Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


widget @ surfing-waves.com




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
     
    Folks, you have seriously trashed this thread!
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
     
    Sorry Tony:shamed:
    • CommentAuthorSaint
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014 edited
     
    Yes but on the up side we now have the NSA and CIA reading the GBF......and watching which web pages we browse...just like Amazon :bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014 edited
     
    Got the raw video from here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsP-Gt52P2A

    and extracted the frames of the wing going over the building (learning a bit about some handy tools in the process). You have to zoom in a bit at which point it get blurry but it's pretty clearly a compression artifact. One frame is clear, then it's over the edge and there's a weird distortion, then it's right over but the frame-to-frame compression hasn't caught up with the subtle shading change but there are little "sparkles" showing it's trying to represent some change then finally the wing becomes properly visible.
    • CommentAuthoratomicbisf
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
     
    Posted By: Nick ParsonsAtomicBISF wrote: ''As for the blobbing, isn't there a case that methods that are inherently prone to shoddy short cuts should be prohibited?''

    Tony's suggestion is that it *was* 'prohibited' -or at least contrary to NHBC guidance - at the time it was built. The problem is that either no-one is looking, or they are not prepared, if they do spot 'blob and dob' to insist that it be ripped off.

    And FT, I agree that it *may* not be an issue with EWI, particularly if you ''.....make sure each air cavity behind the EPS is no more than 1m2 (about 2 EWI blocks), dividing up by continuous ribbons of adhesive, with dots in between.'', but then in my view, that's not really dot and dab.

    Nick


    Hi, I meant maybe plaster boarding masonry walls should be prohibited, as specifying exactly the adhesive pattern should be to prevent air movement behind is unrealistic and unlikely to be adhered to.

    Ed
  1.  
    Yes, I think you are probably right, but isn't it ridiculous that we can't trust builders to do sensible things right? I bet the culprits could mess up hard plaster too.
    • CommentAuthorTriassic
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
     
    What we need is a gun applied tub of adhesive that is as cheap as the bag stuff, only then would it be applied right. Just imagine if you could apply a good inch square bead of adhesive round the edges of the wall and in horizontal and vertical stripes. Everyone would be using it and the plaster board tent would be a thing of the past.

    But it's never going to happen as the whole building materials and house construction is another conspiracy in which profits are maximised and product and build quality is minimised.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2014
     
    Sorry - but it was fun
    • CommentAuthorGaryB
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertomSorry - but it was fun

    Tom - thanks to you I've spent most of the weekend researching both sides of the 9/11 story, like you starting from a position of disbelief and having been deeply moved when we visited Ground Zero during construction of the memorial. Ironically, I have also been to Pearl Harbor.

    I'm now a conspiracy theorist...
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: GaryBI'm now a conspiracy theorist...
    Sorry to hear that. Now the original purpose of this thread has faded away I've just “unwhispered” a couple of posts to Tom on the subject.
  2.  
    Maybe put the airtight plane outside the structural wall, as REMOTE does for timber walls?
    That seems good as then one could drill, route etc the interior to one's heart's content. Interior trades could concentrate on their concerns and on finish.
    I'm not sure how one would achieve that with masonry though.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2014
     
    Well yea but then what about the vapour barrier?
    • CommentAuthorSimon Still
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: Ed DaviesGot the raw video from here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsP-Gt52P2A" rel="nofollow" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsP-Gt52P2A

    and extracted the frames of the wing going over the building (learning a bit about some handy tools in the process). You have to zoom in a bit at which point it get blurry but it's pretty clearly a compression artifact. One frame is clear, then it's over the edge and there's a weird distortion, then it's right over but the frame-to-frame compression hasn't caught up with the subtle shading change but there are little "sparkles" showing it's trying to represent some change then finally the wing becomes properly visible.
      http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5151" alt="1-before.jpg" >
      http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5152" alt="2-on.jpg" >
      http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5153" alt="3-sparkles.jpg" >
      http:///forum114/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=5154" alt="4-wing.jpg" >


    Sorry to take this back off topic but I'm Ed is spot on here. Pretty sure this is amateur handheld video, Low resolution, heavily zoomed (digital zoom at that distance?). The in camera compression will be pretty aggressive (that's what separates broadcast quality cameras from amatuer). It will have been re-encoded on broadcast which will have added further distortions. That YouTube vid claims to be RAW (suggesting it's an upload of the original footage rather than off air) but YouTube itself re-encodes, normally aggressively. The whole clip is covered in compression artefacts - look at the blocking on the building side when the camera zooms out (and the way the smoke moves - smoke is notoriously difficult both to generate in computer graphics and to encode)
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2014 edited
     
    Posted By: passivhausfanput the airtight plane outside the structural wall
    more 9/11 stuff?!
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2014
     
    Posted By: Ed DaviesI've just “unwhispered” a couple of posts to Tom
    And so have I, my reply.
    • CommentAuthorRick_M
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2014
     
    Posted By: TriassicWhat we need is a gun applied tub of adhesive that is as cheap as the bag stuff


    I remember reading on this forum someone doing this already... Was it Mike George, using a repointing gun?
    • CommentAuthorMike George
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2014 edited
     
    Hmm. Don't think so. Though I think a pointing gun would work well :) Some EWI guys I've seen use an icing bag for the perimeter band.

    My method ive used in the past for IWI here http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=1070&page=1
    • CommentAuthorSeret
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2014
     
    Posted By: Ed Davies1) Nobody I know of suggests that the aircraft cut through the steel structure. Quite the contrary, the steel cut through the aircraft atomizing the fuel - hence the immediate large fire/explosion. See the aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon (there's no room for doubt there) where large parts of the aircraft were shredded and just disappeared into the building.


    Having attended a few crashes of jet aircraft I can confirm that there's not much left of them afterwards if they go in hard. Generally the only sizeable chunks of anything left are the guts of the engines. The rest of the aircraft turns into little chunks of twisted aluminium. They basically just vanish when they hit anything solid.

    I've also worked with explosives, and the idea that the Twin Towers were pre-wired with demolition charges without any of the thousands of occupants noticing is just ludicrous. Absolute fantasy, dreamed up by people that don't have the first idea what they're talking about.

    The only 9/11 conspiracy story that I've heard that's remotely plausible is that the yanks shot down the fourth aircraft.
  3.  
    Posted By: Seret
    Posted By: Ed Davies1) Nobody I know of suggests that the aircraft cut through the steel structure. Quite the contrary, the steel cut through the aircraft atomizing the fuel - hence the immediate large fire/explosion. See the aircraft which crashed into the Pentagon (there's no room for doubt there) where large parts of the aircraft were shredded and just disappeared into the building.


    Having attended a few crashes of jet aircraft I can confirm that there's not much left of them afterwards if they go in hard. Generally the only sizeable chunks of anything left are the guts of the engines. The rest of the aircraft turns into little chunks of twisted aluminium. They basically just vanish when they hit anything solid.

    I've also worked with explosives, and the idea that the Twin Towers were pre-wired with demolition charges without any of the thousands of occupants noticing is just ludicrous. Absolute fantasy, dreamed up by people that don't have the first idea what they're talking about.


    Classic Dunning-Kruger effect ;)

    Ed
    • CommentAuthorSeret
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2014
     
    Spot on Ed. The problem is that they actively ignore anything from people who are qualified, because they're "part of the conspiracy". Doomed to ignorance, basically.
    • CommentAuthordb8000
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2014
     
    Not heard of Dunning-Kruger until now. As I'm probably an incompetent psychologist, I'll take their word for it.

    It would be interesting to do a Dunning-Kruger effect study on the results of GBF members' building works.

    Certainly my ability to estimate how long works will take is classed as incompetent. And I'm wrong every time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2014
     
    Natures little equaliser.

    I learnt about it as part of my teacher training, most of us live in fear of being 'caught out'. :cool:
    • CommentAuthordb8000
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2014
     
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press