OT: Chimney Brace (To Do or Not to Do)

[Edward Lee]

There is a house in S. Ca with chimney separating from the house for
around half an inch. We are debating whether to adjust and brace it
to the house frame with 1/4" thick, 1-1/2" wide steel bars.

Pro: Minimize vibrations, separations and damages to weather seal.

Con: During earth quake, chimney and house would not be able to move
separately.
Counter Con: Not much we can do to stop quake damages anyway.

What are your opinions?

[John Larkin]

Is it brick? It will disassemble in a good quake. Ours did in '89.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

[Edward Lee]

On Jun 5, 1:44 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:41:26 -0700 (PDT), Edward Lee
>

> <edward.ming....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There is a house in S. Ca with chimney separating from the house for
> >around half an inch.  We are debating whether to adjust and brace it
> >to the house frame with 1/4" thick, 1-1/2" wide steel bars.
>
> >Pro: Minimize vibrations, separations and damages to weather seal.
>
> >Con: During earth quake, chimney and house would not be able to move
> >separately.
> >Counter Con: Not much we can do to stop quake damages anyway.
>
> >What are your opinions?
>
> Is it brick? It will disassemble in a good quake. Ours did in '89.

Yes, it is. But at least it will look better until then. The weather
seal won't hold without stopping the separations.

[Joerg]

Strapping a brick chimney to a wood frame house in order to hold it?
Hopefully that won't result in some frame twisting, where suddenly a
bathroom window becomes sticky, then some door won't open anymore, et
cetera.

My gut feel is that the chimney foundation is not alright or maybe you
had some water damage down in there. Probably needs to be shored up.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Edward Lee]

On Jun 5, 1:57 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Edward Lee wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 1:44 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:41:26 -0700 (PDT), Edward Lee
>
> >> <edward.ming....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> There is a house in S. Ca with chimney separating from the house for
> >>> around half an inch.  We are debating whether to adjust and brace it
> >>> to the house frame with 1/4" thick, 1-1/2" wide steel bars.
> >>> Pro: Minimize vibrations, separations and damages to weather seal.
> >>> Con: During earth quake, chimney and house would not be able to move
> >>> separately.
> >>> Counter Con: Not much we can do to stop quake damages anyway.
> >>> What are your opinions?
> >> Is it brick? It will disassemble in a good quake. Ours did in '89.
>
> > Yes, it is.  But at least it will look better until then.  The weather
> > seal won't hold without stopping the separations.
>
> Strapping a brick chimney to a wood frame house in order to hold it?

Or strapping a wood frame house to a brick chimney.

> Hopefully that won't result in some frame twisting, where suddenly a
> bathroom window becomes sticky, then some door won't open anymore, et
> cetera.
>
> My gut feel is that the chimney foundation is not alright or maybe you
> had some water damage down in there. Probably needs to be shored up.

The chimney seems OK. Perhaps the house is settling a bit. Anyway,
we just need to minimize the separations.

[Joerg]

Edward Lee wrote:
> On Jun 5, 1:57 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Edward Lee wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 1:44 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:41:26 -0700 (PDT), Edward Lee
>>>> <edward.ming....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> There is a house in S. Ca with chimney separating from the house for
>>>>> around half an inch. We are debating whether to adjust and brace it
>>>>> to the house frame with 1/4" thick, 1-1/2" wide steel bars.
>>>>> Pro: Minimize vibrations, separations and damages to weather seal.
>>>>> Con: During earth quake, chimney and house would not be able to move
>>>>> separately.
>>>>> Counter Con: Not much we can do to stop quake damages anyway.
>>>>> What are your opinions?
>>>> Is it brick? It will disassemble in a good quake. Ours did in '89.
>>> Yes, it is. But at least it will look better until then. The weather
>>> seal won't hold without stopping the separations.
>> Strapping a brick chimney to a wood frame house in order to hold it?
>
> Or strapping a wood frame house to a brick chimney.
>

Then one sunny day ...

http://www.elistmania.com/images/articles/305/Medium/800px_india_truck_overload.jpg

>> Hopefully that won't result in some frame twisting, where suddenly a
>> bathroom window becomes sticky, then some door won't open anymore, et
>> cetera.
>>
>> My gut feel is that the chimney foundation is not alright or maybe you
>> had some water damage down in there. Probably needs to be shored up.
>

> The chimney seems OK. Perhaps the house is settling a bit. ...


That should be easy to find out with a plumb-bob :-)

> Anyway, we just need to minimize the separations.

Or fill them in?

[gregz]

I keep thinking roof, but I can't picture the situation without looking at
a picture. One story ?

Greg

[Joerg]

It usually looks like this, but the only real fix I can think of is
foundation repair:

http://carolinafoundationsolutions.com/residential-foundation-repair/leaning-chimney/

The scariest story came from a guy (engineer!) who had his fireplace
along with lots of bricks from the chimney fly out by several inches in
a earthquake out here. "So what did you do?" ... "Oh, I just pushed it
all back in there".

[BeeJ]

Adhesive caulk and aluminium angle flashing.
Get an adhesive caulk that is flexible for small movements.
Take a look at Lexel Caulk (Google).
Lexel seals and sticks Al to anything but is not structural, i.e.
chimney and house are still independent. Lexel even sticks
polycarbonate (Lexan).
Nail and Lexel Al to house and Lexel to chimney.
I have used it and it is still holding after 10 years.

[Edward Lee]

On Jun 5, 4:43 pm, gregz <ze...@comcast.net> wrote:

Two stories. The homeowner opened up the dry wall from the second
floor inside. On one side, we can see a 1/2 inch gap from the
external stucco. The house and/or chimney is leaning side-way. It
might not be a big problem, but the homeowner does not want the
leaning tower next to the house. We are thinking about one brace
attached to the floor joist beam (between the two stories) and one up
high near the roof. Hopefully, we can pull the house and chimney back
into position, or at least stop it from separating further.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:41:26 -0700 (PDT), Edward Lee

<edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

>There is a house in S. Ca with chimney separating from the house for
>around half an inch.

Obviously, it wasn't always like that. So, which moved? The house or
the chimney base? Check with a laser level or plumb line.

The problem is that if you close the gap between the chimney and the
house by brute force, you're likely to either crack the bricks, the
mortar holding the bricks, or tear the house apart.

I helped a friend fix almost exactly the same problem caused by ground
subsidence. In this case, the brick chimney was leaning about 3
degrees away from the house. We excavated two big trenches on either
side of the chimney base, and horizontal drilled under the base on the
side towards the house, using plenty of water. The weight of the
chimney and base closed the gap with the house after about 3 weeks. We
then refilled the holes and used a ground pounder to pack the dirt to
prevent further settling. This is not exactly the standard procedure,
but it worked well enough.

>We are debating whether to adjust and brace it
>to the house frame with 1/4" thick, 1-1/2" wide steel bars.

That will almost surely track the brick or mortar. Brick and mortar
work nicely in compression. However, the bracing will apply tension
which will cause the brick and mortar to separate. Worse, it will do
it at a one point (near the bars), which will create a nifty stress
riser at the point of contact.

>Pro: Minimize vibrations, separations and damages to weather seal.
>
>Con: During earth quake, chimney and house would not be able to move
>separately.
>Counter Con: Not much we can do to stop quake damages anyway.

In 1989, we had a 7.1 quake in the area. I live in the mountains,
where most everyone had a brick or rock chimney for wood heating. On
my hillside, there was exactly one brick chimney left standing. Upon
investigation, I found that the original builder had lined the flue
with a 10" steel pipe with about 1/8" wall thickness. Nothing is
going to bend or break that chimney although it might take a cord of
wood to get it hot enough to draw.

Much of the falling masonry landed on the roofs of the various houses,
causing considerable roof damage. Same with a few vehicles that were
parked next to the chimney. In my never humble opinion, the correct
answer is to NOT use brick. Use Metalbestos or triple wall flue pipe
for the core of the chimney, and then frame it in with wood siding.
Because it is light weight, it won't need much of concrete base. 0.5"
separation in what I guess might be 18ft, implies that you have a
damaged or sinking chimney base, probably due to improper foundation
construction, underground water, or tree roots. You may also have
cracks in your foundation if it's a slab or continuous perimeter block
wall. A plumb line test will tell all. If either or both conditions
are present, then you're looking at reducing the ground loading to
prevent further settling and/or cracking. That means a light weight
chimney which precludes any use of heavy brick.

>What are your opinions?

1. I think you should find out what moved and what is causing things
to move before suggesting solutions.
2. If it really moved 0.5" in 18ft (0.13 degrees), that's
sufficiently bad anything you do to patch it together is not going to
hold. If the base is no longer level, or the plumb line shows that
chimney is continuing to move, I believe professional help might be
useful.
3. Do it right, or you'll surely be doing it over.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[miso]

Settling is way more likely. The other option is to get rid of the
fireplace. Or if you really think you need one, put in a gas fireplace.
They just need a flue pipe. The "chimney" itself is just stucco.

There are a lot of good reasons to get rid of a masonry fireplace.
First, depending where you live, there are spare the air days. You can't
always use your fireplace. Second, burning wood is pollution. Now I have
no problem with a campfire in the boonies, but you can't have a lot of
burning in urban areas. Third, firewood is a common way to bring wood
eating bugs into your house. Fourth, well you already know it. They suck
in earthquakes. Sometimes with fatal results.

I'm not promising this will improve your sex life...but well..
> http://www.ortal-heat-usa.com/
Nobody uses logs anymore. They just have the fire pop up from rocks.
Really very cool.

[Joerg]

miso wrote:
> Settling is way more likely. The other option is to get rid of the
> fireplace. Or if you really think you need one, put in a gas fireplace.
> They just need a flue pipe. The "chimney" itself is just stucco.
>
> There are a lot of good reasons to get rid of a masonry fireplace.
> First, depending where you live, there are spare the air days. You can't

> always use your fireplace. Second, burning wood is pollution. ...


No, it is not. The problem with wood burning is that most people do it
wrong. And instead of educating people the leftists just ban everything.
Not in our county though.

We heat with wood almost exclusively. When the wood stove operates there
is no smoke crawling out of the chimney and the (EPA certified) stove is
under 2 grams of particulate matter per hour even at full bore. In fact,
when cleaning the pellet stove vent I once burned myself on the wood
stove pipe storm cap once. I forgot that it was running and there was no
smell even while standing right next to it on the roof. Environmentally
it is one of the best methods as it is almost carbon neutral. A gas
fireplace is not.


> ... Now I have

> no problem with a campfire in the boonies, but you can't have a lot of
> burning in urban areas. Third, firewood is a common way to bring wood
> eating bugs into your house. Fourth, well you already know it. They suck
> in earthquakes. Sometimes with fatal results.
>

Have you forgotten all the people who died after earthquakes because gas
lines ruptured and the gas ignited?

> I'm not promising this will improve your sex life...but well..
>> http://www.ortal-heat-usa.com/
> Nobody uses logs anymore. They just have the fire pop up from rocks.
> Really very cool.
>

That's for yuppies :-)

A real wood buring stove looks like ours:

http://www.quadrafire.com/Products/3100i-ACC-Wood-Insert.aspx

[Edward Lee]

On Jun 5, 10:04 pm, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> Settling is way more likely. The other option is to get rid of the
> fireplace. Or if you really think you need one, put in a gas fireplace.
> They just need a flue pipe. The "chimney" itself is just stucco.

They don't really use the fireplace, since it never snows (they lie,
it rains) in Southern California. However, they like the look of
brick fireplace and chimney. Perhaps, we can cut a thin layer of
brick for the surface, rather than stucco. I guess we have to tear
down the existing chimney.

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> miso wrote:
> > Settling is way more likely. The other option is to get rid of the
> > fireplace. Or if you really think you need one, put in a gas fireplace.
> > They just need a flue pipe. The "chimney" itself is just stucco.
>
> > There are a lot of good reasons to get rid of a masonry fireplace.
> > First, depending where you live, there are spare the air days. You can't
> > always use your fireplace. Second, burning wood is pollution. ...
>
> No, it is not. The problem with wood burning is that most people do it
> wrong. And instead of educating people the leftists just ban everything.
> Not in our county though.
>
> We heat with wood almost exclusively. When the wood stove operates there
> is no smoke crawling out of the chimney and the (EPA certified) stove is
> under 2 grams of particulate matter per hour even at full bore.

the limit for a euro5 diesel car is 5mg/km ....


-Lasse

[Martin Riddle]

You should calculate the weight of the chimney. Its a lot, I think
Johns right that it might just pull the house with it.

Cheers

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:57:37 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>A real wood buring stove looks like ours:
>http://www.quadrafire.com/Products/3100i-ACC-Wood-Insert.aspx

"Starting at $2,851". Ouch.

You're making me feeling guilty that my 30 year old wood burner
doesn't have a proper afterburner, turbo charger, catalytic converter,
smog certificate, etc. A replacement is on my list of things to buy
after I win the lottery:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/wood-burner.html>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/firewood-2012.html>
Yes, mine belches smoke if I burn a green wood mix or misadjust the
air intake. Otherwise, it's tolerably clean, but nowhere near your
2g/hr. Phase II EPA limits are 7.5 grams of smoke per hour for
noncatalytic stoves and 4.1 grams per hour for catalytic stoves. Mine
is nowhere close to that although it's an improvement over the
abomination that came with the house in about 1973:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/wood-burner.jpg>
I gave it away to someone that's using it as a hot tub water heater.

I just happen to be talking to a realtor on the phone. She guessed
that a gas fireplace will add $10,000 to the value of the house. A
functional wood burner might add a bit more. A cracked chimney or
defective flue pipe will drop the value about $10,000. She also
indicated that it is difficult to sell a house without some manner of
fireplace as buyers usually consider it a mandatory requirement.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Local code is to only use small "L" brackets between the brickwork and
the house and to leave a 1"(?) air gap between the chimney and the
house to prevent burning down the house from fire leaking through
cracks in the masonry or mortar. There's no intention to securely tie
the house to the chimney. The major purpose of the clips is to
prevent the wind from blowing over the chimney. The clips will also
raise the resonant frequency of the chimney in the event of an
earthquake, which hopefully will help prevent total collapse. I don't
recall the requirements for the footer base. As I vaguely recall and
am too lazy to research, if it's a slab foundation, the chimney pad
COULD be part of the main foundation. If it's a continuous perimeter
foundation (inverted T), the chimney footer is probably isolated,
making the chimney almost free standing, except for the wind bracing:

<http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/qa/tying-a-chimney-to-house.aspx>
<http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080708154733AA0XEtX>

[Joerg]

So it spews out the same in as little as 400km. That's not very good,
considering that the particulate matter will be drifting onto sidewalks
with babies in strollers, instead of a rood and backyard like here.
Maybe that is why they have such a hard time getting Diesels certified
in California. I think right now only one Volkswagen TDI engine is.

[Edward Lee]

The clips would prevent movements from breaking the weather seal from
wind and/or small quakes.

> The clips will also
> raise the resonant frequency of the chimney in the event of an
> earthquake, which hopefully will help prevent total collapse.

But it could also cause more damages to the house. However, beyond a
certain victor scale, nothing matter much anyway.

[Joerg]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:57:37 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> A real wood buring stove looks like ours:
>> http://www.quadrafire.com/Products/3100i-ACC-Wood-Insert.aspx
>
> "Starting at $2,851". Ouch.
>

Yeah, that made me cringe as well. In 2000 we paid around $1700. The
government numbers about inflation are deceptive, the real number is
much higher.

> You're making me feeling guilty that my 30 year old wood burner
> doesn't have a proper afterburner, turbo charger, catalytic converter,
> smog certificate, etc. A replacement is on my list of things to buy
> after I win the lottery:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/wood-burner.html>

Eeeuw ...


> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/firewood-2012.html>


Nice job! And keeps you in shape. I've always wondered why them
flatlanders need gym memberships :-)

> Yes, mine belches smoke if I burn a green wood mix or misadjust the
> air intake. Otherwise, it's tolerably clean, but nowhere near your
> 2g/hr. Phase II EPA limits are 7.5 grams of smoke per hour for
> noncatalytic stoves and 4.1 grams per hour for catalytic stoves. Mine
> is nowhere close to that although it's an improvement over the
> abomination that came with the house in about 1973:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/wood-burner.jpg>
> I gave it away to someone that's using it as a hot tub water heater.
>

That would probably count as a gross polluter. But is is almost an antique.

> I just happen to be talking to a realtor on the phone. She guessed

> that a gas fireplace will add $10,000 to the value of the house. ...


I very much doubt that. Maybe she is married to a guy who just happens
to run a stove shop :-)


> ... A

> functional wood burner might add a bit more. A cracked chimney or
> defective flue pipe will drop the value about $10,000. She also
> indicated that it is difficult to sell a house without some manner of
> fireplace as buyers usually consider it a mandatory requirement.
>

I also doubt that. Most city folk who move up here to retire don't have
the foggiest about this stuff. Until the first propane bill shows up.

But yeah, a damaged chimney will depress the value of the house. Like
anything else damaged would. Then it would be better not to even have a
chimney in the first place.

[Joerg]

Here is a low cost solution: Rip it all out, install a flat panel
monitor, put brick veneer around it, and then let it play this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFPfeuiLAWU

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On Jun 7, 12:12 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

but your wood burner puts out as much in one hour as a car doing 400km
and
you do it all day and night at least part of the year that is a lot of
cars

They did some air samples here and the typical residential area with
many wood stoves there was many more particulates than in the the city
where there is lots
of cars busses etc.

Though there is some discussion on whether the particles from modern
diesels are more dangerous because they are smaller

Diesel and California is probably more to do with NOx that causes smog
Since diesels run excess air they cannot use a three way catalyst to
reduce NOx

-Lasse

[Joerg]

However, the little Diesel car cannot heat a large house with office and
lab. A serious wood stove operations looks like here in our driveway :-)

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/images/splitter.JPG
http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/images/firewood07.JPG

> They did some air samples here and the typical residential area with
> many wood stoves there was many more particulates than in the the city
> where there is lots
> of cars busses etc.
>

Don't get me wrong but so far all the European wood stoves I have seen
were not exactly engineering marvels. They had no afterburning systems
and no catalytic converters.

Also, as I said before, the vast majority of people do not know how to
operate a wood stove properly. Older people are especially bad on
average. I know many who claim to be "experience wood burners" who then
throw in one lone log at night. Needless to say, that will start to
smolder and produce stinky crawling smoke the minute the other logs have
burned down. Even people with cardiopulmonary issues do that no matter
how often you tell them that they'll ruin their own lungs. They simply
don't get it.

> Though there is some discussion on whether the particles from modern
> diesels are more dangerous because they are smaller
>
> Diesel and California is probably more to do with NOx that causes smog
> Since diesels run excess air they cannot use a three way catalyst to
> reduce NOx
>

That is one problem, but also the soot is a major issue.

[gregz]

I think like, it might be the only source of heat in a meltdown.

Greg

[P E Schoen]

"Edward Lee" wrote in message
news:23b1ec77-2220-4ce1...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

As Jeff suggested, a Metalbestos chimney system would probably be your best
option. I have the original system I purchased and installed in 1977 when I
bought my first house, and then when I bought my neighbor's house in 1989 I
had it removed and re-installed in my present house, where it is still
working fine and I only had to replace the chimney cap when it was damaged.

I have the chimney running inside the house, and the upstairs pipe gets warm
enough to add heat to the bedroom (and a floor grate over the stove brings
hot air up from convection).

Here's my daily exercise during the winter to heat my house, using my
ancient "Englander" wood stove:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ian8QE_sytE

Paul and Muttley

[gregz]

When I look into the gap on my brick house, there are random clips between
the outer sheathing and the bricks. It's amazing how little lateral
strength there is in the brickwork. I also have an afterthought chimney on
the outside of the brick, made from large blocks, and a ceramic like inner
core. That was there when I bought the house. I just don't have a stove,
yet.

Greg

[gregz]

My grandmothers house had four rooms plus outhouse. The four rooms each had
a fireplace at one time. I only saw the kitchen coal stove plus coal
furnace. I remember neighbor using coal in fireplace in that house. They
took baths in the kitchen. It was just black smoke in the air back then. Mt
grandfather would come home black after mining. I was really young then.

Greg

[miso]

I nearly fell over when I saw the measurement units were in GRAMS, not
milligrams. Yikes!

Clean wood burning is like clean coal technology, i.e. fiction!

[miso]

Perhaps fireplaces are mandatory in the Santa Cruz mountains, but they
tend to be a waste of space for most people in...well...civilization.

Why is it that the perfect place for a TV is where the fireplace is
located? Even all those gas fireplaces with the rocks are set up so you
can put a flat panel above it. Not so great though for the TV.

The gas fire pits are way more useful because at night you can actually
use a fire pit outside.
http://homeandhearthoutfitters.com/outdoor-living/firepits/gas-firepits/inspiration-gas-fire-pit-table/

Most people have central heat, so the gas fireplace indoors isn't all
that practical in the great room. It is OK in the master bath where a
few extra BTUs may be useful. They have two sided gas fireplace so you
can heat the bath room and bedroom.

[miso]

It is best not to "faux" anything. The reason they have gas fireplaces
with rocks and other objects rather than fake logs is everyone hates the
fake logs. Like a bad comb-over, a fake log looks fake.

The west was never really a brick house kind of place. We have lot of
stones.
> http://kynsi.com/Library/corral.JPG?1255645617054
OK, more a bit inland than on the coast.

If plain stucco bugs you, you can use stucco-stone. It is so good you
have a hard time telling it from real stone.
> http://aldonchem.com/mt-mfgstone-column.jpg

[Joerg]

Not at all.

I don't believe in global warming but, strangely, our house operates a
lot more CO2-neutral than those of the most vocal protesters. Who simply
flick a li'l switch on the wall thermostat.

[Joerg]

miso wrote:
> Perhaps fireplaces are mandatory in the Santa Cruz mountains, but they
> tend to be a waste of space for most people in...well...civilization.
>
> Why is it that the perfect place for a TV is where the fireplace is

> located? ...


Because many civilized people believe that TV is not the ultimate
achievement of civilization and have something better to do. Like
reading a good book next to a fireplace :-)

[...]

[P E Schoen]

"Joerg" wrote in message news:b1cvim...@mid.individual.net...

> Because many civilized people believe that TV is not the ultimate
> achievement of civilization and have something better to do. Like
> reading a good book next to a fireplace :-)

Exactly. It is the TV that should be optional and rarely used, while the
fireplace (or better, a good woodstove), should be as standard as a kitchen
sink. It is disturbing that we are becoming so dependent upon electronic
entertainment and communication that people are always using their
phone/tablet to take video or listen to music or play games or talk to
people (even in the same room) or watch mind-numbing TV, rather than
engaging in face-to-face conversation or enjoying connectivity to nature and
the non-electronic environment.

Of course it's all designed to use as much bandwidth as possible and thus
maximize revenues, so new devices are essentially always ON and CONNECTED.
http://forums.wpcentral.com/windows-phone-8/217919-data-always-connected-cant-we-just-auto-connect-when-app-requests-data.html

It's a sad, and not so brave, new world...

Paul

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:17:43 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>Perhaps fireplaces are mandatory in the Santa Cruz mountains, but they
>tend to be a waste of space for most people in...well...civilization.

Civilization is not all that it's cranked up to be. I don't have to
do anything to "get away from it all". I live away from it all.

>Why is it that the perfect place for a TV is where the fireplace is
>located? Even all those gas fireplaces with the rocks are set up so you
>can put a flat panel above it. Not so great though for the TV.

It's amazingly common:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=tv+in+fireplace&tbm=isch>
and as you mention, a great way to melt a TV.

>The gas fire pits are way more useful because at night you can actually
>use a fire pit outside.
>http://homeandhearthoutfitters.com/outdoor-living/firepits/gas-firepits/inspiration-gas-fire-pit-table/

We use a 55 gallon drum, with some holes in the bottom to draw some
air in under the fire. Great for an evening barbeque or illegally
burning the slash (tree droppings). If I want to actually cook
something, I have a hibachi and various camp stoves. For parties, I
can borrow a large Weber grill that runs on a propane tank.

>Most people have central heat, so the gas fireplace indoors isn't all
>that practical in the great room. It is OK in the master bath where a
>few extra BTUs may be useful. They have two sided gas fireplace so you
>can heat the bath room and bedroom.

Nice. I previously had some copper and steel tubing running through
the wood burner. I could have powered a steam engine but instead used
it to heat the bathroom through a repurposed brass automobile
radiator. It took a while to get it going, but it sure was cheap. I
kinda miss it.

[Joerg]

Talking about repurposing:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/images/splitter.JPG

Built with a 1939 DeSoto front axle, the steering welded shut, a 1942
army pump engine and a discarded Caterpillar bulldozer piston. "Betsy"
was built by a friend of ours. It would sit under a tarp for a whole
year. Then you'd lay some cord around the motor pulley, set the
carburetor to rich, one pull ... VROOOOM. Oh, and you can't stand behind
the exhaust because that consists of some repurposed water pipe and rust
flakes and stuff will fly out of there with gusto.

She is slow but the most powerful splitter I ever used. It would squish
even the gnarliest piece of wood into a pulp. The engine indicates a
serious knot in the wood by a bang or two.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:15:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Talking about repurposing:
>http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/images/splitter.JPG

(...)

>She is slow but the most powerful splitter I ever used. It would squish
>even the gnarliest piece of wood into a pulp. The engine indicates a
>serious knot in the wood by a bang or two.

Nice. Looks like it's well made. The main support looks like 4"
square pipe reinforced with two 4" C-channels. That's not going to
bend. No pressure gauge or over pressure bypass? You're living
dangerously. I think the pump should have been a little lower, or the
hydraulic reservoir a bit higher, to prevent pumping air when used on
sloping ground.

The big oil filter is nice, especially to deal with the zinc flakes
from the galvanized tank inlet pipe. I would have used schedule 40
black pipe instead. Note that the galvanized pipe is AFTER the
filter, which means that the tank will have some flakes inside.
<http://www.forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=42610.0>
The consensus seems to be to NOT use galvanized pipe.

The steel pipe muffler might be a problem. The problem is that cold
air can flow back through the exhaust pipe, into the cylinder, and
warp the valves on a 4 stroke engine. If it's a 2 stroke, it's not a
problem. Besides reducing noise, the common muffler also pre-heats
the backflow of cold air so that the valves don't cool off to quickly.
I use a neighbors hydraulic splitter from Northern Tool.
<http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200326288_200326288>
It works well but I sometime need something with more power. I prefer
to run it vertically, so that I roll the unsplit logs instead of
lifting them. Every year, I have to fix some hydraulic leaks. I've
also had problems with water in the hydraulic fluid with no obvious
source. I just drain the tank and put in new fluid. I added a 5000
psi pressure gauge.

[Joerg]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:15:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Talking about repurposing:
>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/images/splitter.JPG
> (...)
>> She is slow but the most powerful splitter I ever used. It would squish
>> even the gnarliest piece of wood into a pulp. The engine indicates a
>> serious knot in the wood by a bang or two.
>
> Nice. Looks like it's well made. The main support looks like 4"
> square pipe reinforced with two 4" C-channels. That's not going to
> bend. No pressure gauge or over pressure bypass? You're living
> dangerously. I think the pump should have been a little lower, or the
> hydraulic reservoir a bit higher, to prevent pumping air when used on
> sloping ground.
>
> The big oil filter is nice, especially to deal with the zinc flakes
> from the galvanized tank inlet pipe. I would have used schedule 40
> black pipe instead. Note that the galvanized pipe is AFTER the
> filter, which means that the tank will have some flakes inside.
> <http://www.forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=42610.0>
> The consensus seems to be to NOT use galvanized pipe.
>

Ok, ok, but Betsy was built on a budget out of scrap parts, and has done
her duty for decades.

> The steel pipe muffler might be a problem. The problem is that cold
> air can flow back through the exhaust pipe, into the cylinder, and
> warp the valves on a 4 stroke engine. If it's a 2 stroke, it's not a
> problem. Besides reducing noise, the common muffler also pre-heats
> the backflow of cold air so that the valves don't cool off to quickly.

It's 4-stroke. But I was more worried about rain getting in there should
the cover blow off. The motor ususally started its season with a major
*PHTOOOEI* upon which all accumulated crud flew out of there with gusto.

> I use a neighbors hydraulic splitter from Northern Tool.
> <http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200326288_200326288>

Neat. The guillotine style is much more friendly than Betsy when it
comes to back pain. Also, less chance that a log falls onto your foot.

> It works well but I sometime need something with more power. I prefer
> to run it vertically, so that I roll the unsplit logs instead of
> lifting them. Every year, I have to fix some hydraulic leaks. I've
> also had problems with water in the hydraulic fluid with no obvious
> source. I just drain the tank and put in new fluid. I added a 5000
> psi pressure gauge.
>

Betsy was constantly leaking. This is what the little pot to the right
is for. Gets placed on the log under the axle, and when half full of
hydraulic fluid gets dumped into the tank. That doubles as a timer,
because then it's time for a break. Betsy knows all this stuff :-)

[Edward Lee]

> I helped a friend fix almost exactly the same problem caused by ground
> subsidence.  In this case, the brick chimney was leaning about 3
> degrees away from the house.  We excavated two big trenches on either
> side of the chimney base, and horizontal drilled under the base on the
> side towards the house, using plenty of water.  The weight of the
> chimney and base closed the gap with the house after about 3 weeks. We
> then refilled the holes and used a ground pounder to pack the dirt to
> prevent further settling.  This is not exactly the standard procedure,
> but it worked well enough.

We might try your method with a twist. We figure that the chimney
weight is around 4 to 5 cars equivalence. So, in theory, we should be
able to support it with 4 to 5 tire jacks and pour concrete in, rather
than relying on pounding dirt.

[gregz]

I would check for roots. I had a patio slab I was trying to elevate which I
thought got shifted with roots. I tried a 3 ton jack, but the slab bent
where there was a crack. I figure the slab was a lot more than 3 ton.

Greg

[Jeff Liebermann]

Concrete works best if poured into a form, not into a dirt hole. It's
also considered a really bad idea to apply a load on concrete before
it has cured (about 2 weeks). You might also think about horizontal
rebar as the end of the foundation pad that sticks out beyond the edge
of the chimney bricks experience torsion stresses, which will crack
the slab at the chimney line.

It won't work, no matter how many jacks, fork lifts, or helicopters
you use to lift the chimney. The problem is that all those methods
create TENSION in the brickwork. Brick is good in compression, but
really lousy in tension, especially without any reinforcing rebar or
center pipe. As soon as you try to lift the chimney, it's going to
crack.

However, even if you manage to excavate some dirt from under the
chimney base, you have a precision problem. 0.5" out of 18ft is about
0.13 degrees. How do plan to precisely settle the chimney with that
level of precision, and how do you plan to prevent it from leaning
into the house and destroying the weather seal? Like I previously
mumbled, this thing is going to require some expertise and experience.
One mistake and you lose both the chimney and the house.

You might want to ask your insurance agent if your homeowners
insurance covers such do-it-thyself repairs. Mine requires proof that
the work was done by a licensed contractor before State Farm will pay
on a claim.

Incidentally, you might want to do some reading on the various
proposed solutions for straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa. They
closely parallel your chimney straightening problem. Most of the bad
ideas were variations of tension problems along with stress
concentration (buckling) problems.
<http://floccinaucical.com/2010/07/the-tower-restored/>
<http://www.sott.net/article/212939-Solving-the-800-year-mystery-of-Pisas-Leaning-Tower>
The only methods that had a chance of working were based on
undermining the tower base, and letting it settle into a lower
position. Raising the tower would have broken it.

[Edward Lee]

On Jun 7, 6:37 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 13:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Edward Lee
>

> <edward.ming....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I helped a friend fix almost exactly the same problem caused by ground
> >> subsidence.  In this case, the brick chimney was leaning about 3
> >> degrees away from the house.  We excavated two big trenches on either
> >> side of the chimney base, and horizontal drilled under the base on the
> >> side towards the house, using plenty of water.  The weight of the
> >> chimney and base closed the gap with the house after about 3 weeks. We
> >> then refilled the holes and used a ground pounder to pack the dirt to
> >> prevent further settling.  This is not exactly the standard procedure,
> >> but it worked well enough.
> >We might try your method with a twist.  We figure that the chimney
> >weight is around 4 to 5 cars equivalence.  So, in theory, we should be
> >able to support it with 4 to 5 tire jacks and pour concrete in, rather
> >than relying on pounding dirt.
>
> Concrete works best if poured into a form, not into a dirt hole.  It's
> also considered a really bad idea to apply a load on concrete before
> it has cured (about 2 weeks).

After the final positioning, we will leave the jack in place while the
concrete is curing. Jacks are cheap.

> You might also think about horizontal
> rebar as the end of the foundation pad that sticks out beyond the edge
> of the chimney bricks experience torsion stresses, which will crack
> the slab at the chimney line.
>
> It won't work, no matter how many jacks, fork lifts, or helicopters
> you use to lift the chimney.  The problem is that all those methods
> create TENSION in the brickwork.

It's the same whether you jack up or down (undermining the base),
there will be tension and compression somewhere. As long as we do it
slowly (in weeks or months) with a clear path for the chimney to move,
it should not create too much stress on it.

> Brick is good in compression, but
> really lousy in tension, especially without any reinforcing rebar or
> center pipe.  As soon as you try to lift the chimney, it's going to
> crack.
>
> However, even if you manage to excavate some dirt from under the
> chimney base, you have a precision problem.  0.5" out of 18ft is about
> 0.13 degrees.  How do plan to precisely settle the chimney with that
> level of precision, and how do you plan to prevent it from leaning
> into the house and destroying the weather seal?  Like I previously
> mumbled, this thing is going to require some expertise and experience.

That's why we have the jacks to position it, rather than relying on
the dirt below. It should not move unless we turn the screw (during
adjustments). We can also leave a small gap to make sure it won't
lean on the house.

> One mistake and you lose both the chimney and the house.

I know, that's why we are thinking it loud first.

>
> You might want to ask your insurance agent if your homeowners
> insurance covers such do-it-thyself repairs.  Mine requires proof that
> the work was done by a licensed contractor before State Farm will pay
> on a claim.
>
> Incidentally, you might want to do some reading on the various
> proposed solutions for straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa.  They
> closely parallel your chimney straightening problem.  Most of the bad
> ideas were variations of tension problems along with stress
> concentration (buckling) problems.
> <http://floccinaucical.com/2010/07/the-tower-restored/>

> <http://www.sott.net/article/212939-Solving-the-800-year-mystery-of-Pi...>

> The only methods that had a chance of working were based on
> undermining the tower base, and letting it settle into a lower
> position.  Raising the tower would have broken it.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com

> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[Jasen Betts]

Most tire jacks only lift half a car.

so you plan to lift the chimney off it's foundation redo (or patch?)
the foundation and then set it back in place, that could get exciting if it
rains...

ever hear of expanding concrete? that's what the pro's (underpinners) use.
but you only get one try

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Edward Lee]

... from another post ...

> Why post this to an electronics group?

Because every engineer (including electronics) studies physics and
basic mechanics.

...

> > We might try your method with a twist.  We figure that the chimney
> > weight is around 4 to 5 cars equivalence.  So, in theory, we should be
> > able to support it with 4 to 5 tire jacks and pour concrete in, rather
> > than relying on pounding dirt.
>
> Most tire jacks only lift half a car.

We only need to tilt (try it on Google, very funny) it by 0.2 degree.
Three (1.5 tons jack) on each side.

>
> so you plan to lift the chimney off it's foundation redo (or patch?)

No, just raising one side (with steel beams and jacks) by 1/8" and
lowering the other side by 1/8".