Advice for having concrete floor upstairs
Des McNamara
We should be ready to start building our new dormer house this
June/July.
The contractor has priced us for concrete floors upstairs (wooden
flooring on top).
He says that we may have a problem if we want recessed lights in our
kitchen (downstairs), has anyone done this before, or have any ideas how
to achieve this?.
Also, does have concrete floors mean that we will have difficulty adding
/ changing wiring/cabling at a later stage.
How would the cabling work? (Is it buried in the concrete/ channel cut
out for it or what???)
Any advice at this stage would be a big help.
Thanks
Des.....
Keith Mendum
<eei...@eei.ericsson.se> writes
>Hi All,
>We should be ready to start building our new dormer house this
>June/July.
>The contractor has priced us for concrete floors upstairs (wooden
>flooring on top).
>
>He says that we may have a problem if we want recessed lights in our
>kitchen (downstairs), has anyone done this before, or have any ideas how
>to achieve this?.
>
that you either install a suspended ceiling or use track/surface
fittings.
>Also, does have concrete floors mean that we will have difficulty adding
>/ changing wiring/cabling at a later stage.
>
Yep, it does.
>How would the cabling work? (Is it buried in the concrete/ channel cut
>out for it or what???)
Commercially, trunking is buried in the floor screed. Alternatives
include vertical drops inside partition walls or surface trunking, which
is not pretty in a domestic house. You may be able to find a skirting or
dado trunking which you like, but the cost is high. Tehalit make good
skirting systems, at a price, undoubtedly others are available.
--
Regards,
Keith
Chandler Knowles
depth then you can run whatever you want through the floor assembly
regardless of what you place on top of the floor. You shouldn't need to
bury anything in the concrete. Check to see if adjustments are necessary to
the run of your stairs and the location of the dormers relative to the
second floor.
Des McNamara wrote in message <374B40E5...@eei.ericsson.se>...
>Hi All,
>We should be ready to start building our new dormer house this
>June/July.
>The contractor has priced us for concrete floors upstairs (wooden
>flooring on top).
>
>He says that we may have a problem if we want recessed lights in our
>kitchen (downstairs), has anyone done this before, or have any ideas how
>to achieve this?.
>
>Also, does have concrete floors mean that we will have difficulty adding
>/ changing wiring/cabling at a later stage.
>
>How would the cabling work? (Is it buried in the concrete/ channel cut
>out for it or what???)
>
Richard Faulkner
>flooring on top).
Why are you having concrete flooring and not the normal sort? It seems
to be creating more problems than it's worth.
--
Richard Faulkner
John Plant
upstairs.
--
Regards
John
Chris Shenton
> The contractor has priced us for concrete floors upstairs (wooden
> flooring on top).
>
> He says that we may have a problem if we want recessed lights in our
> kitchen (downstairs), has anyone done this before, or have any ideas how
> to achieve this?.
>
> Also, does have concrete floors mean that we will have difficulty adding
> / changing wiring/cabling at a later stage.
>
> How would the cabling work? (Is it buried in the concrete/ channel cut
> out for it or what???)
Why are you doing concrete floors? I'm interested in them because I
want hydronic radiant slab floors throughout the house. But I have the
same questions as you: how do you run pipes, cabling, etc.
Also wondered what sanded, stained, and sealed concrete would costs
versus sanded, stained, and eurathaned oak floors (around $5 / sq ft if
I install 'em, including 3/4" T&G plywood subfloor).
Richard Faulkner
<j.p...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Should be fantastic. Very quiet and no shaking of ceiling lights as people walk
>upstairs.
Aha!! <g>
--
Richard Faulkner
Be...@doowah.com
expect no problems at all, again assuming a competent concrete man,
who will lay a barrier on the wood floor prior to the pour, preventing
drip hazards.
So long as you are engineered for the added weight, you will have a
very quiet first floor area. Now would be the time to consider radiant
heating for the second floor. I have used both copper lines and rubber
mats tied to a solar recirc system, and found both work well.
News
Try masonite wood comosite beams. They are "I" shaped as in RSJ and have an
amazing length without bounce. They have amazing strength, as much as an
RSJ. many builders are now using these instead of RSJs.
They are about 1 foot high. In the space between the floor, 1 foot of
insulation can be added that will insulated you from sound and keep in heat
in a highly effective way. Pipes and cables can be insalled in the floor
space in the noirmal way. All this will be a lot cheaper than fixing in a
concrete suspended floor.
Think about it and price it up.
Des McNamara <eei...@eei.ericsson.se> wrote in message
news:374B40E5...@eei.ericsson.se...
> Hi All,
> We should be ready to start building our new dormer house this
> June/July.
> The contractor has priced us for concrete floors upstairs (wooden
> flooring on top).
>
> He says that we may have a problem if we want recessed lights in our
> kitchen (downstairs), has anyone done this before, or have any ideas how
> to achieve this?.
>
> Also, does have concrete floors mean that we will have difficulty adding
> / changing wiring/cabling at a later stage.
>
> How would the cabling work? (Is it buried in the concrete/ channel cut
> out for it or what???)
>
Matthew Marks
"News" <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> In the space between the floor, 1 foot of
> insulation can be added that will insulated you from sound and keep in heat
> in a highly effective way.
Heat indeed, but not sound - it is a much lower density than concrete, so will
not block low frequencies very effectively.
--
Matthew @rd.bbc.co.uk My opinions, not Auntie's
For the uk.d-i-y FAQ, goto http://www.axp.mdx.ac.uk/~john49/faq0.htm
Peter Parry
<eei...@eei.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Also, does have concrete floors mean that we will have difficulty adding
>/ changing wiring/cabling at a later stage.
>
>How would the cabling work? (Is it buried in the concrete/ channel cut
>out for it or what???)
>
>Any advice at this stage would be a big help.
The main problem is the antedeluvian thinking of most people
connected with the building industry - many still reckon Noah was a
dangerous revolutionary :-).
Concrete floors are almost universally used on the continent and new
wiring is easier than here because they tend to embed wide trunking
in the floor. You might try asking on one of the Dutch newsgroups
for details of how they do it.
One major advantage is that the floors are very quiet with none of
the squeaky joints architects go to great lengths to design and
builders go to greater lengths to perfect.
--
Peter Parry. 01442 212597 0973 269132 fax 01442 233169
http://www.wppltd.demon.co.uk
News
Matthew Marks <mat...@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ih8v6$s96$1...@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk...
> In article <7ih1ct$bpi$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "News" <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> > In the space between the floor, 1 foot of
> > insulation can be added that will insulated you from sound and keep in
heat
> > in a highly effective way.
>
> Heat indeed, but not sound - it is a much lower density than concrete, so
will
> not block low frequencies very effectively.
Not so! Cellulous insulation will be more effective than concrete.
Rockwool in general (12" of it) will be superior to a conrete floor. A
Masonite beamed floor is far cheaper, with no adverse effects, than
concrete.
Des McNamara
the main reason is because of sound. We intend to have wooden floors
upstairs and work colleagues who have tried to insulate the 'normal' floor
say that it is not effective.
Also, for fire safety reasons.
Instead of stud partitions upstairs we intend to have block walls, again
for sound and privacy!
I know nothing about building, so when the builder pointed out some of the
implications I thought I would seek advice.
Thanks to all who have contributed
Des....
Richard Faulkner wrote:
> In article <374B40E5...@eei.ericsson.se>, Des McNamara
> <eei...@eei.ericsson.se> writes
> >The contractor has priced us for concrete floors upstairs (wooden
> >flooring on top).
>
Matthew Marks
"News" <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> Matthew Marks <mat...@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7ih8v6$s96$1...@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk...
>> Heat indeed, but not sound - it is a much lower density than concrete, so
> will
>> not block low frequencies very effectively.
>
> Not so! Cellulous insulation will be more effective than concrete.
> Rockwool in general (12" of it) will be superior to a conrete floor.
Sorry - I've checked with an acoustics expert here and concrete will provide
far superior insulation (at low frequencies at least - that was my caveat)
than your alternative. If you don't believe me I expect I could get some
sort of figures to back it up.
News
> >> Heat indeed, but not sound - it is a much lower density than concrete,
so
> > will
> >> not block low frequencies very effectively.
> >
> > Not so! Cellulous insulation will be more effective than concrete.
> > Rockwool in general (12" of it) will be superior to a conrete floor.
>
> Sorry - I've checked with an acoustics expert here and concrete will
provide
> far superior insulation (at low frequencies at least - that was my caveat)
> than your alternative. If you don't believe me I expect I could get some
> sort of figures to back it up.
125mm (about 5-6 inches) of concrete floor gives a sound reduction of: 45
dB. A floor with tongue & grooved boards, plasterboard and only 75mm (just
over 3 inches) of insulation will give a sound reduction of: 43 dB. A
masonite bean is 300mm. Fill that with insulation and it will exceed the
concrete.
Also the floor will be much cheaper to install and with far superior heat
insulation (super-insulation), far superior. The masonite floor wins hands
down on the concrete in almost every aspect, including running services in
the void.
There are many different types of insulation, and all have diferent sound
and heat values. Expect to see more masonite beams in use. They haven't
been in this country that long.
News
> intend to have wooden floors
> upstairs and work colleagues who have
> tried to insulate the 'normal' floor
> say that it is not effective.
>
> Also, for fire safety reasons.
In Sweden wooden framed building have a lower insulance rating than brick
built. Wood burning at a highly predictable rate. With a wooden
structure fire is not a big problem.
> Instead of stud partitions upstairs we
> intend to have block walls, again
> for sound and privacy!
Try having a minimum of 200mm of stud wall filled with insulation - at least
a minimum of 8 inches. Cheaper and superior to block in sound - not to
mention the super-insulation.
A 4 inch stud wall filled with insulation (heat & sound) is superior to 4
inch block wall in heat and sound. Make the wall 8 inch, (not that much
more expensive) and the sound insulation is superb.
Try to have split studs (not all one peice), as one peice is a sound bridge
from room to room. Small studs with gaps between, with the odd
strengthener between the two supporting studs.
> I know nothing about building, so
> when the builder pointed out some of the
> implications I thought I would seek advice.
See my posts on wooden composite masonite beams in this thread. Many
builders in this country are still in the 1950s and are not up to the latest
technology.
Personally I would go masonite beams in the floor (300 mm) and 8 inch stud
walls (6 min), all filled with insulation. You will be better off in the
pocket, in heat bills, and full of peace.
Matthew Marks
"News" <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> 125mm (about 5-6 inches) of concrete floor gives a sound reduction of: 45
> dB. A floor with tongue & grooved boards, plasterboard and only 75mm (just
> over 3 inches) of insulation will give a sound reduction of: 43 dB.
At what frequency?
Tony Bryer
> Also the floor will be much cheaper to install and with far superior heat
> insulation (super-insulation), far superior.
Why should better heat insulation be seen as a plus on an intermediate
floor? My own (unproved) thinking is that there is merit in increasing the
thermal mass within dwellings (especially where the lifestyle involves all
day occupancy, like me working from home) so that the temperature
fluctuates less.
Tony Bryer
Dave Plowman
Des McNamara <eei...@eei.ericsson.se> wrote:
> the main reason is because of sound. We intend to have wooden floors
> upstairs and work colleagues who have tried to insulate the
> 'normal' floor say that it is not effective.
You are absolutely right. To insulate against 'bass' frequencies you need
mass. Don't let anyone tell you different; it's the only way.
The day I see a recording studio with studding walls filled with fibre, is
the day I will know different.
Of course, you might still get some structure borne noise; acoustic
isolation is a bit of a black art, which is why there are so many firms
making outrageous claims about their products.
If sound insulation is important to you, I would employ a consultant. For
the same sort of cost as a structural engineer, his advise will give the
best possible results within your budget.
--
___ __
| \ _ / \ __ __ _________________________
| | /\ \ /|_ \__ / \ | | |\ | | \ / dave....@argonet.co.uk
| | /--\ \/ |_ \ \__/ \__/ | \| |__/ / For all those little
|___/ \__/ / sound solutions
__________________________________________/ (Dave Plowman)
John
News wrote in message
<7imf0c$tp1$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
SNIP
> With a wooden structure fire is not a big problem.
Eh! just run that one by me again please
>
>Try having a minimum of 200mm of stud wall filled with
insulation - at least
>a minimum of 8 inches. Cheaper and superior to block
in sound - not to
>mention the super-insulation.
>
>A 4 inch stud wall filled with insulation (heat &
sound) is superior to 4
>inch block wall in heat and sound. Make the wall 8
inch, (not that much
>more expensive) and the sound insulation is superb.
Oh I see - we are back on your hobby horse again are we.
There seem little point in seperating living rooms with
8 inch thick interior walls as it seldom neccessary
owing to the difference in temperature being minimal.
All you succeed in doing is significantly reducing the
effective volume of the interior space
>
SNIP
>Many builders in this country are still in the 1950s
and are not up to the latest
>technology.
This sounds very familiar territory since your last
campaign on heating controls. What are you a one man
crusade?
>
>Personally I would go masonite beams in the floor (300
mm) and 8 inch stud
>walls (6 min), all filled with insulation. You will
be better off in the
>pocket, in heat bills, and full of peace.
Plus of course your house will need to be higher to
accomodate the extra depth of floor(s). n^2 extra bricks
plus mortar, bricklayers wages, increased weight on the
foundations etc etc
You may go down well in alternative energy groups but
this is the real world.
--
Please note antispam measures - do not hit reply
Warning to Spammers - I ALWAYS complain to your ISP
Regards,
John
News
>
> Eh! just run that one by me again please
With a wooden structure fire is not a big problem. There you go. Once
more so it sinks in: With a wooden structure fire is not a big problem
> > Try having a minimum of 200mm of stud
> > wall filled with insulation - at least
> > a minimum of 8 inches. Cheaper and superior
> > to block in sound - not to mention the
> > super-insulation.
> >
> > A 4 inch stud wall filled with insulation (heat &
> > sound) is superior to 4 inch block wall in
> > heat and sound. Make the wall 8
> > inch, (not that much more expensive) and
> > the sound insulation is superb.
>
> Oh I see - we are back on your hobby
> horse again are we. There seem little
> point in seperating living rooms with
> 8 inch thick interior walls as it seldom
> neccessary owing to the difference in
> temperature being minimal. All you
> succeed in doing is significantly reducing the
> effective volume of the interior space
If you had been following the thread the person wanted SOUND insulation as a
priority. Pay attention!
> > Many builders in this country are
> > still in the 1950s and are not up
> > to the latest technology.
>
> This sounds very familiar territory since
> your last campaign on heating controls.
> What are you a one man crusade?
No. I just know more these matters than you. Focus, pay attention!
>
> > Personally I would go masonite beams
> > in the floor (300 mm) and 8 inch stud
> > walls (6 min), all filled with insulation.
> > You will be better off in the
> > pocket, in heat bills, and full of peace.
>
> Plus of course your house will need to
> be higher to accomodate the extra depth
> of floor(s). n^2 extra bricks plus mortar,
> bricklayers wages, increased weight on the
> foundations etc etc
There again you are not paying attention. I'm advocating a timber floor
extention. The differeence in height between a 12" masonite bean and a 4"
conrete floor is negliable in height and materials. In material terms: a
lot less than using concrete all the way.
> You may go down well in alternative
> energy groups but this is the real world.
Of which you know very little about! I'm certain you never even knew what
a masonite beam was. You have given NO constructive contribution to the
topic of the thread. Unless you have something sensible to contribute
don't bother at all. You are taking up bandwidth.
Keep to cleaning the boilers. The world needs people like you! :-))
Dave Plowman
News <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> If you had been following the thread the person wanted SOUND
> insulation as a priority. Pay attention!
Well, I have. Why do you keep giving false information? Your whole purpose
seems to be to plug 'masonite' beams. I wonder why?
--
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
News
> > insulation as a priority. Pay attention!
>
> Well, I have. Why do you keep giving false information?
What false information are you on about? Pay attention, focus. Don't make
claims you can't backup, like accusing people of lies.
> Your whole purpose
> seems to be to plug 'masonite'
> beams. I wonder why?
The purpose was to give an alternative (cheaper one too) to the concrete
floor proposed by the thread intitiator. Which I successfully have.
News
> > install and with far superior heat
> > insulation (super-insulation), far superior.
>
> Why should better heat insulation be seen
> as a plus on an intermediate floor?
It prevents heat conduction through to the upper floors. Most of the time
(depending on use) the upper floors are not used. So why heat them when no
one is there.
> My own (unproved) thinking is that
> there is merit in increasing the thermal
> mass within dwellings (especially where
> the lifestyle involves all day occupancy,
> like me working from home) so that
> the temperature fluctuates less.
There is merit in this, but the thermal mass should be insulated from the
outside to be fully effective - good insulation between the inner wall (your
thermal mass) and the outer wall. A light framed building, timber, with
little thermal mass, but with high insulation will be cheaper to run, but
you need a responsive heating system: warm-air (the best in response),
radiator, skirting heaters. Avoid under floor heating in a low thermal mass
building as the response times are very poor. In a light framed building
it may worth installing a brick wall in the kitchen as this will absorb heat
and give it out during the evening, also good for hanging heavy cupboards
on. In a timber framed house a concrete floor and a brick (or block)
kitchen wall will usually give enough thermal mass.
You don't get anything for nothing. Thermal mass absorbs heat which you
have paid to generate via your gas bills. It absorbs heat them gives if off
when the house becomes cooler. Hot goes to cold. If you are out for the
evening then the house is being heated, via the thermal mass, when you are
not there - why heat a house when not occupied. With a super-insulated
house you only heat the air inside. Much cheaper in fuel bills.
A super-insulated building may not even need a heating system. The
heaviest insulated building in the UK is at The Centre for Alternative
Technology in Wales. In needs 1 kW to heat it - a 4 bedroomed house. Most
of the time the lights and heat from people is all it requires to heat it.
Built in 1976, the house has paid for itself twice over.
The moral: insulation works, it is cheap to buy and install and cheap to
run. It also never brakes down, corrodes or leaks. It also has the
bi-product of insulating against sound.
Dave Plowman
News <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The purpose was to give an alternative (cheaper one too) to the concrete
> floor proposed by the thread intitiator. Which I successfully have.
I think you might just add an IMHO after that statement. But if you
/read/ the question asked by the original poster, Des, you will find his
primary concern is for sound insulation. All you have gone on and on and
/on/ about is /heat/ insulation.
You quoted figures for the difference in sound insulation between a
concrete floor and a suspended wooden floor filled with 'insulation'
You were challenged over this, as to how the figures were arrived at and
measured, but chose to give no reply.
I take this as an indication that you are quoting some advertising
handout, and will, as such, take as much regard of it as any other
extravagant claim.
Tony Bryer
> You don't get anything for nothing. Thermal mass absorbs heat which you
> have paid to generate via your gas bills. It absorbs heat them gives if off
> when the house becomes cooler. Hot goes to cold. If you are out for the
> evening then the house is being heated, via the thermal mass, when you are
> not there - why heat a house when not occupied. With a super-insulated
> house you only heat the air inside. Much cheaper in fuel bills.
But only more comfortable if (as you said) you have a very responsive heating
system. I work from home (a long narrow single storey building) with my
computers, laser printer and photocopier pumping out heat. During much of the
year the problem is getting rid of the heat. A concrete slab above me soaking
it up during the day and releasing it into the bedrooms during the evening
would be great. I suspect that with the right insulation a house with a
concrete first floor might not need heating in the bedroom.
A report that I was sent recently highlighted the possibility that all efforts
to reduce domestic energy consumption by better insulation and more efficient
heating will be cancelled out by the possible widespread adoption of domestic
airconditioning (in the USA you can just buy units off the shelf in Home Depot
the way we buy boilers and rads in Wickes) - each year I get serious tempted
to buy a small a/c unit for my office but hold off knowing that if I do the
rest of the year will be cold and wet <g>. A cheap heat pump that sucked the
heat out of my office and put it into the hot water cylinder would be great.
Tony Bryer
News
> > (cheaper one too) to the concrete
> > floor proposed by the thread intitiator.
> > Which I successfully have.
>
> I think you might just add an IMHO after that
> statement. But if you /read/ the question asked
> by the original poster, Des, you will find his
> primary concern is for sound insulation. All you
> have gone on and on and /on/ about is /heat/ insulation.
The insulation, is also heat & sound. The on and on bit, as you put it, was
in response to a post.
> You quoted figures for the difference in
> sound insulation between a concrete floor
> and a suspended wooden floor filled with
> 'insulation' You were challenged over this,
> as to how the figures were arrived at and
> measured, but chose to give no reply.
The reply will come. Not to you though.
> I take this as an indication that you are
> quoting some advertising handout,
You take it wrong. The figures are from the Centre of Atternative
Technology. Don't assume! Pay attention! Focus!
> and will, as such, take as much regard
> of it as any other extravagant claim.
It is plainly obvious that you have little knowledege on this topic. It is
best to be quite as your knowledge is slight, then you may learn something.
What you need to learn the most is not to have at attitude, which you, and
the know-it-all Mr Fixit heating guy, certainly have.
If want to discuss matters I'm all for it. If you develop an attitude then
piss off.
News
> > You don't get anything for nothing. Thermal mass absorbs heat which you
> > have paid to generate via your gas bills. It absorbs heat them gives if
off
> > when the house becomes cooler. Hot goes to cold. If you are out for
the
> > evening then the house is being heated, via the thermal mass, when you
are
> > not there - why heat a house when not occupied. With a super-insulated
> > house you only heat the air inside. Much cheaper in fuel bills.
>
> But only more comfortable if (as you said) you have a very responsive
heating
> system. I work from home (a long narrow single storey building) with my
> computers, laser printer and photocopier pumping out heat. During much of
the
> year the problem is getting rid of the heat. A concrete slab above me
soaking
> it up during the day and releasing it into the bedrooms during the evening
> would be great. I suspect that with the right insulation a house with a
> concrete first floor might not need heating in the bedroom.
In summer this is exactly what you don't need. I would insulate the
ceiling of the offending heat generating room and install some sort of
ventilation or heat re-distibution.
What sort of heating system do you have? If it is warm-air, just using
the fan will distribute heat around the house.
> A report that I was sent recently highlighted the possibility that all
efforts
> to reduce domestic energy consumption by better insulation and more
efficient
> heating will be cancelled out by the possible widespread adoption of
domestic
> airconditioning
Not in country it won't. Maybe the USA which has cold winters and hot
summers. Insulation works both ways. The heat from the sun is prevented
from penetrating the house.
> (in the USA you can just buy units off the shelf in Home Depot
> the way we buy boilers and rads in Wickes) - each year I get serious
tempted
> to buy a small a/c unit for my office but hold off knowing that if I do
the
> rest of the year will be cold and wet <g>. A cheap heat pump that sucked
the
> heat out of my office and put it into the hot water cylinder would be
great.
Try a heat recovery ventilation system. Or a simple method is to insert a
duct in the offending heat generating room and fan the hot air to another
part of the house (hallway maybe), or a choice to outside. Not too
difficult or expensive to install either (depending on your house of
course), and certainly not expensive to run. But very effective. If you
are taking outside air to cool, take it from the north side of the house,
preferably under some vegetation - very cool. You have a commercial room
in a domestic house.
Your situation is not general. So you have to assess the offending room
singularly.
A heat pump. Now that could do wonders, but they are not cheap.
a.renouf
I've built some apartments with concrete floors and the sound insulation was not
as good as I expected. There seems to be lots of direct transmission through
the structure.
If you do use concrete, install a floating chipboard floor on 25 mm acoustic
slabs. (You can screw/nail your floorboards to the chipboard). Don't use solid
internal walls sound inulation between is awful ! - The sound will transmit
through the structure so you can hear loud conversation downstairs ! You are
better off with a double stud wall with double layers of plaster board on each
surface.
I've insalled a floating floor on several projects and have been reasonably
impressed. (Not perfect though, but better than just plain concrete !) If you
don't have a floating layer people will hear you walking around upstairs,
especially with hard shoes !
I agree acoustic insulation is very difficult - I'd love to know of a good book
on the subject.
- Andrew
Dave Plowman
Nice. Then why are you then posting to this group?
> > I take this as an indication that you are
> > quoting some advertising handout,
> You take it wrong. The figures are from the Centre of Atternative
> Technology. Don't assume! Pay attention! Focus!
Ahh! Some mad sect! Now it makes sense. Is this your chant?
Did they use an 'atternative' sound level meter for their readings?
> > and will, as such, take as much regard
> > of it as any other extravagant claim.
> It is plainly obvious that you have little knowledege on this topic.
> It is best to be quite as your knowledge is slight,
> then you may learn something.
But I don't make simple spelling mistakes. 8-)
> What you need to learn the most is not to have at attitude,
> which you, and the know-it-all Mr Fixit heating guy,
> certainly have.
Attitude! Don't assume!! Pay attention!!!!! FOCUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> If want to discuss matters I'm all for it.
I have a different definition of discussion than yours which seems to
take the form of a lecture.
> If you develop an attitude then
> piss off.
Done. Now go back to alt. whatever and discuss alt. thingies.
News
> > It is plainly obvious that you have little
> > knowledege on this topic.
> > It is best to be quite as your knowledge
> > is slight, then you may learn something.
>
> But I don't make simple spelling mistakes. 8-)
But you still know f**k all!! :-))))
John
Dave Plowman wrote in message
<4909f5fac9...@argonet.co.uk>...
SNIP
>
> I have a different definition of discussion than yours
which seems to
>take the form of a lecture.
>
>> If you develop an attitude then
>> piss off.
>
>Done. Now go back to alt. whatever and discuss alt.
thingies.
>
>--
> Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk
London SW 12
> RIP Acorn
>
I was wondering if I was the only one to be irritated by
this theory spouting tosser Dave but I see he gets up
your nose just as much. We had a few months respite from
him after his last crusade venture into uk.d-i-y I
wonder what
it takes to get another few?
Nigel Orr
<evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> But I don't make simple spelling mistakes. 8-)
>
>But you still know f**k all!! :-))))
And so it will remain until you deign to answer questions instead of
backing into a corner swearing... no need to be defensive on this
jolly, happy newsgroup, is there?
I for one would be interested in facts about these beams, but I
haven't seen many yet, just market-speak and apparent confusion
between sound and heat insulation...
Nigel
Matthew Marks
"News" <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> It is plainly obvious that you have little knowledege on this topic.
And you, Mr News, have *none*. Answer my question about *sound* insulation
(we are not disagreeing with you about *thermal* insulation), before the
acousticians are taken to casualty with split sides.
Matthew Marks
Tony Bryer <to...@sda.co.uk> writes:
> A report that I was sent recently highlighted the possibility that all efforts
> to reduce domestic energy consumption by better insulation and more efficient
> heating will be cancelled out by the possible widespread adoption of domestic
Yes, it saddened me to see the latest Comet circular contained just that - and
these portable units will be stuck there with their hoses put through open
windows - I think the nanny state should legislate that sort of thing out od
existence... :-)
Nick Finnigan
> system. I work from home (a long narrow single storey building) with my
> computers, laser printer and photocopier pumping out heat. During much of the
> year the problem is getting rid of the heat. A concrete slab above me soaking
> it up during the day and releasing it into the bedrooms during the evening
> would be great.
But what would you do in the mornings? Switch on the
downstairs heating 2 hours early in order to get the
floor and then the bedroom itself warm?
> I suspect that with the right insulation a house with a
> concrete first floor might not need heating in the bedroom.
IME a fairly normal house with double glazing does not need
specific heating in bedrooms which have a single external wall
- although being above the back-boiler probably helps.
News
Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49098346b5...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <374D90F4...@eei.ericsson.se>,
> Des McNamara <eei...@eei.ericsson.se> wrote:
> > the main reason is because of sound. We intend to have wooden floors
> > upstairs and work colleagues who have tried to insulate the
> > 'normal' floor say that it is not effective.
>
> You are absolutely right. To insulate against 'bass' frequencies you need
> mass. Don't let anyone tell you different; it's the only way.
> The day I see a recording studio with studding walls filled with fibre, is
> the day I will know different.
Studded walls filled with "woodwool" is very effective. Woodwool consists
of about 60-70% cement and the rest wood. It comes in various thicknesses
and is used in recording studios. "Spaced studs" with woodwool between
will be very effective. Woodwool can be plastered as it is ridgid. Spaced
studs will reduce the noise and sound bridging between rooms.
Impact sounds can be reduced by installing a "floating floor". This could
be a layer of woodwool with a wood top surface. Flanking sounds, that
travel down walls can reduced by not having the floor surface touch walls -
6mm gap and stuff with rockwool. The same for plaster boards when they meet
the floor and skirting borads.
Generally if you are not going for recording studio levels, spaced studded
walls filled with rockwool is far better than solid walls. Simolart with
floors too, but mnake the flor depths deep - Masonite "I" beams.