[Greenbuilding] Glass ceiling
RT
archilogic at yahoo.ca
Sun Nov 18 11:38:20 CST 2012
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:31:29 -0500, Tim Brown <tim34 at optonline.net> quoted:
> On Nov 17, 2012, at 10:41 PM, John Salmen who wrote:
>> Re-using and re-claiming is also not necessarily a good thing. Do I
>> want a floor from wood that came from an old factory floor with cells
>> filled with un-re-claimed heavy metals and toxins?
who quoted gennaro brooks-church who quoted
Clarke O'lSen who wrote:
>>
>>> Something I learned the hard way: if you lap glass panels, water will
>> capilery back into the joint. If you want to make it
>> tight, maybe a bead of clear silicone.
>>> Another hard lesson, the amazing power of that caulk not to let go when
>> you need to take something apart.
>>> Maybe temporary window caulk would be easier to deal with.
Years ago there was a peelable caulking that was intended for interior use
by folks wanting to seal up their leaky windows for winter and then remove
that caulking when warmer weather came around so that they could open
those windows again.
I remember that stuff steenking to low hades, off-gassing some sort of
petroleum-based solvent.
Aside from the nauseating odour, the "caulk" strategy is a one-off
proposition. You need to apply new (and steenky) caulk every time you want
to move from operable to non-operable modes.
A better approach IMO would be to design to allow for the use of
re-useable gaskets which in the case of this overhead glazing discussion
would mean the stock neoprene (*not* PVC) glazing channel that is made
for use with the single-glazed tempered glass used in patio storm doors.
The inside surface of the channel gets clamped tightly against the surface
of the glass to create an air-tight/waterproof seal and the outside of the
channel has a series of small ribs which prevent capillary action from
occuring between the gasket and the clamping surfaces while at the same
time providing a protective cushion for the Achilles Heel edge of the
tempered glass.
I would take issue with BCJohn's argument against using reclaimed wood on
the basis that *all* of its cells are susceptible to contamination from
preservative treatments and/or environmental fallout.
I have a hard time believing that any brushed-on or sprayed-on
preservative treatment penetrating to any significant depth would not be
removed by the planing process that most users of reclaimed timber would
undergo for finish work.
The standard for the pressure treating industry for preservative
penetration was (decades ago when I last looked) something like 3/16" for
PS-1 grade treated lumber -- the stuff intended for use above grade for
decks etc ... and 3/8" for PS-1/PWF grade treated lumber -- the grade
that must be used for pressure-treated wood foundations.
If you've ever been to a wood pressure-treating facility, you'll have seen
that achieving 3/8" preservative penetration depth is no easy task. They
first have to kiln-dry the lumber to render the cells of the lumber
amenable to accepting the preservative and then they have to poke a bunch
of slits into the surfaces of the material so that the preservative can
get in and then they still have to pressure cook it to force the
preservative into those slits.
I don't think that designing for ease of re-use at the end of the service
life of a building is all that difficult. In most cases it simply a
matter of getting out of the nails and adhesive glop mentality of putting
things together in bits and pieces and thinking more in terms of "systems"
... not unlike how commercial buildings are put together.
--
=== * ===
Rob Tom AOD257
Kanata, Ontario, Canada
< A r c h i L o g i c at Y a h o o dot c a >
(manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit "reply")
More information about the Greenbuilding
mailing list