a best-effort to cover as much as possible?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Is this one of those things where any "holes" in the barrier render it useless, or is it okay to just do a best-effort to cover as much as possible? If your best effort is seamless mud coverage that completely seals the interface, yes. Painters tape is your friend when doing this with rough hewn beams. It's not at all out of the ordinary. Yes, it's a pain because of all of the cuts and jigsawing it up there, but it's far from unique. FYI, I'm gonna bet you'll need to do this twice. Your AHJ is probably gonna want double 5/8". And the smart way to do that is to stagger the cut ends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Motronic posted:If your best effort is seamless mud coverage that completely seals the interface, yes. Okay, good to know. Thanks. I wasn't planning on using rough-hewn beams (just 2x8x16' ceiling joists, 2x6xsomething rafters). I guess I don't really need the joists to be dimensional though, so there's some opportunity to save a little money there. I assume the reason to do it twice is to make certain that a messy, hard-to-cover area has some degree of redundancy built in? And yeah, if you're doubling something up and then aligning the cuts then you're just wasting a lot of effort. I know at least that much!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I assume the reason to do it twice is to make certain that a messy, hard-to-cover area has some degree of redundancy built in? Not really....it's to get the fire rating. The typical 1 hour fire rating is 5/8" with studs and then 5/8" on the other side. Some inspectors will accept two sheets of 5/8" on one side as an hour rating, because double 5/8" then studs than double 5/8" is an accepted 2 hour rating. But to be hones, in the 5 minutes of searching I've done with google (haven't broken out the actual code books) I can't find anyone who rated double 5/8 on one side as anything. I mean, sure....it's got to be more than an hour, but if you can't come up with something that's been tested and the AHJ doesn't go for it you're pretty much screwed. This is the kind of thing you should ask in advance and in writing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 02:02
|
|