Smart alek
· Västra Götalands
· 11 211 posts
No, it's not another matter. It's the system, i.e., the technology that is at fault if it makes such demands. (Read e.g. http://www.asktog.com/columns/027InterfacesThatKill.html for another example) The only excuse is if it is not technically or economically feasible to do it another way. But that's not the case here. There are many other ways that work well and don't suffer from these flaws.stake said:
Kan själv!
· Trelleborg
· 19 706 posts
According to a link earlier in the thread, there are 160,000 houses built with single-layer sealed facades :x
I already wrote that in post #2 in this thread "Single-stage sealed facades only worked in theory. Because they didn't consider that water might penetrate.".stake said:
In theory, I know how to throw three darts in Bulls eye, but I've never succeeded in practice though...
That "only" 50% being wrong doesn't mean that the remaining 50% were done correctly.
It could just as well be that everyone has made mistakes, but half have been lucky enough to get by without issues. So far. But in a few years, maybe 70-80% will have had problems.
It could just as well be that everyone has made mistakes, but half have been lucky enough to get by without issues. So far. But in a few years, maybe 70-80% will have had problems.
Now there are four or five people who don't understand what I'm writing or draw incorrect conclusions about what I mean. I have been wondering if the basic idea of the facade is theoretically okay, or not, then all other irrelevant things about the human factor etc., I am not so interested in.fn76 said:
I am starting to get tired of trying to defend myself from attacks by word police and Mr. Know-It-All. The topic was a factual discussion about the facade, not my personal well-being or similar; I have read youth forums that are more mature than the clientele here.
Smart alek
· Västra Götalands
· 11 211 posts
Uh, no, I'm relating how we who work in the safety and reliability industry (e.g., civil and military aviation, space, telecom, etc.) reason (and calculate) today. It’s facts, not "opinions."stake said:
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. No doubt about that. I'm just pointing out the unreasonableness of it...
Smart alek
· Västra Götalands
· 11 211 posts
OK, then you'll have to explain yourself better. What do you mean by "theoretically okay?"stake said:
Surely you must have some requirements that the wall should meet, at least in theory, in mind. "OK if it is not exposed to moisture" is, for instance, a scenario one might consider. But at the same time, it's a completely academic one, as we have no houses in Sweden where that is a reasonable approximation of reality, so it's quite an uninteresting one. So you must have some such scenario in mind?
That's the problem with your reasoning - the human factor is not irrelevant. A facade that is to be used by people must be adapted to how people actually function, otherwise it is poorly designed because it did not take reality into account.stake said:
So you speak for the entire industry, if I have questions about the civil and military aviation, space, telecommunications industry, I'll send a PM and hope for an answer, and if I ever want an opinion on whether my opinions are reasonable or not, I’ll do the same! Thank you so much for taking the time to educate us who don't understand better!lars_stefan_axelsson said:
Certainly. I think I understand how you're thinking. You want to know if there's any way for that facade to work.
And the answer is of course yes, if you disregard all the things that can destroy the wall/system.
It's probably not fully determined yet exactly what things can cause these problems. But if we try to guess some things, which must then be removed to achieve a safe construction.
1. Moisture entering the construction during the building phase.
This can be fixed by building in a tent, dehumidified during humid days.
2. Moisture through poorly made connections.
This can be fixed by ensuring absolutely no one makes any mistakes. However, how to achieve this is somewhat difficult. Perhaps you need inspectors to check everything afterward. And maybe inspectors to inspect what the inspectors have inspected, as they might have missed something too, and so on.
3. Moisture penetrating via driving rain.
Build only in rain-free locations.
4. Damage or holes in the surface layer.
Build a concrete structure around the entire house to protect it, or inspect the entire wall centimeter by centimeter daily.
5. Damage in the surface layer or at penetrations due to movements.
Build only on solid rock and areas without wind exceeding 3m/s.
6. Water vapor from inside the house.
Do not let any people live in the house.
But clearly, the construction might work, theoretically.
And the answer is of course yes, if you disregard all the things that can destroy the wall/system.
It's probably not fully determined yet exactly what things can cause these problems. But if we try to guess some things, which must then be removed to achieve a safe construction.
1. Moisture entering the construction during the building phase.
This can be fixed by building in a tent, dehumidified during humid days.
2. Moisture through poorly made connections.
This can be fixed by ensuring absolutely no one makes any mistakes. However, how to achieve this is somewhat difficult. Perhaps you need inspectors to check everything afterward. And maybe inspectors to inspect what the inspectors have inspected, as they might have missed something too, and so on.
3. Moisture penetrating via driving rain.
Build only in rain-free locations.
4. Damage or holes in the surface layer.
Build a concrete structure around the entire house to protect it, or inspect the entire wall centimeter by centimeter daily.
5. Damage in the surface layer or at penetrations due to movements.
Build only on solid rock and areas without wind exceeding 3m/s.
6. Water vapor from inside the house.
Do not let any people live in the house.
But clearly, the construction might work, theoretically.
Thank you Mikael_L. My thought was something like this: if I had built such a house according to all the rules as the manufacturer recommends, is it then a sustainable system.
Then, whether the industry today is too incompetent to carry it out, I was not interested in.
Then, whether the industry today is too incompetent to carry it out, I was not interested in.
