Total renovation - Install vapor barrier or not??

[ricebridge]

@Cancerman_777 As I wrote, you should of course have a moisture barrier in the wet room where you shower. Preferably with a humidity-controlled fan, like we have. Then you also have to subtract the moisture from the shower from the overall moisture load in the house. Right?

 

[Cancerman_777]

Ok, we're talking about different things, in these contexts an old house for me is not from the 50s-60s but rather 100+ years old. So if you don't understand, it might be because of that.

I have nothing against damp-proofing when, for example, working with mineral wool, it's necessary. In the same way, a hygroscopic solution is very good, even if it might be a bit of belt and braces sometimes.

No one wants a lot of moisture in the walls, I don't really understand where you got that from. However, for example, wood fiber can handle much more moisture load than mineral wool while maintaining function. And it's practically impossible to make an old house completely airtight, thus under certain conditions, you have a high moisture load (if you don't completely renovate/alter the house).

Then there's the aspect of cold setting, which is a clear advantage if you want to go with that. Different conditions require different methods, it's no more complicated than that.

In TS's case, with a sealed exterior and insufficient outer ventilation, a hygroscopic solution serves its purpose. In another case, it does not.

Please answer the question of what benefit a non-tight layer has regardless of the insulation solution? Would cellulose/wool/whatever insulation you choose be better off transporting moisture? Or is it better if it doesn't have to handle moisture at all? Regardless of the age of the house.

You don't have to make the house completely airtight. You relieve the moisture load significantly anyway, and again...what's the problem with that?

Cold setting? Well, every cold-set, older house I've visited that hasn't been renovated smells like "attic." The cold-set houses I've visited that have a vapor barrier don't smell at all. I know what the smell is due to. Do you?

Well...soil layers don't count as airtight. Additionally, TS is supposed to drain the wall against the soil, so you get a nice, well-sized air gap due to the isodrän boards or Platon mat, which will then transport away the moisture that comes out of the basement (which should definitely NOT be sealed and which should definitely be heated during winter and dried during summer and autumn) and any moisture that comes through from the basement section. There is NO purpose, as presented so far, to let moisture travel through the construction when/if you can avoid it.

 

[Cancerman_777]

@Cancerman_777 As I wrote, you should definitely have waterproofing in the wet room where you shower. Preferably with a humidity-controlled fan, which we have. Then you also have to deduct the moisture from the shower from the overall moisture load in the house. Right?

Nope because you need a reamotor for the fan if you want to GUARANTEE that moist air from the bathroom doesn't reach the rest of the house. A regular bathroom fan does a good job, but it doesn't empty the room of moist air. Some always finds its way out.

My question about why one should have a WATERproof layer in the bathroom instead of a BARRIER layer was to make a point. I absolutely don't believe that anyone actually builds bathrooms (except in the basement) without waterproofing. I just wanted to point out that moisture is unwanted in the structure regardless of where, how, when, or why. Wood is sensitive to moisture. Period. Keeping it in harmony with the outdoor air is preferable, rather than letting the wood handle indoor moisture as well, since there's no point in it. Otherwise; present what benefits there are with it. I have presented several reasons why one should avoid it.

 

[ricebridge]

Nope, because you need a reamotor for the fan if you want to GUARANTEE that moist air from the bathroom doesn't reach the rest of the house. A regular bathroom fan does a good job but doesn't empty the room of moist air. Some always finds its way out.

My question about why one should have a TÄTskikt in the bathroom instead of a BROMSskikt was to prove a point. I absolutely don't believe anyone actually builds bathrooms (except in basements) without a tätskikt. I just wanted to show that moisture is undesirable in the construction regardless of where, how, when, or why. Wood is sensitive to moisture. Period. Keeping it in harmony with outdoor air is preferable rather than letting the wood also handle indoor moisture, as there is no point in doing so. Otherwise, present what is beneficial about it. I have given several reasons why it should be avoided.

I have already presented my version, that's enough. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe not.

 

[guggen]

Please answer the question on how a non-tight layer benefits regardless of insulation solution? Would the cellulose/wool/whatever insulation you choose fare better by transporting moisture? Or would it be better off NOT having to handle moisture at all? Regardless of the house's age.

You don't have to make the house completely airtight. You significantly relieve the moisture load anyway, and again...what's the problem with that?

Cold setting? Well...every old, cold-set house I have visited that has NOT been renovated smells like "attic". The cold-set houses I have visited with a vapor barrier don't smell at all. I know what causes the smell. Do you?

No...soil layers are not considered tight. Moreover, TS is supposed to drain the wall against the earth, so you get nice, generous air gaps with the isodrän boards or Platon mat, which will then transport away the moisture coming out of the basement (which should absolutely NOT be sealed and should absolutely be heated during the winter and dried during summer and fall) and any potential moisture coming through from the ground level. There is NO point, that has been presented yet, to let moisture travel through the construction when/if it can be avoided.

Well, what can one say, you don't take much in.
And you seem to have all the truths clear for you.
Everything from cold-set houses, you know because you've been to several. To everyone who insulates hygroscopically wants moisture in the wall...

I have to refer to Nietzsche in your case: if one had known that there is no straight line or a completely round circle...

 

[Cancerman_777]

Well, what can I say, you're not taking in much.
And you seem to have all the truths figured out.
Everything from cold houses, you know because you have been to several. To everyone who insulates hygroscopically wants moisture in the wall...

I must refer to Nietzsche in your case: if one had known that there is no straight line or a perfectly round circle...

All you do is point fingers at those who present counterarguments. Or are you suggesting I should disregard personal experiences and accept unsupported statements? Sorry to disappoint you in that case.

I haven't claimed they WANT moisture in the construction, but the fact is they get moisture/moisture migration in the construction. Or are you claiming otherwise?

 

[guggen]

All you do is point fingers at those who serve counterarguments. Or are you suggesting that I should disregard personal experiences and buy into argument-less statements? Sorry to disappoint you in that case.

I haven't claimed that they WANT moisture in the construction, but the fact is they get moisture/moisture migration in the construction. Or are you claiming the opposite?

One does not normally seek moisture in construction regardless of the solution, you must have misunderstood. But in an old house that cannot be properly sealed, you will get it in both cases. This is usually resolved, however, with changed pressure/ventilation. The hygroscopic solution is a bit like "belt and suspenders."

Does that answer your question?

Regardless, I think you should, with as many capital letters as possible, start your own thread where you ask questions you are wondering about instead of crashing these otherwise pleasant threads.

 

[Cancerman_777]

One normally does not strive for moisture in the construction regardless of the solution, you must have misunderstood this. But in an old house that cannot be properly sealed, you get it in both cases. This is usually solved with changed pressure/ventilation. The hygroscopic solution becomes a bit like "belt and braces."
Does this answer your question?

Regardless, I think that you, with as many capital letters as possible, should start your own thread where you ask your questions instead of crashing these otherwise pleasant threads.

And my counterargument is that an inadequately tight layer lets through significantly less moisture than an equally inadequate retarding layer. Why should I choose to let in more moisture than absolutely necessary? The age of the house is irrelevant. How you "run" the house is of absolute utmost importance. Very few want to heat up to room temperature outside the house's exterior walls.

I am not crashing. TS asked, I was one of those who answered, but apparently not an answer to your liking, whereupon, among others, you protested with arguments that are pure nonsense or romanticism. I don't consider that helps TS with their question or solution. Nor advocating something that would cost TS quite a lot of money over the years in higher heating costs to be able to use an old solution that has gained new life for inexplicable reasons.

 

[guggen]

And my counterargument is that a poorly sealed barrier allows significantly less moisture through than an equally flawed vapor barrier. Why should I choose to let in more moisture than absolutely necessary? The age of the house is irrelevant. How you "run" the house is, however, of utmost importance. Very few people want to warm up to room temperature outside the house's exterior walls.

I am not crashing. TS asked, I was one of those who responded, but apparently not an answer to your liking, upon which you protested with arguments that are pure nonsense or romanticism. I don't think this helps TS in their question or solution. Nor advocating for something that would cost TS quite a bit of money over the years in higher heating to be able to use an old solution that has gained new popularity for inexplicable reasons.

You are mistaking me for someone else, I have not written anything romantic or similar. Moreover, I use both types of systems under different conditions. I'm just trying to respond to your wildly thrown questions and assertions, which, however, have little to do with TS's original question. Again, you wander off and claim that the one waterproofing would be decisive for heating costs and the like. You are wrong, they are equivalent, it is the air barrier, which both have, that is crucial for this. For instance, SP has done tests on this, search through the threads or why not Google. Furthermore, you are also wrong about the tightness; if both systems are poorly sealed and with overpressure, the air and moisture take the easiest route and thus probably both systems get equally much moisture in the wall. Except that it stays in the mineral wool while, for example, wood fiber releases it when conditions allow. At least in theory However, it is very uncommon for either system with reasonable insulation amounts, if correctly executed, to cause any problems. There are probably several of us in the forum who have experiences of many systems and solutions that can help you understand better. But preferably, perhaps in another thread.

 

[JohanLun]

I have believed it is because plastic does not allow the wall to dry out IF it gets in. In other words, in a theoretically perfect world, plastic works. But IF moisture gets in due to some fault, it seems more reasonable to me that it can dry out with, for example, paper and cellulose than plastic and mineral wool?

 

[Cancerman_777]

You're mistaking me for someone else, I haven't written anything romantic or similar. I also use both types of systems under different conditions. I'm just trying to answer your wildly thrown questions and statements, which however have very little to do with the OP's original question. Again, you wander off and suggest that one waterproofing would be decisive for heating costs and the like. You are wrong, they are equivalent, it is the air barrier, which both have, that is decisive for this. For example, SP has conducted tests on this, search among the threads or why not Google. Furthermore, you are also wrong about the density; if both systems are poorly sealed and with an overpressure, air and moisture will take the path of least resistance and thus both systems are likely to get the same amount of moisture in the wall. Except that it stays in the mineral wool while, for example, wood fiber releases it when circumstances permit. At least in theory However, it is very unusual for either system with reasonable insulation amounts, if executed fairly correctly, to cause any problems. There are probably several of us in the forum who have experience with many systems and solutions who can assist you in understanding better. But preferably maybe in another thread.

1. They are not wildly thrown questions. They are fully reasonable questions asked in a thread where that solution is advocated by some.
2. If you read through the arguments presented to me and by me, you will also see that what you claim about heating costs not being affected is incorrect regarding my statement. Please read again.
3. So you mean that ALL moist indoor air passes through a small tear in a sluggish or tight layer? In that case, you are wrong. The rest of the permeation decreases, yes, but it does not cease. There would then be a minor hurricane through that small tear, and that's not the case.
4. Completely true. Neither system automatically introduces errors. What I'm asking is simply what the benefit is to let through moisture. That's it. If there's no benefit, then why do it?

 

[guggen]

1. These are not wildly thrown questions. They are fully reasonable questions asked in a thread where this solution is advocated by some.
2. If you read through the arguments presented to me and by me, you will also see that what you claim about the heating cost not being affected, you'll see that your assumption about my statement is wrong. Please read again.
3. So you mean that ALL moist indoor air passes through a small gap in a sluggish or tight layer? In that case, you are the one who's wrong. Other permeability decreases, yes, but it does not cease. That would create a minor hurricane through the small gap, and it does not.
4. Absolutely true. Neither system automatically causes errors. What I'm asking is just what the benefit is of letting moisture through. That's the only thing. If there's no benefit, why do it.

If you just have a small gap, we should probably consider that as very well-executed sealing
A deficient one is something completely different.
Thus you don't need to worry about large moisture loads in the walls, regardless of the degree of permeability you have.
So you can sleep well tonight.

 

[Cancerman_777]

If you only have a small tear, we can probably consider it as very well executed sealing
That is, you don't need to worry about large moisture loads in the walls.

Sorry, but all the arguments presented to me in this thread are just straw men.
Was that really the only response to the post I made in reply to your post?
If so, I have COMPLETELY sealed houses because there are zero tears in my moisture barriers.

 

[guggen]

Sorry, but all the arguments presented to me in this thread are just straw men.
Was that really the only response to the post I made in reply to your post?
If so, I have COMPLETELY sealed houses, because there are zero breaches in my moisture barriers.

You have been responded to in several replies. But it doesn't get through, and you get tangled up in the same questions that are answered.
It's not moving forward, so I think we should end that part here.

Regarding the original question, there seems to be a consensus (except for you then) that the solution Justus suggested is correct in the situation TS has.

 

[Cancerman_777]

You have been addressed in a number of responses. But it doesn't get through and you entangle yourself in the same questions that have been answered.
This is hardly progressing, so I think we should end that part here.

Regarding the original question, there is likely a consensus (except for you, of course) that the solution Justus proposed is correct for the situation TS has.

Hahaha! Yes, straw man responses and unsustainable counterarguments.

Well, that's on you, and TS is, of course, responsible for their choices. This discussion has, in my opinion, given TS a lot more to consider in their decision. That means, in my eyes, that the forum has worked exactly as it should.