Poolguy

Hi Pouyade   I live in Charante Maratime and I can talk to you about a pool. I've sent you a email with contact details. Andrew

Tony Thats a good elaboration, interestingly those publication are looking at secondary member in one case, but I suppose we should assume that these are minimums in all case. However, I was wondering if it only applies to a situation where the flue is installed in isolation where the is adequate airflow to disperse heat over the whole length. In the case we are examining, the flue is contained with the exisiting chimney which is concentrating the heat into an updraft of heated air over the 2-3 meters till the ceiling height. As this heat cannot be dispersed I cannot see how the existing recommendations would apply. Hence the distance to the flue is largely irrelevant so long as the end of the beam is contained within the confines of the chimney we have a continuous super heated kiln operating on one end of this insitu structural member. hhhmmm. Or am I over stressing the situation? Andrew

Tony Thanks for your effort in following this one. It is interesting that there is a lack of regulation concerning proximity of timber to a heat source. The publication you mention seems to be dealing with this particular issue, and I wouldn't mind reading the background to their recommendation. Hence can you let me know the publisher so that I can get a copy. I'd like to know if their recommendation includes structural members or is limited to facia or framework. As for your disclaimer, I don't think that you should be so harsh. After all no one expects any professional to have perfect knowledge covering all things, but as you have proven, you have access to research on the topic and you are trained to interpret and apply it. I think that principle applies to all professionals. Certainly my father is a member of the same august profession and will refer to his library in cases which are extraordinary. I would add the we here have the obligation to direct those who seek advise to safe solutions rather than endorse solutions which might court disaster should the boundaries be approached too closely. I guess that I err on the conservative when dealing with building problems especially when its a DIY job or even a builder who is not supervised by a professional. Also we don't know who else after reading our recommendation might very well use that advise out of context. Nevertheless, its good to debate these issues, I am sure that its a help to a great many people. Andrew

Sorry Peterpan No personal experience, but I know some people who have. As far as I am aware reed bed filtration still relys on running water. If you have this possiblity (luck you) then there is a wealth of other possiblities. But as far as swimming pools are concerned, I'll ask the question to friends and get back. Cheers Andrew

Tony Thanks for coming in on this one. I am heartened that in your opening remark at least, you concur with the analysis and possible remedy.   But you go on to assign you professional empremarta to the previous course of action, which I find a little odd. I wonder had you considered that even though under normal operation the founding end of the beam may never reach flash point, it will be subjected to prolonged and rather intense heat. The inevitable result of this will be to ‘over cook’ the timber, which will cause tangential and radial checking and substantial shrinkage in that section. This would manifest as either case hardening or even ‘honey combing’ of the cell structure leaving it open to significant fungal attack duing the summer months.  I would go further to predict that under such an arrangement whether it was shielded or not the timber would suffer such degrade as to downgrade it structural and natural integrity perhaps 2 or more structural grades. Further I would expect significant distortion at the point where the over cooked timber meets the largely fresh timber. I am sure that this would have consequences for the bearing members and the floorboards above. Not a robust solution I would have thought.   In addition I am always looking for the possibilities in other than ‘normal operation’ of the fire/flue. Consider a chimney fire, where the flue and ensemble has not been cleaned for several winters and there resides a build up of soot. In the case where this ignites due to an overzealous fire being stoked, I have no doubt that the temps in the flue would reach melting point of the steel flue (I has seen this occur… very scary). This is ample I would believe to get the timber going as well and from there, even if you can put the fire out, the founding end of your beam is irrevocably damaged, perhaps burnt out. Your client would then be up for total replacement of the beam in a situation where the floor above hade to be removed and relayed. Very expensive.   You mention your ‘green lintle’ (do you mean Mantle) being 150 mm away from a log burner. I cannot see how this decorative piece of timber is in any way comparable to a major structural member. Just for the record, if you ‘lintle’ is crown cut then it will certainly ‘cup’ and if its box cut it will certainly crack longitudinally. But thankfully I expect that it may be easily replaced unlike Diana’s beam.   Moreover, the aesthetics of founding a large beam in what must be a beautiful old fire place would be quite disturbing to my eye… it would read as a ‘patchup job’ and not a ‘workmanlike solution’ .   However, to certify this solution with the empremata of the Institute of Structural Engineers (UK I guess), you are undoubtedly the expert in this matter, so I will remain as I am, I thought it might be worth raising those extra points of view nevertheless.   Andrew

Bon Job done sleep well young Di A.

Well Diana You are, as they say 'playing with fire'. If you proceed with this plan, and I have no doubt that a procession of builders would have no objection as its not really their job to certify that plan only the 'doing' of it, then you had better be well prepared. Forget about fireproofing impregnation that's a gnat biting an elephants bum. (skuz tha xrprissun) To fire rate the beam you need to wrap it as you say in fireproof blanket and then case the whole thing in concrete, as thick and as strong as you can make it. 4-5 hour fire rating is basic starting point, more if you can make it. Your architect will be able to give you a spec for that. I presume,  that you will penetrate the wall of the chimney and back wall to rest the beam on a sound pad of concrete, binding nearly 1 meter of stone work into one (hidden in the chimney of course). As I understand it though, all of this grief is being endured so that you don't have to replace the joists in the middle section of the room and use two beams instead of one. May I just raise the point in my naivité, that the price of Oak is at an all time low, and the price of a few decent sticks of Oak to replace the floor support is a bargain compared to the price of the works you are contemplating. Especially when the work is unsupervised (Gulp) If I have had no useful contribution to make to your situation then I hence retire despondent. Otherwise, I can only add take care young Di. and good luck Andrew  

Diana Diana Diana Di Di Di ... I may be a bit thick, but it seems to me that you are making a mighty big rod for you back. At least from your last post I understand what you are trying to do. If there are some other smarter people out there perhaps they can devise a solution for you. But me.... I think that you have only two options. 1. Examine the walls VERY closely and try to find any evidence of the ancient system of support for the first and second floor. If that can be discovered then it probably works well and so duplicate or rather replace it. (failing that...) 2. Why not divide the support structure into three putting a beam at one third and at two thirds ie. either side of the chimney fireplace.  Doing this you avoid the necessity to get involved with messing with the chimney, it sounds like its had a tough enough time as it is. I really would not go with any sort of plan which involved putting a major support structure next to a fire source. I would be amazed if any engineer would pass it, insurance company would cover it, or Pompier not condemn it. In short I urge you to think again. Andrew By the way I was not laughing.... I was in a state of animated confusion.  

Hi Diana I'm sorry to say that my little brain is dazzled thinking of the design you have described. You are removing the wall, OK (I hope that its not load bearing) You are replacing it with fresh cut oak beams, great choice. You want to leave it age without any treatment, fine, is there any sign of wood bugs anywhere else in the house?? But you want to 'fireproof' the end of the beams because it goes through the fireplace ???? I can't see what you want to do. Oak burns .. rather well in fact if you get it hot enough. (like all timber). Can spell out more detail of your needs. Andrew

Mjc Yes you must instal 'something' (ie at least 1 of the 4) If your fence is also smooth as well as being over 1.1 meters then it may be effective (in preventing entry) and so that, along with a self locking gate would give you some peace of mind. However, and this really must be stressed, even though it would be effective it would not necessarily comply. Therefore the addition of another devise say a compliant cover (very useful while you are away) will provide you with both assurances. You will still have to use the cover however when you are in residence but not using the pool. Andrew

I note that your question is to Richard and so my reply is perhaps not appropriate but If I might offer a view. The regulations will not be specific about a persons attendance to respond to an alarm as its nightmare territory for law drafting. What I suspect will emerge is similar to the case in other countries such as Australia where this law has been in effect for over 20 years. vis The owner of a pool with an alarm or any other security devise will be required to exercise 'due diligence'. This means in short that If you know that you will not be in residence and an electronic alarm is your sole source of security then any court will find you negligent before the law, should you be examined following a drowning because even though the devise complies, it also relies on the 'reasonable expectation' of you being there to prevent a drowning. This is not stated to my knowledge in the legislation but it is the practical outcome of the legislation as it will be applied when it is required. However I cannot see the future so these comments are conjecture. Therefore, If you are not in residence for much of the time. to be safe and comply fully I would recommend that a compliant cover be used during that time. If you find it inconvenient to remove and replace every time you come and go from the pool then an electronic alarm will serve during that time. If these are too much bother then a compliant fence or a canopy are for you. I might add another note of warning. I have heard of some pool installers, (typically those who do not sell fencing) telling owners that the fence MUST be within 1 meter from the pool. This is TOTAL NONSENCE and not at all stated in the legislation. What is stated as has been raise by Richard and others is that the fence must not be so far away from the pool as to render it ineffective. What that means will be tested in the same way as above. I suggest you treat any company which emphasises the view above with a great deal of suspicion. In the end ask yourself are you interested in complying with the law, or saving a life, or both. Andrew  

Keni As long as the panel face South (or near that) then they will work to an extent. The optimum is facing directly south with an inclination which is equal to the latitude plus 10 degrees (I think) to the horizontal, but I'll have to look it up to be sure. Low tech is good, you just need more area of panel to heat the water, if your space challenged you'll need high tech to get the same energy absorbtion. At any rate, however you get there its the way forward because its free...... No nukes. Andrew

Maggie   I've sent you a PM on this one.   Andrew

Dave (me ol taff) I'll just add on a little to answer your Q (over looked it... sorry) The reason for the effect you describe is because a Kiln dried board has lost the 'bound moisture' AND the 'free moisture', whereas the air dried board has lost only the 'free moisture' (hence 18-24% max depends on RH) Hoadley writes; "The water held within the cell walls is called bound water. In contrast to free water which is help in the cell cavities like water in a tumbler, the bound water is help by physical forces of attraction within the cell walls". In my own terms, think of a straw: free water inside the straw; bound water in the material which the straw is made off. Further, when a 'dry' board absorbs moisture from high Rel. Humidity (RH), its absorbed as free water which can just as easily be lost again when the RH drops. Guess that's all then Andrew

Gee wiz I guess I'll just have to agree to differ from my two learned friends. The beams I have cut up number in the Hundreds and Hundreds of all different species. My moisture meter is my evidence and Bruce Hoadley amongst my sources. My MM gives me a consistent 40-65% MC on beams bigger than 250mm sq., which leads me to the assertion that 'they are as wet as the day they were felled.' (64% is considered 'green'). Variation depends upopn where they were used in a building and what the RH was for most of their days. Dave's rule of thumb is correct drying 1" per year' but it doesn't continue endlessly. Bound moisture (as opposed to free moisture) cannot be extracted more than a few " without lots of energy. (its physics I think). Air drying uses three sources of energy - warmth (not heat) airflow, and gravity. The last two are unless for moisture in the centre and the first will do very little. Oak paticulary is just too dense and combined with surface tension that water doesn't move. I suspect if you have beams which are dry then they will have suffered some extraordinary forces either excessive checking, prolonged exposure to heat (not burning) or degrade. Other than that I don't know without seeing the wood and testing it. Having said all of this I don't particularly want to fight about it because, I am personally happy with these notions and will continue to use them. If others disagree for what ever reason ( I can't imagine) that is their business. I don't want the position of 'wood nerd' either. I just wanted to dispel that nonsensical idea that ALL timber in a house has to be 'kiln dried' - I get asked all the time and the explanation (of the obvious) is wearisome. It applies absolutely to flooring (must be kiln dried) but not at all to beams (pointless). QED Andrew

Chris I've sent you an email on this one   Andrew

How novel Alex   What departement are you in?   In Charante Maratime they are as common as hen's teeth... (hmm)   Good show though, how big is that little beauty.   Andrew

Chris is right of course. I would go further to say that you simply cannot dry an oak beam of that dimension, and keep it whole. The only way is to mill it down to say three 50mm boards, then dry them and glue them back together. This notion that somehow you must have dry timber in a building is completely fallacious. All of the beams in my 16th seicle house will be as dripping wet as the day they were cut if one where to mill them through. Fresh is good. I would help you Dave but your too far away in N.France to make it economic.. I am sure that there is a local scerie who can give you what you need. Andrew

Christiane   I've sent you a PM. I can certainly assist you with fencing. Andrew

I've sent you a PM on this one. Andrew

Sorry Ab didn't mean to get you in a mood. I was really pointing out to all those in this thread and those just reading that there is such a thing as a devise which automatically maintains Chlorine AND ph (acid). Nothing to do. I also want to point out to those in this thread and those reading that there is such a thing as an Automatic salinator. Nothing to do. I have information on both. In both cases the machine controls the pump for as long as it thinks is needed. You don't need any of this calcualtion, or testing malarky any longer. Well you could still do it if you wanted if only to prove if the machine is calibrated precisely, but its no longer a daily event. Hope I'm still not preaching to the converted. Maybe there's someone who still needs to know of these things. Andrew

Or alternatively you could install an automatic Chlorinator which will monitor, and maintain the Ph and the Chlorine levels at optimum all the time 24/7/365 with out you having to any of this work. No testing everytime you want a swim, and you no longer have to visit the pump house more often than anywhere else in the house. Its all done for you. Your only job is to check that the pale of chlorine and acid can still offer product, if not change it (maybe once a month - more in summer). There is an equivenlent devise soon to be release for salt pools (its a bit more complicated but the same principle). If you need more information then send me a PM and I'll be happy to spill the beans. I'm guessing that when you buy a pool you don't want a parttime job to go with it, nes pas Andrew

Yes As I was saying a month or so ago, I am astonished in this country that rainwater harvesting is not common place. Especially since there seems to be  a drought in most of the country. Ass to that the incredible cost of water and Its just not an option is obligatory it seems to me. Using 'first water dump' systems and a tank made of ferrocement, or plastic its an easy DIY must have for any house with the space. Even a cubic meter of water will go a long way for toilet flush or watering plant. Glad to see the topic discussed. Andrew  

MJC Just a note to add to the excellent response from Richard. This law has been active in Australia for 30 years or more and its proven beyond doubt that it is helpful and necessary in that country. So there is nothing which needs to be added except that its about time that Europe caught up. About the electronic alarm being on 24/7/365. If you not there, in residence or in fact in an adult trained in resuscitation is not within 3 minutes of the pool then the usefulness of an alarm is solely to comply as it will not save a life. If you are motivated to make safe your potentially lethal leisure facility (pool) then I propose that during the time you are in residence an alarm is a cost effective option. In those times when you are not then an approved cover might replace that protection. The ensemble will most likely cost less than an approved fence (depending on the size of the pool). However all of that said, my particular motivation in specifying a safety devise is to save lives and not just to comply with the law. I would prefer the Fence as it always there and you will not forget to put it on and it will not stop working with electrical failure or malfunction. Just a few thoughts, hope that they are helpful.   Andrew

OOOPPS I've proably done somthing wrong that made it appear too small on other computers even though on mine ite tickketty boo. SO I'll repost, Perhaps some kind hearted Forum Administrator could delete to one with small text just to avoid unecessary duplication. Andrew