- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am building a deck right now. The contractor just digged > holes, ranges 2 to 5 feet deep, and poured 1 1/2 bag (120lb) > of concrete mix in each hole. He is going to put in the post. > So they are still 1.5 foot to 4.5 foot deep above the footing. > The posts will sit on the footing, buried with the dirt. > Will the PT posts rot easly? Since they are buied, how can you > tell if a post is rotten underneath? The contractor claimed > that the post will be good for 20 years. But how can you tell? > I would not like to have a lot of people on the deck and then > the rotten posts cause a collapse. > Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult > to replace them when they are rotten. > Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour > the more concrete in. > Yi > tell the contractor that you want it done right: concrete up over the > soil and tben metal post holder clips into the concrete and then post > on the metal clips…if he does not want to do it that way then tell him > that you gonna get someone who can do it that way.. bet what he want to > do is not up to code either… gonna have problems with the local code > people…
And if he again claims it won’t be as stable it is a clue that he doesn’t know how to build a stable platform. Harry K
possible editing): – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am building a deck right now. The contractor just digged > holes, ranges 2 to 5 feet deep, and poured 1 1/2 bag (120lb) > of concrete mix in each hole. He is going to put in the post. > So they are still 1.5 foot to 4.5 foot deep above the footing. > The posts will sit on the footing, buried with the dirt. > Will the PT posts rot easly? Since they are buied, how can you > tell if a post is rotten underneath? The contractor claimed > that the post will be good for 20 years. But how can you tell? > I would not like to have a lot of people on the deck and then > the rotten posts cause a collapse. > Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult > to replace them when they are rotten. > Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour > the more concrete in. > Yi >tell the contractor that you want it done right: concrete up over the >soil and tben metal post holder clips into the concrete and then post >on the metal clips…if he does not want to do it that way then tell him >that you gonna get someone who can do it that way.. bet what he want to >do is not up to code either… gonna have problems with the local code >people…
That’s right. Treated posts, tend to rot where they transition: right at ground level. They don’t rot under water or soil, nor above ground. Do as Jim suggests: sonotubes below ground to slightly above and then add clips for treated posts. They might shift, as you get frost in Baltimore, but they won’t rot. — Larry
> Clyde he is talking pressure treat. There are piers in water here for > 15 years that are fine
It is all about the soil conditions. In soil that is constantly wet treated posts will last longer than posts in soil that cycles from dry to wet. When I was a wee lad on the farm, cedar posts in swamp areas would last decades. Ones in relatively dry soil would rot in a few years, as the soil would get wet from rain, then dry out again. Any thing above the ground lasted for years also. I would put the concrete just above grade, and keep the posts dry. Greg
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am building a deck right now. The contractor just digged > holes, ranges 2 to 5 feet deep, and poured 1 1/2 bag (120lb) > of concrete mix in each hole. He is going to put in the post. > So they are still 1.5 foot to 4.5 foot deep above the footing. > The posts will sit on the footing, buried with the dirt. > Will the PT posts rot easly? Since they are buied, how can you > tell if a post is rotten underneath? The contractor claimed > that the post will be good for 20 years. But how can you tell? > I would not like to have a lot of people on the deck and then > the rotten posts cause a collapse. > Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult > to replace them when they are rotten. > Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour > the more concrete in. > Yi
tell the contractor that you want it done right: concrete up over the soil and tben metal post holder clips into the concrete and then post on the metal clips…if he does not want to do it that way then tell him that you gonna get someone who can do it that way.. bet what he want to do is not up to code either… gonna have problems with the local code people…
Clyde he is talking pressure treat. There are piers in water here for 15 years that are fine
You are worry to much, contractor is right except they will probably last 40 years
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am building a deck right now. The contractor just digged > holes, ranges 2 to 5 feet deep, and poured 1 1/2 bag (120lb) > of concrete mix in each hole. He is going to put in the post. > So they are still 1.5 foot to 4.5 foot deep above the footing. > The posts will sit on the footing, buried with the dirt. > Will the PT posts rot easly? Since they are buied, how can you > tell if a post is rotten underneath? The contractor claimed > that the post will be good for 20 years. But how can you tell? > I would not like to have a lot of people on the deck and then > the rotten posts cause a collapse. > Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult > to replace them when they are rotten. > Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour > the more concrete in. > Yi
Read this link, and check the labels on the lumber. You may or may not be worrying for nothing. http://www.preservedwood.com/preswood/preswood.html
A properly built masonry pier will almost always be better than a wood post.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Does that mean cold climate make PT wood rot faster? > I am in surban maryland, near Baltimore. > I suggested concrete pier idea to the contractor. But he > claims nobody is doing that anymore. Buried post make a > deck much more stable. > Yi > >> Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult > >> to replace them when they are rotten. > >> Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour > >> the more concrete in. > >> Yi > >That would depend on your location, Yi. You might be able to get away with > >a buried post in Tucson AZ, but here in Missouri that post would rot within > >a few years time. One of the best ways to mount a post is on a bracket > >that has been set into a concrete pillar. > >clyde
> Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult > to replace them when they are rotten. > Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour > the more concrete in. > Yi
That would depend on your location, Yi. You might be able to get away with a buried post in Tucson AZ, but here in Missouri that post would rot within a few years time. One of the best ways to mount a post is on a bracket that has been set into a concrete pillar. clyde
Does that mean cold climate make PT wood rot faster? I am in surban maryland, near Baltimore. I suggested concrete pier idea to the contractor. But he claims nobody is doing that anymore. Buried post make a deck much more stable. Yi >> >> Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult >> to replace them when they are rotten. >> >> Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour >> the more concrete in. >> >> Yi > >That would depend on your location, Yi. You might be able to get away with >a buried post in Tucson AZ, but here in Missouri that post would rot within >a few years time. One of the best ways to mount a post is on a bracket >that has been set into a concrete pillar. > >clyde
When the posts rot, they will become loose in the ground and the fence will sag. You will have to dig them out and replace with a new post. Getting the old post out will be somewhat difficult for those that are deep. Many people use a bumper jack and chain to aid in lifting the post out of the hole. The rot will most likely take place just below the soil line. An alternative is to place a new post right next to the old post and leave the old post in place. I am not a fence expert, so what I have said is based on my personal experience with my fence. — Herb Boulder, CO
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am building a deck right now. The contractor just digged > holes, ranges 2 to 5 feet deep, and poured 1 1/2 bag (120lb) > of concrete mix in each hole. He is going to put in the post. > So they are still 1.5 foot to 4.5 foot deep above the footing. > The posts will sit on the footing, buried with the dirt. > Will the PT posts rot easly? Since they are buied, how can you > tell if a post is rotten underneath? The contractor claimed > that the post will be good for 20 years. But how can you tell? > I would not like to have a lot of people on the deck and then > the rotten posts cause a collapse. > Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult > to replace them when they are rotten. > Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour > the more concrete in. > Yi
I am building a deck right now. The contractor just digged holes, ranges 2 to 5 feet deep, and poured 1 1/2 bag (120lb) of concrete mix in each hole. He is going to put in the post. So they are still 1.5 foot to 4.5 foot deep above the footing. The posts will sit on the footing, buried with the dirt. Will the PT posts rot easly? Since they are buied, how can you tell if a post is rotten underneath? The contractor claimed that the post will be good for 20 years. But how can you tell? I would not like to have a lot of people on the deck and then the rotten posts cause a collapse. Since the posts are do deep, it seems it is really difficult to replace them when they are rotten. Am I worried too much? The contractor is not willing to pour the more concrete in. Yi
Thanks for the replies. I guess I never had an answer to my original question. Should I hire a termite service and sign a contract for annual service (where they come by a few times a year) with a major firm ***OR*** should I hire someone (not a major firm like Orkin, but known in area) to come out and inspect and treat if there is anything found? I know some of these firms like to charge a few hundred a year or more and I am not sure what I would be getting. Thanks, Peter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> … >> If I were building a new home in a termite-infested area, I would >> build with concrete block on a reinforced concrete slab, and make sure >> that my baseboards and drywall supports were treated wood as well as >> the top plate atop the walls. > … > If I were building a new home in termite infested areas, I would > skip any wood at all and stick to concrete and steel. They make > I’ve thought of that. Metal studs attached to the concrete walls > should at least take care of the support for the drywall, which > eliminates one source of wood. However, wood baseboards look much > better than most of the alternatives. And for residential > construction, it’s easy to get wooden trusses delivered cheaply, and > use wood roof decking to deck it. Steel construction for residential > roof framing is a different story. It is very expensive to use steel > construction methods for the roof for residential construction, > because it’s so unfamiliar to anybody in the residential construction > business. Even for commercial construction, they’re likely to only know > how to build flat roofs with steel. If you want an attic and not a flat > roof, well, that’s not too helpful 
. > and drywall is not a requirement. There are wall systems and > treatments that do not use wood, paper or drywall. With the addition > For residential use, drywall or equivalent is required by fire codes. > So you’ll still have paper backing that the little buggers can get into. > Luckily that’s amongst the easiest of damage to fix. > of the poison pumped into the ground under and around the foundation > (a common practice, I’m told) there really shouldn’t be much of a > problem with termites at all. > The problem with barrier treatments is that it takes only one breach > in the barrier for the little buggers to get into the house. That new > Termidor stuff helps there because it doesn’t repel termites but, > rather, allows the termites to poison themselves by tunnelling through > the Termidor, but note that a treatment with the new termiticides only > lasts 5 to 7 years. The old chlordane stuff that lasted 10 years or > more is long gone. Also note that Formosans can enter a home via > swarming, and if there is any source of moisture in the home (e.g. a > drippy drain pipe in the wall), it may be sufficient that they may not > need to go down to the ground to get moisture, and thus would not > encounter even a non-repellent such as Termidor. I don’t worry much > about termites in areas where there are no Formosan termites, just > keep the termite barrier treatment up to date and you’re pretty much > protected, but those Formosans are just plain SCARY. > It’s probably more important that the drainage and grading be done > properly and that, if you do use wood, the roof doesn’t leak. > While termites might chew on any old wood they seem to love rotting > wood best and they need to get water from somewhere. > Correct. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible to detect all sources > of water. If the source is improper flashing of a window, for example, > allowing water to enter between the black paper and the sheathing, > you may never detect the problem until it’s too late.
Great reply Thanks, Peter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thanks for the replies. I guess I never had an answer to my original > question. > Should I hire a termite service and sign a contract for annual service > (where they come by a few times a year) with a major firm ***OR*** > should I hire someone (not a major firm like Orkin, but known in area) > to come out and inspect and treat if there is anything found? > For the most part the major firms are worthless. The guy goes out, > looks at the termite traps, sees no termites, leaves. Hell, you can > do that yourself (you can buy the termite traps on the Internet). > In my opinion, you can do a much better job of looking for termites > than the typical contract worker from one of the major firms, simply > because you care about your home. > Now, here’s the deal. In my state, the firm that treats the home > *must* give you a two year retreatment warranty, which transfers with > the house. That’s the law. They must also offer you the option to > extend that to a five year retreatment warranty for an additional > fee. If your state has a similar policy, *DO IT* — use that warranty, > and maintain it as long as possible. Then inspect the home yourself on > a regular basis, including pulling the occasional baseboard off and > peering behind it for evidence of termite infestation. You are *FAR* > more likely to spot an infestation this way than some "visual" > inspection that consists of a guy glancing at your foundation, saying > "Nope, no termite tubes, no infestation", and going away. If/when you > spot an infestation, call the termite company for a retreatment. > I know some of these firms like to charge a few hundred a year or > more and I am not sure what I would be getting. > In my experience, not much. I’ve watched these big-name termite guys > fiddle around with their traps and baits saying "Nope no termites!" > while a house collapses behind them due to a severe termite > infestation that chewed through the beams of the pier-and-beam > foundation. A simple glance in the crawlspace would have shown them > evidence of the infestation, but that would have required doing > some work for their money (and would have required spending money > treating the house rather than using the money to buy more > beer). > See about getting your current termite company to extend the warranty > (generally they’ll throw in a free yearly inspection too). Then > inspect the house yourself every three months or so. Note that in > areas of severe Formosan infestation, Formosans have been known to eat > a house to the point of collapse in less than three years, so this > isn’t something you want to leave to some apathetic guy who wants to > just get back to his beer. You care about your house. That guy from > the big name termite company doesn’t. That makes a big difference.
I have a home in Charlotte, NC that is about 8 months old. It was treated for Termintes prior to purchase. Do I need to engage a termite service every year or only on occasion? What are the guidelines for this? Do I use a name brand company or someone less expensive? I do not want to pay excessively for something I do not need but at the same time I do not know how much protection I do need? I am on a crawlspace if that matters. Thanks, Peter
> I have a home in Charlotte, NC that is about 8 months old. It was > treated for Termintes prior to purchase. Do I need to engage a termite > service every year or only on occasion? What are the guidelines for > this? > Do I use a name brand company or someone less expensive? I do not want > to pay excessively for something I do not need but at the same time I > do not know how much protection I do need?
In Charlotte, the termites come pre-equipped with chainsaws — from what I understand, the Formosan termite has been spotted there, and a single Formosan can chew up 1,000 pounds of wood per year and a large infestation can cause a wood frame house to collapse within three years. Note that Charlotte is rated as one of the 20 worst areas in the country for termites by the makers of the Termidor(tm) termiticide. I’m not sure what the laws are in North Carolina, but here in Arizona if they treat the house they must extend a 2-year termite warranty and the warranty is transferred to the new owner upon sale. You need to check the laws in your state and see what the deal is there. Whatever the case is, you should check your crawl space every few months looking for termite tubes and and boreholes in timbers, and poking at exposed timbers with a screwdriver to see if the screwdriver tip goes in (Formosans don’t always build termite tubes, often they hollow out boards from the inside). If I lived in Charlotte I would also check behind selected baseboards every six months or so for evidence of termite infestation also. As for visual inspections by exterminators, those typically are once a year things that are part of a termite control contract, and often are a case of too little, too late — by the time they spot an infestation, Formosans can have caused thousands of dollars of damage to your house. Even the latest "magic bullet" termiticide, Termidor, is not 100% effective against an already-established infestation of Formosans, because Formosans need only a single leaky drain pipe or small roof leak to get enough moisture to thrive — thus may not go into the soil for more moisture (and encounter the Termidor) until after they’ve already seriously damaged your house. By all means do get a contract, just don’t expect it to be a panacea. If I sound paranoid about termites… well, I’m from Louisiana. I’ve seen what even normal Eastern termites can do, and it’s scary enough. Those Formosans are even scarier. If I lived in a place where Formosans were common, I’d have enough monitoring stations out to make the NSA proud, check them every month or two, and the first termite I saw, I’d call out the exterminator to treat my place with Termidor (the closest thing to a replacement for chlordane as exists right now) as well as replace the balsa in the infested monitoring station with a bait that hopefully the little buggers would bring home to infect the queen with. You can get the monitoring stations and baits as a homeowner from various places on the Internet, you cannot get Termidor as a homeowner and that’s probably a good thing considering how paranoid homeowners can get after encountering the facts about the Formosan 
. If I were building a new home in a termite-infested area, I would build with concrete block on a reinforced concrete slab, and make sure that my baseboards and drywall supports were treated wood as well as the top plate atop the walls. Note that the little buggers will still infest a concrete block home, they love to chew on the drywall’s paper binding for example and will head straight up the drywall to the attic if the infestation is not caught early, but the damage is not structural unless they get into the roof trusses, and even there it’s more easily repaired than when the damage is hidden within wood frame walls. It surprises me that more people don’t consider termites when they’re buying a new house, especially in areas where the Formosan has been spotted. — There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. – Mark Twain
> Thanks for the replies. I guess I never had an answer to my original > question. > Should I hire a termite service and sign a contract for annual service > (where they come by a few times a year) with a major firm ***OR*** > should I hire someone (not a major firm like Orkin, but known in area) > to come out and inspect and treat if there is anything found?
For the most part the major firms are worthless. The guy goes out, looks at the termite traps, sees no termites, leaves. Hell, you can do that yourself (you can buy the termite traps on the Internet). In my opinion, you can do a much better job of looking for termites than the typical contract worker from one of the major firms, simply because you care about your home. Now, here’s the deal. In my state, the firm that treats the home *must* give you a two year retreatment warranty, which transfers with the house. That’s the law. They must also offer you the option to extend that to a five year retreatment warranty for an additional fee. If your state has a similar policy, *DO IT* — use that warranty, and maintain it as long as possible. Then inspect the home yourself on a regular basis, including pulling the occasional baseboard off and peering behind it for evidence of termite infestation. You are *FAR* more likely to spot an infestation this way than some "visual" inspection that consists of a guy glancing at your foundation, saying "Nope, no termite tubes, no infestation", and going away. If/when you spot an infestation, call the termite company for a retreatment. > I know some of these firms like to charge a few hundred a year or > more and I am not sure what I would be getting.
In my experience, not much. I’ve watched these big-name termite guys fiddle around with their traps and baits saying "Nope no termites!" while a house collapses behind them due to a severe termite infestation that chewed through the beams of the pier-and-beam foundation. A simple glance in the crawlspace would have shown them evidence of the infestation, but that would have required doing some work for their money (and would have required spending money treating the house rather than using the money to buy more beer). See about getting your current termite company to extend the warranty (generally they’ll throw in a free yearly inspection too). Then inspect the house yourself every three months or so. Note that in areas of severe Formosan infestation, Formosans have been known to eat a house to the point of collapse in less than three years, so this isn’t something you want to leave to some apathetic guy who wants to just get back to his beer. You care about your house. That guy from the big name termite company doesn’t. That makes a big difference. — There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. – Mark Twain
Peter, I’m in the RTP area of NC. I have a contract with a small local company. They come out once a year an inspect for termites (tough job crawling around in a very low crawl space). They do not treat unless they find active termites. Several years ago, this same company would treat every year. I think some of the environmental concerns have driven them to inspect every year, and treat only if an active infestation is found. I pay $65 a year for this service. I chose a local company vs a large company because I believe you get better service service from a small, local company than from the large companies. I have been using this same company since I built the house in 1972. Hope this answers your original question. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Thanks for the replies. I guess I never had an answer to my original > question. > Should I hire a termite service and sign a contract for annual service > (where they come by a few times a year) with a major firm ***OR*** > should I hire someone (not a major firm like Orkin, but known in area) > to come out and inspect and treat if there is anything found? > I know some of these firms like to charge a few hundred a year or > more and I am not sure what I would be getting. > Thanks, Peter > > … > >> If I were building a new home in a termite-infested area, I would > >> build with concrete block on a reinforced concrete slab, and make sure > >> that my baseboards and drywall supports were treated wood as well as > >> the top plate atop the walls. > > … > > If I were building a new home in termite infested areas, I would > > skip any wood at all and stick to concrete and steel. They make > I’ve thought of that. Metal studs attached to the concrete walls > should at least take care of the support for the drywall, which > eliminates one source of wood. However, wood baseboards look much > better than most of the alternatives. And for residential > construction, it’s easy to get wooden trusses delivered cheaply, and > use wood roof decking to deck it. Steel construction for residential > roof framing is a different story. It is very expensive to use steel > construction methods for the roof for residential construction, > because it’s so unfamiliar to anybody in the residential construction > business. Even for commercial construction, they’re likely to only know > how to build flat roofs with steel. If you want an attic and not a flat > roof, well, that’s not too helpful . > > and drywall is not a requirement. There are wall systems and > > treatments that do not use wood, paper or drywall. With the addition > For residential use, drywall or equivalent is required by fire codes. > So you’ll still have paper backing that the little buggers can get into. > Luckily that’s amongst the easiest of damage to fix. > > of the poison pumped into the ground under and around the foundation > > (a common practice, I’m told) there really shouldn’t be much of a > > problem with termites at all. > The problem with barrier treatments is that it takes only one breach > in the barrier for the little buggers to get into the house. That new > Termidor stuff helps there because it doesn’t repel termites but, > rather, allows the termites to poison themselves by tunnelling through > the Termidor, but note that a treatment with the new termiticides only > lasts 5 to 7 years. The old chlordane stuff that lasted 10 years or > more is long gone. Also note that Formosans can enter a home via > swarming, and if there is any source of moisture in the home (e.g. a > drippy drain pipe in the wall), it may be sufficient that they may not > need to go down to the ground to get moisture, and thus would not > encounter even a non-repellent such as Termidor. I don’t worry much > about termites in areas where there are no Formosan termites, just > keep the termite barrier treatment up to date and you’re pretty much > protected, but those Formosans are just plain SCARY. > > It’s probably more important that the drainage and grading be done > > properly and that, if you do use wood, the roof doesn’t leak. > > While termites might chew on any old wood they seem to love rotting > > wood best and they need to get water from somewhere. > Correct. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible to detect all sources > of water. If the source is improper flashing of a window, for example, > allowing water to enter between the black paper and the sheathing, > you may never detect the problem until it’s too late.
– Bob Kelly
> … > If I were building a new home in a termite-infested area, I would > build with concrete block on a reinforced concrete slab, and make sure > that my baseboards and drywall supports were treated wood as well as > the top plate atop the walls. > … > If I were building a new home in termite infested areas, I would > skip any wood at all and stick to concrete and steel. They make
I’ve thought of that. Metal studs attached to the concrete walls should at least take care of the support for the drywall, which eliminates one source of wood. However, wood baseboards look much better than most of the alternatives. And for residential construction, it’s easy to get wooden trusses delivered cheaply, and use wood roof decking to deck it. Steel construction for residential roof framing is a different story. It is very expensive to use steel construction methods for the roof for residential construction, because it’s so unfamiliar to anybody in the residential construction business. Even for commercial construction, they’re likely to only know how to build flat roofs with steel. If you want an attic and not a flat roof, well, that’s not too helpful . > and drywall is not a requirement. There are wall systems and > treatments that do not use wood, paper or drywall. With the addition
For residential use, drywall or equivalent is required by fire codes. So you’ll still have paper backing that the little buggers can get into. Luckily that’s amongst the easiest of damage to fix. > of the poison pumped into the ground under and around the foundation > (a common practice, I’m told) there really shouldn’t be much of a > problem with termites at all.
The problem with barrier treatments is that it takes only one breach in the barrier for the little buggers to get into the house. That new Termidor stuff helps there because it doesn’t repel termites but, rather, allows the termites to poison themselves by tunnelling through the Termidor, but note that a treatment with the new termiticides only lasts 5 to 7 years. The old chlordane stuff that lasted 10 years or more is long gone. Also note that Formosans can enter a home via swarming, and if there is any source of moisture in the home (e.g. a drippy drain pipe in the wall), it may be sufficient that they may not need to go down to the ground to get moisture, and thus would not encounter even a non-repellent such as Termidor. I don’t worry much about termites in areas where there are no Formosan termites, just keep the termite barrier treatment up to date and you’re pretty much protected, but those Formosans are just plain SCARY. > It’s probably more important that the drainage and grading be done > properly and that, if you do use wood, the roof doesn’t leak. > While termites might chew on any old wood they seem to love rotting > wood best and they need to get water from somewhere.
Correct. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible to detect all sources of water. If the source is improper flashing of a window, for example, allowing water to enter between the black paper and the sheathing, you may never detect the problem until it’s too late. — There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. – Mark Twain
… > If I were building a new home in a termite-infested area, I would > build with concrete block on a reinforced concrete slab, and make sure > that my baseboards and drywall supports were treated wood as well as > the top plate atop the walls.
… If I were building a new home in termite infested areas, I would skip any wood at all and stick to concrete and steel. They make lots of homes entirely out of steel frame construction these days and drywall is not a requirement. There are wall systems and treatments that do not use wood, paper or drywall. With the addition of the poison pumped into the ground under and around the foundation (a common practice, I’m told) there really shouldn’t be much of a problem with termites at all. It’s probably more important that the drainage and grading be done properly and that, if you do use wood, the roof doesn’t leak. While termites might chew on any old wood they seem to love rotting wood best and they need to get water from somewhere. Anthony
> A friend is considering an addition to her home and I’m giving her > bits of advise here and there but I’m out of my depth on one issue. > The house is a split ranch. (You come in the front door and go down > a half a flight to the family room and up a half a flight to the > kitchen and dining room.) She wants to add a 1-story addition to > the family room with a deck off the dining room above the addition. > That is, the deck would be the roof of the addition. When I think > of "deck", I think pressure treated 1x over joists but that doesn’t > seem to fit this application. What other types of decking are there > that might work here, something attractive and durable that would > also serve as a roof for the addition, I guess. > Chris
What your asking can be done, but there are a lot of issues (roof integrity, elevations, etc) that have to be addressed. I would suggest an architect.
I suggest driving around the neighborhood, and nearby ones, looking for someplace that’s done something similar. and copying whatever they did. Some things to think about are: A deck is typically about 8" lower than the floor indoors from it, esp. in places where they get snow. If the lower level (family room) doesn’t have a fair amount of headroom, you’re going to be squoze for space, which is going to mean stepping down into the lower-level addition, or combining the roof and deck as one unit, which is likely to be awkward and expensive. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A friend is considering an addition to her home and I’m giving her > bits of advise here and there but I’m out of my depth on one issue. > The house is a split ranch. (You come in the front door and go down > a half a flight to the family room and up a half a flight to the > kitchen and dining room.) She wants to add a 1-story addition to > the family room with a deck off the dining room above the addition. > That is, the deck would be the roof of the addition. When I think > of "deck", I think pressure treated 1x over joists but that doesn’t > seem to fit this application. What other types of decking are there > that might work here, something attractive and durable that would > also serve as a roof for the addition, I guess. > Chris > What your asking can be done, but there are a lot of issues (roof > integrity, elevations, etc) that have to be addressed. I would > suggest an architect.
Chris, you said ‘….the deck would be the roof of the addition.’. That’s a bit confusing. A deck is a deck. A roof is a roof. A deck is never a roof. What you want to know is how to build a ‘roof’ that you can build a ‘deck’ on top of. The only kind I can think of are the flat roofs which even carpenters sometimes advise against. Mark
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A friend is considering an addition to her home and I’m giving her bits > of advise here and there but I’m out of my depth on one issue. The > house is a split ranch. (You come in the front door and go down a half > a flight to the family room and up a half a flight to the kitchen and > dining room.) She wants to add a 1-story addition to the family room > with a deck off the dining room above the addition. That is, the deck > would be the roof of the addition. When I think of "deck", I think > pressure treated 1x over joists but that doesn’t seem to fit this > application. What other types of decking are there that might work > here, something attractive and durable that would also serve as a roof > for the addition, I guess. > Chris > — > "Custody" and "visitation" are for prisoners. > http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01920&sh=t
A friend is considering an addition to her home and I’m giving her bits of advise here and there but I’m out of my depth on one issue. The house is a split ranch. (You come in the front door and go down a half a flight to the family room and up a half a flight to the kitchen and dining room.) She wants to add a 1-story addition to the family room with a deck off the dining room above the addition. That is, the deck would be the roof of the addition. When I think of "deck", I think pressure treated 1x over joists but that doesn’t seem to fit this application. What other types of decking are there that might work here, something attractive and durable that would also serve as a roof for the addition, I guess. Chris — "Custody" and "visitation" are for prisoners. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01920&sh=t
HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to the pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there are that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. So to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most cases is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. "The first rule is: DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get plenty of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your planning. "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so retrace your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how he made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that you can now avoid)." You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This approach almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what follows herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be foremost in your planning: 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it all year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your new pond. I did and boy am I glad! 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom drain). People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward it. Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or one very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration in the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They cost about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs it stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains should gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the poop and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by side (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the water level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the flow rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe can carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe starts growing things inside. 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down the side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the bottom where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point is to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can have and still accomplish the same result. 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or extract or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in diameter) brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal applications. You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, they must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is okay if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy bacteria in the biological processing station). 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient to do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind of material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind of material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The rule of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean it). I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the water. Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create the gravity flow recirculating function. Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be doubtful of anyone who shows you a 2′ x 2′ x 3′ box and tells you it will take care of 6000 (or whatever) gallons. This might work if you only want a couple of fish. Ask instead, how many mature, 24" fish, being fed normally, the filter system can support. There is no formula and little science to help us decide on size and shape so talking to experienced Koi Keepers is the best approach. Tip: You can have as many fish as your filter can support but, a crowd looks like a crowd. Fifteen, 24" fish in a 25′ x 13′ x 3′ pond looks great. Fifty, 12" fish looks like rush hour on Times Square. Now that you know what you’re getting into and have a plan, lets get on with it. In addition to selecting a site for the pond, you need to decide where the filter system will go. It can go most anywhere -out in the woods, around the corner of the house, maybe in the garage – but it should either be concealed or suitably camouflaged so as not to intrude in the beautiful setting you’re making. … read more »
All you do is put a pre-filter on it and you are just fine using suction for the bottom drain.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND > The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to > contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom > drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical > filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to the > pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and > heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of > MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: > "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there are > that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream > to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be > read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. So > to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the > horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most cases > is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. > "The first rule is: > DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! > "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but > actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. > Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get plenty > of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the > chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your > planning. > "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking > questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some > ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so retrace > your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and > running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. > Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how he > made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that you > can now avoid)." > You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, > throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This approach > almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what follows > herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. > One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a > square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size > liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly > cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical > and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no > matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be > foremost in your planning: > 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it all > year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to > tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your new > pond. I did and boy am I glad! > 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems > the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course > this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those > seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to > manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. > 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will > allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom drain). > People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. > 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with > just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward it. > Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity > feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they > should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or one > very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. > Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration in > the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They cost > about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs it > stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains should > gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the poop > and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. > Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always > seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by side > (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the > other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the water > level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water > from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow > recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter > system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond > water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the flow > rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water > drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour > (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe can > carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe > starts growing things inside. > 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex > (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down the > side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces > of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the bottom > where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. > When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" > (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this > container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point is > to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any > smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the > typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). > The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can > have and still accomplish the same result. > 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or extract > or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to > cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of > material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in diameter) > brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar > synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop > more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit > your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal applications. > You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped > with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They > can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, they > must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to > perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is okay > if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy > bacteria in the biological processing station). > 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see > such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by > Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – > this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under > water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But > because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient to > do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind of > material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind of > material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The rule > of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like > Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight > and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest > possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean it). > I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to > clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. > (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the water. > Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and > should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its > from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create the > gravity flow recirculating function. > Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be > doubtful of anyone who shows you a 2′ x 2′ x 3′ box and tells you it will > take care of 6000 (or whatever) gallons. This might work if you only want a > couple of fish. Ask instead, how many mature, 24" fish, being fed normally, > the filter system can support. There is no formula and little science to > help us decide on size and shape so talking to experienced Koi Keepers is > the best approach. > Tip: You can have as many fish as your filter can support but, a crowd > looks like a crowd. Fifteen, 24"
… read more »
how do you drain the settling tank if it’s gravity fed??????
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND > The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to > contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom > drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical > filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to the > pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and > heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of > MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: > "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there are > that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream > to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be > read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. So > to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the > horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most cases > is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. > "The first rule is: > DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! > "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but > actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. > Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get plenty > of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the > chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your > planning. > "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking > questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some > ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so retrace > your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and > running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. > Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how he > made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that you > can now avoid)." > You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, > throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This approach > almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what follows > herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. > One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a > square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size > liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly > cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical > and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no > matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be > foremost in your planning: > 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it all > year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to > tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your new > pond. I did and boy am I glad! > 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems > the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course > this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those > seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to > manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. > 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will > allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom drain). > People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. > 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with > just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward it. > Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity > feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they > should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or one > very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. > Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration in > the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They cost > about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs it > stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains should > gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the poop > and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. > Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always > seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by side > (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the > other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the water > level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water > from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow > recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter > system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond > water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the flow > rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water > drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour > (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe can > carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe > starts growing things inside. > 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex > (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down the > side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces > of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the bottom > where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. > When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" > (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this > container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point is > to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any > smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the > typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). > The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can > have and still accomplish the same result. > 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or extract > or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to > cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of > material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in diameter) > brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar > synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop > more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit > your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal applications. > You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped > with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They > can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, they > must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to > perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is okay > if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy > bacteria in the biological processing station). > 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see > such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by > Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – > this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under > water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But > because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient to > do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind of > material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind of > material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The rule > of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like > Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight > and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest > possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean it). > I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to > clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. > (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the water. > Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and > should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its > from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create the > gravity flow recirculating function. > Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be > doubtful of anyone who shows you a 2′ x 2′ x 3′ box and tells you it will > take care of 6000 (or whatever) gallons. This might work if you only want a > couple of fish. Ask instead, how many mature, 24" fish, being fed normally, > the filter system can support. There is no formula and little science to > help us decide on size and shape so talking to experienced Koi Keepers is > the best approach. > Tip: You can have as many fish as your filter can support but, a crowd > looks like a crowd. Fifteen, 24" fish in a 25′ x 13′ x 3′ pond looks
… read more »
Purge valves on the bottom of the settling tanks
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> how do you drain the settling tank if it’s gravity fed?????? > HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND > The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to > contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom > drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical > filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to > the > pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and > heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of > MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: > "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there > are > that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream > to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be > read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. > So > to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the > horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most > cases > is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. > "The first rule is: > DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! > "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but > actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. > Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get > plenty > of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the > chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your > planning. > "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking > questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some > ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so > retrace > your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and > running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. > Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how > he > made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that > you > can now avoid)." > You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, > throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This > approach > almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what > follows > herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. > One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a > square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size > liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly > cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical > and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no > matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be > foremost in your planning: > 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it > all > year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to > tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your > new > pond. I did and boy am I glad! > 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems > the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course > this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those > seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to > manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. > 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will > allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom > drain). > People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. > 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with > just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward > it. > Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity > feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they > should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or > one > very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. > Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration > in > the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They > cost > about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs > it > stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains > should > gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the > poop > and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. > Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always > seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by > side > (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the > other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the > water > level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water > from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow > recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter > system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond > water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the > flow > rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water > drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour > (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe > can > carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe > starts growing things inside. > 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex > (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down > the > side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces > of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the > bottom > where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. > When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" > (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this > container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point > is > to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any > smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the > typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). > The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can > have and still accomplish the same result. > 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or > extract > or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to > cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of > material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in > diameter) > brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar > synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop > more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit > your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal > applications. > You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped > with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They > can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, > they > must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to > perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is > okay > if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy > bacteria in the biological processing station). > 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see > such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by > Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – > this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under > water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But > because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient > to > do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind > of > material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind > of > material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The > rule > of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like > Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight > and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest > possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean > it). > I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to > clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. > (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the > water. > Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and > should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its > from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create > the > gravity flow recirculating function. > Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be > doubtful of
… read more »
HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to the pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there are that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. So to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most cases is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. "The first rule is: DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get plenty of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your planning. "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so retrace your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how he made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that you can now avoid)." You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This approach almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what follows herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be foremost in your planning: 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it all year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your new pond. I did and boy am I glad! 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom drain). People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward it. Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or one very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration in the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They cost about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs it stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains should gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the poop and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by side (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the water level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the flow rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe can carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe starts growing things inside. 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down the side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the bottom where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point is to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can have and still accomplish the same result. 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or extract or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in diameter) brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal applications. You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, they must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is okay if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy bacteria in the biological processing station). 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient to do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind of material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind of material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The rule of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean it). I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the water. Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create the gravity flow recirculating function. Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be doubtful of anyone who shows you a 2′ x 2′ x 3′ box and tells you it will take care of 6000 (or whatever) gallons. This might work if you only want a couple of fish. Ask instead, how many mature, 24" fish, being fed normally, the filter system can support. There is no formula and little science to help us decide on size and shape so talking to experienced Koi Keepers is the best approach. Tip: You can have as many fish as your filter can support but, a crowd looks like a crowd. Fifteen, 24" fish in a 25′ x 13′ x 3′ pond looks great. Fifty, 12" fish looks like rush hour on Times Square. Now that you know what you’re getting into and have a plan, lets get on with it. In addition to selecting a site for the pond, you need to decide where the filter system will go. It can go most anywhere -out in the woods, around the corner of the house, maybe in the garage – but it should either be concealed or suitably camouflaged so as not to intrude in the beautiful setting you’re making. … read more »
All you do is put a pre-filter on it and you are just fine using suction for the bottom drain.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND > The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to > contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom > drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical > filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to the > pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and > heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of > MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: > "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there are > that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream > to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be > read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. So > to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the > horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most cases > is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. > "The first rule is: > DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! > "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but > actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. > Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get plenty > of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the > chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your > planning. > "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking > questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some > ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so retrace > your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and > running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. > Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how he > made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that you > can now avoid)." > You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, > throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This approach > almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what follows > herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. > One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a > square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size > liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly > cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical > and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no > matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be > foremost in your planning: > 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it all > year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to > tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your new > pond. I did and boy am I glad! > 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems > the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course > this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those > seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to > manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. > 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will > allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom drain). > People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. > 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with > just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward it. > Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity > feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they > should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or one > very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. > Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration in > the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They cost > about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs it > stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains should > gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the poop > and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. > Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always > seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by side > (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the > other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the water > level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water > from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow > recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter > system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond > water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the flow > rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water > drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour > (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe can > carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe > starts growing things inside. > 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex > (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down the > side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces > of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the bottom > where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. > When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" > (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this > container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point is > to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any > smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the > typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). > The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can > have and still accomplish the same result. > 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or extract > or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to > cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of > material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in diameter) > brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar > synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop > more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit > your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal applications. > You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped > with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They > can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, they > must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to > perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is okay > if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy > bacteria in the biological processing station). > 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see > such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by > Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – > this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under > water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But > because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient to > do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind of > material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind of > material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The rule > of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like > Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight > and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest > possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean it). > I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to > clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. > (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the water. > Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and > should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its > from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create the > gravity flow recirculating function. > Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be > doubtful of anyone who shows you a 2′ x 2′ x 3′ box and tells you it will > take care of 6000 (or whatever) gallons. This might work if you only want a > couple of fish. Ask instead, how many mature, 24" fish, being fed normally, > the filter system can support. There is no formula and little science to > help us decide on size and shape so talking to experienced Koi Keepers is > the best approach. > Tip: You can have as many fish as your filter can support but, a crowd > looks like a crowd. Fifteen, 24"
… read more »
how do you drain the settling tank if it’s gravity fed??????
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND > The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to > contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom > drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical > filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to the > pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and > heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of > MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: > "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there are > that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream > to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be > read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. So > to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the > horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most cases > is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. > "The first rule is: > DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! > "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but > actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. > Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get plenty > of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the > chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your > planning. > "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking > questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some > ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so retrace > your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and > running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. > Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how he > made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that you > can now avoid)." > You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, > throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This approach > almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what follows > herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. > One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a > square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size > liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly > cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical > and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no > matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be > foremost in your planning: > 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it all > year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to > tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your new > pond. I did and boy am I glad! > 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems > the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course > this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those > seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to > manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. > 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will > allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom drain). > People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. > 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with > just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward it. > Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity > feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they > should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or one > very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. > Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration in > the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They cost > about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs it > stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains should > gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the poop > and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. > Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always > seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by side > (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the > other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the water > level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water > from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow > recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter > system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond > water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the flow > rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water > drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour > (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe can > carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe > starts growing things inside. > 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex > (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down the > side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces > of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the bottom > where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. > When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" > (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this > container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point is > to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any > smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the > typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). > The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can > have and still accomplish the same result. > 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or extract > or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to > cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of > material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in diameter) > brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar > synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop > more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit > your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal applications. > You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped > with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They > can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, they > must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to > perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is okay > if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy > bacteria in the biological processing station). > 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see > such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by > Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – > this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under > water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But > because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient to > do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind of > material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind of > material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The rule > of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like > Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight > and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest > possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean it). > I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to > clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. > (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the water. > Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and > should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its > from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create the > gravity flow recirculating function. > Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be > doubtful of anyone who shows you a 2′ x 2′ x 3′ box and tells you it will > take care of 6000 (or whatever) gallons. This might work if you only want a > couple of fish. Ask instead, how many mature, 24" fish, being fed normally, > the filter system can support. There is no formula and little science to > help us decide on size and shape so talking to experienced Koi Keepers is > the best approach. > Tip: You can have as many fish as your filter can support but, a crowd > looks like a crowd. Fifteen, 24" fish in a 25′ x 13′ x 3′ pond looks
… read more »
Purge valves on the bottom of the settling tanks
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> how do you drain the settling tank if it’s gravity fed?????? > HOW TO BUILD A PROPER KOI POND > The only difference between a liner pond and any other is what’s used to > contain the water. All other technical aspects are the same; bottom > drain(s) gravity feeding to a settling chamber, feeding to a mechanical > filter then to a biological processing station before being returned to > the > pond by the recirculating pump. But before attempting to build, read and > heed the advice in Koi Keeping 101, found in the book, From the Pages of > MAKC News (www.MAKC.com). Here’s an excerpt: > "It seems that the more people that see Koi, the more people there > are > that want to own one (or 10 or 50). But to make the transition from dream > to dream pond, there’s an awful lot of information that must be > read/seen/heard and assimilated before one has even a chance of success. > So > to preclude those would-be Koi keepers from putting the carp before the > horse, here’s my view of a logical approach to what can be and in most > cases > is, a most rewarding and fascinating hobby. > "The first rule is: > DON’T BUY ANY FISH YET!!! > "Not only join a club as most of those reading this have done, but > actively participate in all of its activities that you can make time for. > Listen to any and all who will respond to your questions. You’ll get > plenty > of conflicting stories but after awhile you’ll be able to sift through the > chaff and can start to formulate a well founded base from which to do your > planning. > "Go see as many ponds as you possibly can, all the while asking > questions and storing the data for your future use. By now you have some > ideas on what your budget, real estate and imagination can handle so > retrace > your steps (or continue your search) until you find THE pond, up and > running, tried and true, that comes closest to what you think you want. > Talk extensively to that pond keeper and find out from the beginning how > he > made it work and what were the mistakes and pitfalls along the way (that > you > can now avoid)." > You don’t want to make the mistake that so many do by digging a hole, > throwing in a liner and some fish, and calling it a Koi pond. This > approach > almost guarantees disaster. Just follow the advice in 101 and what > follows > herein and you’ve got a real good chance of success. > One of the major pluses for using a liner is its cost – $.50 to $1.00 a > square foot. That’s for 45 mil thick EPDM, fish friendly, cut to size > liner. Years ago we had to use the roofing EPDM that had to be thoroughly > cleaned or was deadly to fish. Since EPDM is probably the most economical > and practical liner, let’s not even talk about any other. However, no > matter what you use to contain the water, these major decisions should be > foremost in your planning: > 1. Siting – If at all possible, put your pond where you can see it > all > year ’round. Those of us who did are grateful daily. Maybe you want to > tear out that old concrete patio or re-do that deck to incorporate your > new > pond. I did and boy am I glad! > 2. Size – After traveling all over and seeing many a pond, it seems > the 4000 to 6000 gallon one fits the average hobbyist the best (of course > this does not speak for those folks attempting to grow jumbo Koi nor those > seeking the title "Grand Champion" at shows). Also, its just as easy to > manage 6000 gallons as it is 2000 and a whole lot better for fish. > 3. Depth – At least three feet with a slightly sloping bottom will > allow for better water flow and elimination of wastes (to the bottom > drain). > People looking for jumbo growth might even consider six feet or so. > 4. Bottom drains – A 4000-6000 gallon pond might get along fine with > just one bottom drain if constructed so sediment was kept moving toward > it. > Ponds above 6000 gallons should have at least two bottom drains gravity > feeding to two separate filtration systems. If two or more are used, they > should never be connected by a "Y" but taken all the way to separate (or > one > very large) settling chambers in at least 4" schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. > Drains should be of the type designed by Peter Waddington of Infiltration > in > the UK, and pictured on page 32 of the Tetra Encyclopedia of Koi. They > cost > about $120- 130. There’s a cheaper one on the market but the three legs > it > stands on create a traffic jam from leaves and other debris. Drains > should > gravity feed to the filter – if you pump to a filter you puree all the > poop > and stuff making filtration – spelled EXTRACTION – more difficult. > Tip: A word on gravity feeding. The basic rule is, water will always > seek its own level. If you place two containers (or even more) side by > side > (such as a pond and a settling chamber) and run a pipe from one to the > other(s) anywhere below the water line, and fill them with water, the > water > level will even-out from one to the other. If we pump from one, the water > from the other(s) will flow to compensate and that’s how a gravity flow > recirculating systems works. As long as the pump is running, the filter > system water level will always be slightly below pond level as the pond > water is always trying to catch up. How much difference depends on the > flow > rate of the pump. The higher the output of the pump, the lower the water > drops in the filter system containers. Example: 2400 gallons per hour > (GPH) will drop the level about 1 inch. Note: A new (slick) 4" PVC pipe > can > carry about 3500 GPH by gravity. The flow rate will reduce as the pipe > starts growing things inside. > 5. Settling chambers – The most efficient is called a vortex > (whirlpool). Water enters on a tangent about two thirds of the way down > the > side of the container, causing a swirling motion forcing the larger pieces > of crud to move out to the sides where gravity draws them down to the > bottom > where the purge line enters the cone shape of the purpose built container. > When we see a build-up of debris, we just pull the knife valve in the 3" > (minimum) purge line and get rid of it to waste. For most Koi ponds, this > container should be a minimum of 40" in diameter and 40" deep. The point > is > to slow the water down enough for the heavy stuff to drop out and any > smaller container is ineffective when pond water flow rate is at the > typical 2000-2400 gallons per hour (2400 GPH is maximum for a 40" vortex). > The rule of thumb is, the larger the vortex the greater water flow we can > have and still accomplish the same result. > 6. Mechanical filtration – This is where we actually strain or > extract > or trap or take something out of the water. We actually want particles to > cling to whatever we place in the path of the water. The choices of > material are numerous but my choice is cylindrical (usually 4" in > diameter) > brushes with a stainless steel core and bristles of nylon or other similar > synthetic material. Its best to buy the thick, good ones as they’ll stop > more stuff and they never wear out. They come in various lengths to suit > your needs and can be used in up-flow, down-flow or horizontal > applications. > You’ll want at least four rows, each one slightly enmeshed or overlapped > with the other from side to side. And with brushes, more is better. They > can be hung in place with dowels or metal (non-rusting) rods. However, > they > must be cleaned from time to time and because we’re not asking them to > perform any biological function, a garden hose and chlorinated water is > okay > if flushed away from the system (chlorinated water will kill the good guy > bacteria in the biological processing station). > 7. Biological processing – Here’s where the chemicals you can’t see > such and ammonia and nitrite, are handled by good-guy bacteria provided by > Mother Nature. Remember, every surface under water anywhere in the pond – > this means streams, waterfalls, the sides of the pond, anything under > water – is a place for good-guy bacteria to reside and work for you. But > because we usually have too many fish, this surface area is insufficient > to > do the job. So – what most of us do is provide a container of some kind > of > material outside the pond, on which the bacteria can colonize. What kind > of > material? Ask ten different people and get ten different answers. The > rule > of thumb is get the most surface area for the smallest volume. I like > Japanese or domestic matting or the ribbon-like media for its light weight > and ease in cleaning (even though we give this container the cleanest > possible water, over time crud will accumulate and we’ll have to clean > it). > I don’t like lava rock or any kind of gravel/aggregate because it tends to > clog and channel and is tough to take out of a container and try to clean. > (How do we know if our processing station is doing its job? Test the > water. > Inexpensive test kits for ammonia and nitrite are readily available and > should be used routinely and should always show zero contamination). Its > from this processing station that we’ll pump back to the pond and create > the > gravity flow recirculating function. > Tip: Ready made filter systems are available but size is critical. Be > doubtful of
… read more »
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The ones I’m looking at are a unit — bracket and shelf or > hangers. For examples, see: > http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showprod.cfm?&DID=7&CATID=55&ObjectGro… > One of them is described as > "This commercial grade wall mount TV bracket is suitable for > mounting 20-29" (diagonal screen) TV sets and can handle > loads up to 165 pounds. The 360deg swivel and 15deg tilt > allows for optimum viewing angles, even for large > audiences." > Another says: > "Heavy duty wall mounting bracket was designed for > commercial use and features a 130 pound capacity. Swivels > 240deg with a 15deg tilt. In-line screw mounting plate > simplifies stud mounting. Includes foam anti-slip pads. > Black finish. Shelf is 26" W x 13-1/2" D to accommodate up > to 27" (diagonal screen) TVs."
I was hoping you’d take a peak at that web oage and give me your opinion of what’s there. Thanks, Pete
Hi again, Pete. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > The ones I’m looking at are a unit — bracket and shelf or > > hangers. For examples, see: > > http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showprod.cfm?&DID=7&CATID=55&ObjectGro… > > One of them is described as > > "This commercial grade wall mount TV bracket is suitable for > > mounting 20-29" (diagonal screen) TV sets and can handle > > loads up to 165 pounds. The 360deg swivel and 15deg tilt > > allows for optimum viewing angles, even for large > > audiences." > > Another says: > > "Heavy duty wall mounting bracket was designed for > > commercial use and features a 130 pound capacity. Swivels > > 240deg with a 15deg tilt. In-line screw mounting plate > > simplifies stud mounting. Includes foam anti-slip pads. > > Black finish. Shelf is 26" W x 13-1/2" D to accommodate up > > to 27" (diagonal screen) TVs." > I was hoping you’d take a peak at that web oage and give > me your opinion of what’s there. > Thanks, > Pete
It’d be a pretty uninformed opinion, even a SWAG. What the hey! From what they say, they should work. Some of them are a bit "commercial" but that’s a matter of taste. I’d be sure to get a solid guarantee. And be really fussy about installing it solidly. Various vendors make really looooooooong deck screws nowadays. Made of decent quality steel, made for power-driving. I’d predrill, and use just as long as possible. Besides as large size as possible, like 1/4" lags if they fit. Through-bolts are good. Regards, John
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > What you’d need to assure that would depend on > > overall dimensions, and load. Mainly weight and > > distance of center of gravity from wall. > > What you’d make it of, and how, would partly depend > > on the skill level of the fabricator- how precisely > > cut, and how solidly joined the pieces would be. Not > > to mention, how you’d like it to look. > I’m thinking of buying a commercially-offered bracket. > The vendor should have information as to load rating, > shelf construction a/r, and mounting. You might want > overrating here, especially if you have any seismic > activity in your area. "a" bracket?
The ones I’m looking at are a unit — bracket and shelf or hangers. For examples, see: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showprod.cfm?&DID=7&CATID=55&ObjectGro… One of them is described as "This commercial grade wall mount TV bracket is suitable for mounting 20-29" (diagonal screen) TV sets and can handle loads up to 165 pounds. The 360deg swivel and 15deg tilt allows for optimum viewing angles, even for large audiences." Another says: "Heavy duty wall mounting bracket was designed for commercial use and features a 130 pound capacity. Swivels 240deg with a 15deg tilt. In-line screw mounting plate simplifies stud mounting. Includes foam anti-slip pads. Black finish. Shelf is 26" W x 13-1/2" D to accommodate up to 27" (diagonal screen) TVs." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Then you’d want it securely mounted to the wall. I’d > > pick a final mounting point for whatever support is > > decided on, and then remove just enough sheetrock > > from the wall at that point to insert pieces of 2×4 > > (or what will fit) from stud to stud, with glue and > > pocket-hole-mounted screws. With the insert pieces > > laid flat for max strength. Then patch the hole in > > the sheetrock. > I have a double stud where I want to mount the bracket. > I’d be concerned about a single-point mounting. You’re > probably talking 50-60 lb of explosives supported > effectively at a point at least 20" from the wall. > Another point of concern would be splitting the 2x with > serious screws. (Drill pilot for wood screws, or > clearance hole for through-bolt.) I’d interrogate the > vendor and/or hardware store person, to avoid problems.
Explosives? > Have you investigated flat-screen tv?
Aren’t they pretty expensive? Thanks, Pete
Hi again, Pete. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > What you’d need to assure that would depend on > > > overall dimensions, and load. Mainly weight and > > > distance of center of gravity from wall. > > > What you’d make it of, and how, would partly depend > > > on the skill level of the fabricator- how precisely > > > cut, and how solidly joined the pieces would be. Not > > > to mention, how you’d like it to look. > > I’m thinking of buying a commercially-offered bracket. > The vendor should have information as to load rating, > shelf construction a/r, and mounting. You might want > overrating here, especially if you have any seismic > activity in your area. "a" bracket? > The ones I’m looking at are a unit — bracket and shelf or > hangers. For examples, see: > http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showprod.cfm?&DID=7&CATID=55&ObjectGro… > One of them is described as > "This commercial grade wall mount TV bracket is suitable for > mounting 20-29" (diagonal screen) TV sets and can handle > loads up to 165 pounds. The 360deg swivel and 15deg tilt > allows for optimum viewing angles, even for large > audiences." > Another says: > "Heavy duty wall mounting bracket was designed for > commercial use and features a 130 pound capacity. Swivels > 240deg with a 15deg tilt. In-line screw mounting plate > simplifies stud mounting. Includes foam anti-slip pads. > Black finish. Shelf is 26" W x 13-1/2" D to accommodate up > to 27" (diagonal screen) TVs." > > > Then you’d want it securely mounted to the wall. I’d > > > pick a final mounting point for whatever support is > > > decided on, and then remove just enough sheetrock > > > from the wall at that point to insert pieces of 2×4 > > > (or what will fit) from stud to stud, with glue and > > > pocket-hole-mounted screws. With the insert pieces > > > laid flat for max strength. Then patch the hole in > > > the sheetrock. > > I have a double stud where I want to mount the bracket. > I’d be concerned about a single-point mounting. You’re > probably talking 50-60 lb of explosives supported > effectively at a point at least 20" from the wall. > Another point of concern would be splitting the 2x with > serious screws. (Drill pilot for wood screws, or > clearance hole for through-bolt.) I’d interrogate the > vendor and/or hardware store person, to avoid problems. > Explosives?
Okay, you got me there, on a technicality. The crt is actually a powerful implosive, since it implodes on impact. Then it sends all that glass and crap outward. No, thanks. The bigger the tube, the bigger the "charge." > Have you investigated flat-screen tv? > Aren’t they pretty expensive? > Thanks, > Pete
Sounds like you just gotta follow the dots, and put it in place. Regards, John
> Hi, Pete. > Sure do- do not let it fall!
Good advice! 
> What you’d need to assure that would depend on overall > dimensions, and load. Mainly weight and distance of > center of gravity from wall. > What you’d make it of, and how, would partly depend on > the skill level of the fabricator- how precisely cut, and > how solidly joined the pieces would be. Not to mention, > how you’d like it to look.
I’m thinking of buying a commercially-offered bracket. > Were you wishing to make a torsion box to do this, you’d > really want it to be overrated, like with some steel > reinforcing. And thick (maybe tapered in thickness). In > other words, requiring conscious thought.
I’m not sure what a torsion box is. Do you know of a web page that explains it? > Then you’d want it securely mounted to the wall. I’d > pick a final mounting point for whatever support is > decided on, and then remove just enough sheetrock from > the wall at that point to insert pieces of 2×4 (or what > will fit) from stud to stud, with glue and > pocket-hole-mounted screws. With the insert pieces laid > flat for max strength. Then patch the hole in the > sheetrock.
I have a double stud where I want to mount the bracket. > Sure you don’t want it on a cart?
I do but my wife doesn’t. Thanks, Pete
Hi again, Pete. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi, Pete. > Sure do- do not let it fall! > Good advice! > What you’d need to assure that would depend on overall > dimensions, and load. Mainly weight and distance of > center of gravity from wall. > What you’d make it of, and how, would partly depend on > the skill level of the fabricator- how precisely cut, and > how solidly joined the pieces would be. Not to mention, > how you’d like it to look. > I’m thinking of buying a commercially-offered bracket.
The vendor should have information as to load rating, shelf construction a/r, and mounting. You might want overrating here, especially if you have any seismic activity in your area. "a" bracket? > Were you wishing to make a torsion box to do this, you’d > really want it to be overrated, like with some steel > reinforcing. And thick (maybe tapered in thickness). In > other words, requiring conscious thought. > I’m not sure what a torsion box is. Do you know of a web > page that explains it?
Simply put, it’s a honeycomb, like much of military aircraft wing. Peripheral face frame with same-width bits arranged in a matrix inside that. Top and bottom skins thoroughly glued onto the "space-frame" just mentioned. Properly done, very good "in beam" for its weight. (Edge-mounted shelf is simple cantilever beam.) > Then you’d want it securely mounted to the wall. I’d > pick a final mounting point for whatever support is > decided on, and then remove just enough sheetrock from > the wall at that point to insert pieces of 2×4 (or what > will fit) from stud to stud, with glue and > pocket-hole-mounted screws. With the insert pieces laid > flat for max strength. Then patch the hole in the > sheetrock. > I have a double stud where I want to mount the bracket.
I’d be concerned about a single-point mounting. You’re probably talking 50-60 lb of explosives supported effectively at a point at least 20" from the wall. Another point of concern would be splitting the 2x with serious screws. (Drill pilot for wood screws, or clearance hole for through-bolt.) I’d interrogate the vendor and/or hardware store person, to avoid problems. > Sure you don’t want it on a cart? > I do but my wife doesn’t. > Thanks, > Pete
Have you investigated flat-screen tv? Regards, John
Hi, Pete. Sure do- do not let it fall! What you’d need to assure that would depend on overall dimensions, and load. Mainly weight and distance of center of gravity from wall. What you’d make it of, and how, would partly depend on the skill level of the fabricator- how precisely cut, and how solidly joined the pieces would be. Not to mention, how you’d like it to look. Were you wishing to make a torsion box to do this, you’d really want it to be overrated, like with some steel reinforcing. And thick (maybe tapered in thickness). In other words, requiring conscious thought. Then you’d want it securely mounted to the wall. I’d pick a final mounting point for whatever support is decided on, and then remove just enough sheetrock from the wall at that point to insert pieces of 2×4 (or what will fit) from stud to stud, with glue and pocket-hole-mounted screws. With the insert pieces laid flat for max strength. Then patch the hole in the sheetrock. With the wall opened, you can probably run cabling out of sight. Sure you don’t want it on a cart? Regards, John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > =Hi. > = > =Ditto that. Great stiffness/weight ratio. You might make > =the piece that butts up to the wall of maple or oak, and > =angle-drill through it and the top skin for serious steel > =(porch & deck) screws to go into the center of each stud. > =Depending on mounting ht, you might just leave the holes > =in the skin as-is. Or drill them out circular and insert > =plugs. > Do you have any advice for mounting a wall bracket/tray > that will hold a 27" TV set? > Thanks, > Pete
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall > (10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf > 7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 > studs I can use along length. > If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to > install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can > I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" > wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" > for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? > There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind > of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any > support. Any comment appreciated.
About the only way to do what you want to do is to drill holes into the joists for the full depth of the joist, install 1/2" steel rods, then slide the shelf onto the rods. You’ll need a shelf about 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 thick to handle the holes for the rods. I wouldn’t go with less than 1/2" rods, unless you get something exotic like carbon composite.
Hi. Ditto that. Great stiffness/weight ratio. You might make the piece that butts up to the wall of maple or oak, and angle-drill through it and the top skin for serious steel (porch & deck) screws to go into the center of each stud. Depending on mounting ht, you might just leave the holes in the skin as-is. Or drill them out circular and insert plugs. If the wall has been in place for over 6 months (wood is now air-dry), you might pre-drill starter holes into studs before driving 3" screws. For max strength of assembly. Attached every 16" that way, you could support concrete blocks with large margin. Ian Kirby has how-to with pictures, for torsion-box construction, in his book "The Accurate Table Saw." You’ll probably want at least access to a decent table-saw to make precise pieces for such a box. Good fit at glue line makes it strong. You will want a decent metal-detecting stud-finder, obviously. Regards, John
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I would use a torsion box instead of a solid piece of wood. A properly > constructed box could be no more than 1-1/2" thick, 7" wide, 10′ long, and > could hold anything you could fit on it. Look them up online for more info > as to how to build one. I believe American Woodworker did a piece on them > about two years ago. > I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall > (10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf > 7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 > studs I can use along length. > If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to > install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can > I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" > wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" > for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? > There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind > of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any > support. Any comment appreciated. > Thanks, > Sum
>How do I gaurantee that the holes I drills are level, square and >straight?
Three important things. 1 = practice 2 = practice 3 = practice <G> Locate the two end holes on the wall use a chalk line so you get all six in a straight line. There are jigs available to hold your dirll perpindicular to the surface ( I never use them ). Drill the 6 holes in the studs and the right end hole in the shelf. Screw the long rod into the right hole in the wall. Bend it at the wall so it is perpendicular to the wall. Install short cone pointed rods in the other 5 holes (preachers) they should protrude only1/2" you may need to lock two nuts together or use a vice grip here. Drill the right end hole in the shelf. I would clamp it to the bench top and carefully drill straight down the center of the shelf. Practice on scrap until you are confident. Slip shelf on right rod. Mark other holes with preacher cones. Drill 5 shelf holes. Remove preachers and install longer rods. Bend rods to compensate. Install shelf. Slip the shelf onto the right rod and mark – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Thanks Ben, >This sounds good. It looks like I will need to use a threaded rod. I am >concerned >however that I may not be able to drill that deep with the holes all straight >and >level and when it is all said and done the holes on the shelf and the rods do >not >all line up. How do I gaurantee that the holes I drills are level, square >and >straight? >Sum > Sum, > All thread or ready bolt is your answer. > I would use 1/4" but you could go to 3/8". > Measure carefully. > Drill 3/16" holes in each of six studs 3" deep. Cut four threaded rods 8" >long > and two 8 3/4" long. Cone point the rods on your grinder. Chuck rods in >drill > & spin in full depth of the 3/16" holes. Use the long ones at each end. > Drill the rear shelf edge 5/16" X 6" deep. > Slide the shelf onto the rods. You may want to use four "preacher" rods 4" > long to mark the center 4 holes if you are squeamish about your >measurements. > Replace them with the longer ones after marking. > Load the shelf, check for level note the stress deformation. Unload and >remove > the shelf. Prestress the rods by forming each rod upwards until your level > reads the inverse of the previous measurement. Replace and reload the >shelf. > Sum deal ‘eh? <G> > Ben > >I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall > >(10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf > >7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 > >studs I can use along length. > >If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to > >install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can > >I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" > >wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" > >for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? > >There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind > >of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any > >support. Any comment appreciated. > >Thanks, > >Sum > None preaches better than the ant, and she says nothing. B FRANKLIN, Poor > Richard’s Almanack, 1736. > Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten. Ben VI > The bitterness of poor quality remains long > after the sweetness of low price fades.
Thanks Ben, This sounds good. It looks like I will need to use a threaded rod. I am concerned however that I may not be able to drill that deep with the holes all straight and level and when it is all said and done the holes on the shelf and the rods do not all line up. How do I gaurantee that the holes I drills are level, square and straight? Sum – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Sum, > All thread or ready bolt is your answer. > I would use 1/4" but you could go to 3/8". > Measure carefully. > Drill 3/16" holes in each of six studs 3" deep. Cut four threaded rods 8" long > and two 8 3/4" long. Cone point the rods on your grinder. Chuck rods in drill > & spin in full depth of the 3/16" holes. Use the long ones at each end. > Drill the rear shelf edge 5/16" X 6" deep. > Slide the shelf onto the rods. You may want to use four "preacher" rods 4" > long to mark the center 4 holes if you are squeamish about your measurements. > Replace them with the longer ones after marking. > Load the shelf, check for level note the stress deformation. Unload and remove > the shelf. Prestress the rods by forming each rod upwards until your level > reads the inverse of the previous measurement. Replace and reload the shelf. > Sum deal ‘eh? <G> > Ben >I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall >(10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf >7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 >studs I can use along length. >If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to >install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can >I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" >wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" >for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? >There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind >of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any >support. Any comment appreciated. >Thanks, >Sum > None preaches better than the ant, and she says nothing. B FRANKLIN, Poor > Richard’s Almanack, 1736. > Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten. Ben VI > The bitterness of poor quality remains long > after the sweetness of low price fades.
I would use a torsion box instead of a solid piece of wood. A properly constructed box could be no more than 1-1/2" thick, 7" wide, 10′ long, and could hold anything you could fit on it. Look them up online for more info as to how to build one. I believe American Woodworker did a piece on them about two years ago.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall > (10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf > 7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 > studs I can use along length. > If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to > install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can > I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" > wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" > for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? > There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind > of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any > support. Any comment appreciated. > Thanks, > Sum
Sum, All thread or ready bolt is your answer. I would use 1/4" but you could go to 3/8". Measure carefully. Drill 3/16" holes in each of six studs 3" deep. Cut four threaded rods 8" long and two 8 3/4" long. Cone point the rods on your grinder. Chuck rods in drill & spin in full depth of the 3/16" holes. Use the long ones at each end. Drill the rear shelf edge 5/16" X 6" deep. Slide the shelf onto the rods. You may want to use four "preacher" rods 4" long to mark the center 4 holes if you are squeamish about your measurements. Replace them with the longer ones after marking. Load the shelf, check for level note the stress deformation. Unload and remove the shelf. Prestress the rods by forming each rod upwards until your level reads the inverse of the previous measurement. Replace and reload the shelf. Sum deal ‘eh? <G> Ben – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall >(10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf >7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 >studs I can use along length. >If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to >install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can >I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" >wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" >for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? >There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind >of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any >support. Any comment appreciated. >Thanks, >Sum
None preaches better than the ant, and she says nothing. B FRANKLIN, Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1736. Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten. Ben VI The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price fades.
To support the weight of books on the shelf as described requires a moment connection. A 1/2 inch diameter steel tube set in a pre- drilled hole through the shelf and well into the the stud if the fit is tight. This obviously depends on lots of material around the rod to resist shear. What do the structural engineers in the group have to say about this? TB – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall > (10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf > 7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 > studs I can use along length. > If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to > install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can > I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" > wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" > for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? > There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind > of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any > support. Any comment appreciated. > Thanks, > Sum
I am thinking of installing a bookshelf along the length of one wall (10′ in length). I want the book shelf to be just a slab of wood shelf 7" wide and 10′ long and it will be painted. I counted that there are 6 studs I can use along length. If I do not want to install any visible support, is there anyway to install the shelf as-is? If the shelf is say 1" thick and 7" wide, can I drill 5/8" hole half way through the 7", leaving 3.5". Then drive 5" wood screws into the shelf so there will be 3.5" inside the shelf, 0.5" for the drywall and 1" inside the studs? or do I need something longer? There must be another way to do this to make it more secure, some kind of anchor? I want to make it look like the shelf is not resting on any support. Any comment appreciated. Thanks, Sum
>I personally would not want to take the time to pre-drill several thousand >holes. I would take a a good drill and simply zap em in as tight as they will >go.
Any decent drill will either snap off a deck screw or drive it completely through the decking. "As tight as they will go" won’t cut it… Rick Marinelli
Consider spending a bit more and getting toungue and groove cedar…..No surface screwing at all.
New Webpage
>>…I would take a a good drill and simply zap em in as tight as they will go. >Any decent drill will either snap off a deck screw or drive it >completely through the decking. "As tight as they will go" won’t cut >it…
Did I miss something here or is there some reason why ‘we’ are using drills ionstead of screw guns? Drills are for drilling, screw guns for screwin’ around…..? -v.
>>>…I would take a a good drill and simply zap em in as tight as they will go. >Any decent drill will either snap off a deck screw or drive it >completely through the decking. "As tight as they will go" won’t cut >it… >Did I miss something here or is there some reason why ‘we’ are using >drills ionstead of screw guns? Drills are for drilling, screw guns >for screwin’ around…..?
Most DIYers have no need for a dedicated screw gun. A cordless drill/driver with a clutch is fine for deck building. Rick Marinelli
|> |> I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. |> How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and |> minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying |> them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless |> you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good |> leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering |> going barefoot on the deck. They should be sunk 1/16-1/8" — just enough that they won’t come above the surface after the wood shrinks a bit. If any do pop up a bit or you need to sand the deck later, the screws can be re-sunk as required. Sinking the screws too far produces a wound in the wood that holds water and encourages rot.
> I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. > How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and > minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying > them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless > you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good > leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering > going barefoot on the deck. > Any opinions? > Jim
Hi Jim About twelve years back I built a couple of decks out of 5/4 radius edged cedar (10′ X 12′ raised and 18′ X 24′ ground level). I buried the twist galvanized nails about 3/16" to 1/4" deep and had very few splinter problems. You will get more splinters if you do not treat or seal the deck on a regular basis. I used Sikkens stain and sealer and it worked extremely well. I also used construction adhesive at each joist where the deck boards were fastened and there has not been a warped or loose board since. A bit anal retentive perhaps and time consuming but it has resulted in solid squeak free decks. Also make sure that you put blocking between the joists as this will tie the whole substructure together firmly and since there is less flex, you will have few deck boards working loose. If I had to do it over again I would not face nail or screw the boards but rather use one of the systems that either allow you to fasten the boards from below (for a raised deck) or one of the varieties of deck clips which can be used on both raised or ground level decks. This will result in a deck surface with no nails or screws visible. Randy Wittchen
>I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. >How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and >minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying >them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless >you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good >leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering >going barefoot on the deck.
When I rebuilt the dock with 5/4" I buried them about 3/16". They’ve sealed over quite nicely. The screws seem to have a way of torquing back out otherwise (could be wave action moving boards). I’d drive them in. Tom Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living? Check out "Cottage Living!" On-Line book store! http://www.cottageliving.com
: I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. : How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and : minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying : them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless : you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good : leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering : going barefoot on the deck. : Jim There are several options to have the fasteners not on the top at all. Simpson makes some clips that go on the side. That way, no screws at all. Gary
I put them in just far enough so that when the wood dries out in summer and shrinks, the head will not protrude enough to feel it. A screw head (or nail) will tear up bare feet faster than the splintering wood will. That does not mean you have to put them down far enough to splinter the wood, rather the opposite. Depending on how wet your wood is when installing, put them in far enough that the head is just a hair below flush. FNO Toolman — FREE Online Help & Advice Covering A Wide Variety Of Subjects PLUS Loads Of Great Family Fun! Check Us Out… www.familynews.org Your Connection To North American Family Life – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. >How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and >minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying >them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless >you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good >leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering >going barefoot on the deck. >Any opinions? > Jim
> : I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. > : How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and > : minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying > : them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless > : you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good > : leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering > : going barefoot on the deck. > : Jim > There are several options to have the fasteners not on the top at all. > Simpson makes some clips that go on the side. That way, no screws at all.
You can also find biscuit-like ones where you use your biscuit joiner to cut a slot, and then the holder holds the board down and sets the spacing (don’t know if they sell different sizes). They’re in Fine Homebuilding somewhere.
> There are several options to have the fasteners not on the top at all. > Simpson makes some clips that go on the side. That way, no screws at all. > Gary
Yes. I recently watched a deck building project on Joanne Liebler’s show, in which they used metal brackets on the joist which allow you to screw up from the bottom. I saw these at Menards last week. — John Shear Chippewa Falls, WI
These are most likely Deckmaster brackets. I chose them because they screw directly into the boards, only from below and not from above, thus giving a more positive joint than the side clips. They also allow for spacing variations – i wanted a rather wide spacing for my 2×6 redwood deck. They do take MUCH longer to install than top screws or nails though. I am pleased that I did it, but only because the work was mine and I wasn’t paying for someone else’s labor. You can check them out at deckmaster.com. Ken – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Yes. I recently watched a deck building project on Joanne Liebler’s > show, in which they used metal brackets on the joist > which allow you to screw up from the bottom. I saw these at > Menards last week. > — > John Shear > Chippewa Falls, WI
I use a decking screw gun and adjust the clutch so they go about 1/16" or so below the surface. I want them at the point where they compress the wood slightly but don’t start tearing the fibers. (similar to the way you do it with sheetrock) My favorite are auger point square drive stainless steel. **** Posted from RemarQ – http://www.remarq.com – Discussions Start Here ™ ****
> I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. > How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and > minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying > them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless > you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good > leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering > going barefoot on the deck. > Any opinions? > Jim
I take it you don’t intend to predrill and countersink? bubba — Politically incorrect and proud of it!!
Auger point decking screws drill there own pilot hole. The "buggle" heads also tend to self countersink since decking woods are usually soft. This wouldn’t work in Ebony!! **** Posted from RemarQ – http://www.remarq.com – Discussions Start Here ™ ****
> These are most likely Deckmaster brackets. I chose them because they screw > directly into the boards, only from below and not from above, thus giving a more > positive joint than the side clips. … > Yes. I recently watched a deck building project on Joanne Liebler’s > show, in which they used metal brackets on the joist > which allow you to screw up from the bottom. I saw these at > Menards last week. > — > John Shear
Yep, Deckmaster they were. In fact, last night I was reading a Workbench magazine article about how to build a deck with those. It also showed various non-wood alternatives for decking materials. — John Shear Chippewa Falls, WI
Flush may look best, but the wood will dry and shrink over a short period and the screws head will become a hazard to bare feet upon extending above the surface. Decks are decks.. not finished furniture. Sink those babies in at least 1/8" or more. You won’t tear up the surface if you use a sharp pilot bit with tapered bevel for the screw head. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. >How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and >minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying >them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless >you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good >leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering >going barefoot on the deck. >Any opinions? > Jim
I personally would not want to take the time to pre-drill several thousand holes. I would take a a good drill and simply zap em in as tight as they will go. There are drill attachments that allow you to stand as you drill. Good luck. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Flush may look best, but the wood will dry and shrink over a short period >and the screws head will become a hazard to bare feet upon extending above >the surface. Decks are decks.. not finished furniture. Sink those babies in >at least 1/8" or more. You won’t tear up the surface if you use a sharp >pilot bit with tapered bevel for the screw head. >I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. >How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and >minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying >them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless >you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good >leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering >going barefoot on the deck. >Any opinions? > Jim
Cheers, Bill Musto
I’m getting ready to lay 500 sq. ft. of 5/4 cedar decking with screws. How deep should I bury the screws? I think flush looks the best and minimizes tearing of wood fibers. I believe the argument for burying them is so you can sand and re-finish in the future. Burying, unless you countersink the 10,000 holes, seems to tear up the wood pretty good leaving massive splinter potential, especially if you’re considering going barefoot on the deck. Any opinions? Jim
>>it would be so small as to be overcome by the initial blast damage of the >best non-nuclear explosives the military posseses? Are there any non-nuclear >weapons that can push a blast into the 5-10 kiloton range? I know that >In order for a conventional explosive to yield 10 kilotons of force, it >would have to weigh about 20 million pounds. This is rather difficult >to transport and thus of limited military value.
Not necessarily. FA weapons have a ratio of 1 pound per 6 pounds of TNT, or so I am told. It makes things more in the realm of possibility. >All military weapons must be delivered to the target. Very few military >weapons are used where they are manufactured. (at least, not intentionally)
I understand this. Thanks. Having tentatively discovered that the smallest nuclear weapons can range in from 30-50 tons of TNT, the range of possibilities are opening up for non-nuclear weapons surpassing the power of a tactical nuclear weapon. j.b.
>does anyone have any idea how fast -do- catapults and 1700’s cannon could >propel something, on average?
In the mid-1700’s it was observed in Britain that projectile drag increased in what we now call the transonic range (700 mph plus). Catapults were much slower, however. >Are there any non-nuclear weapons that can push a blast into the 5-10 kiloton range?
Sure. Roughly 5,000 to 10,000 tons of TNT will do that! Gary S. Settles Professor of Mechanical Engineering Director, Gas Dynamics Lab Penn State University
>it would be so small as to be overcome by the initial blast damage of the >best non-nuclear explosives the military posseses? Are there any non-nuclear >weapons that can push a blast into the 5-10 kiloton range? I know that
In order for a conventional explosive to yield 10 kilotons of force, it would have to weigh about 20 million pounds. This is rather difficult to transport and thus of limited military value. All military weapons must be delivered to the target. Very few military weapons are used where they are manufactured. (at least, not intentionally) — Will IBM do for MacOS what they did for OS/2?
>>> Keeping in mind you’re sticking with pretty primitive equipment and >>a 1940’s method of detonating it. >A 1940s method of detonating it would use explosives, not shooting it from >cannons. Even an 1840s method would use explosives. >No, this i know for sure. The 1940’s method (as used in the Hiroshima bomb) >was a gun-assembly trigger mechanism. It was a purely physical means of >launching one piece of U-238 into another. Modern fission weapons use a >chemical-based mechnaism to induce the implosion mechanism.
The gun-trigger method did involve explosives. And the Nagasaki bomb, made of Plutonium instead of Uranium, DID use explosives packed around the plutonium to compress it to critical mass. The Trinity bomb, I believe, used the same method.
>> I have had a local discussion with someone. Well, two actually. >One concerns the possibility of using medieval catapults to collide two >pieces of uranium in the air, for at least a visible fission reaction- ala >the old physical gun assembly method. The apparent given is that such accuracy >exists that two such thrown objects will impact. The person who believes this >has recently begun preparations to backpedal into saying that 18th century >cannons would be able to collide two chunks of U-235 fast enough. (Again, >given that they do in face hit each other.)
[snip] >I doubt the catapults could do it, but the cannons sure would. Of course, I >would NOT want to be one of the people trying to handle the Uranium to put it >into the cannons. They would have to be close together, as well – we’re >talking two cannons on opposite sides of the room, not two cannons a mile >apart.
Hmm, i’ve read that when they were working on the problem in ‘45, they wanted to use two howitzers attached to each other, but it was discovered that the metal used in regular artillery weapons would crack if you tried shooting them fast enough, thereby screwing up your aim. You have a good point in the uranium processing, though. The argument however sorta revolved around the catapult (or 18th cen cannon, as he backed off) being the only historical pieces of technology. We’re assuming that the U-238 is available. > The second argument was that, were such a fission explosion possible, >it would be so small as to be overcome by the initial blast damage of the >best non-nuclear explosives the military posseses? Are there any non-nuclear >weapons that can push a blast into the 5-10 kiloton range? >Not really. Fuel-air explosives, which have to be aircraft delivered, can make >a kiloton or two.
email’s told me that fuel-air charges detonatate with a ratio of one-to-five in terms of TNT poundage. The largest US fuel-air bombs weighed in at about 3000 lbs, or so i am told. This would be 15000 lbs, or less than 7 tons of TNT. Dunno if that works. However, i am told that the smallest nuclear explosive was in the range of 50 tons worth of TNT. It brings the possibilities much closer. > Keeping in mind you’re sticking with pretty primitive equipment and >a 1940’s method of detonating it. >A 1940s method of detonating it would use explosives, not shooting it from >cannons. Even an 1840s method would use explosives.
No, this i know for sure. The 1940’s method (as used in the Hiroshima bomb) was a gun-assembly trigger mechanism. It was a purely physical means of launching one piece of U-238 into another. Modern fission weapons use a chemical-based mechnaism to induce the implosion mechanism. I appreciate your commentary. j.b.
> I have had a local discussion with someone. Well, two actually. >One concerns the possibility of using medieval catapults to collide two >pieces of uranium in the air, for at least a visible fission reaction- ala >the old physical gun assembly method. The apparent given is that such accuracy >exists that two such thrown objects will impact. The person who believes this >has recently begun preparations to backpedal into saying that 18th century >cannons would be able to collide two chunks of U-235 fast enough. (Again, given >that they do in face hit each other.)
They might be able to collide the two masses together to produce an explosion, but a) they would have to be close enough that the pieces would strike EXACTLY on each other rather than just deflecting off, meaning that both firing catapults or cannons would be vaporized, and b) where do they get the U-235? It doesn’t occur by itself in nature, you need advanced industrial processes in order to seperate it from the U-238 it is occured in. The hardest part of nuclear weapons is actually getting usable uranium. > Personally I think this is a load of bunk, but I haven’t been able to >track down velocity figures for any catapults or any cannon shot. Granted the >Hiroshima gun assembly means are pretty primitive and inefficient, but does >anyone have any idea how fast -do- catapults and 1700’s cannon could propel >something, on average?
I doubt the catapults could do it, but the cannons sure would. Of course, I would NOT want to be one of the people trying to handle the Uranium to put it into the cannons. They would have to be close together, as well – we’re talking two cannons on opposite sides of the room, not two cannons a mile apart. > The second argument was that, were such a fission explosion possible, >it would be so small as to be overcome by the initial blast damage of the >best non-nuclear explosives the military posseses? Are there any non-nuclear >weapons that can push a blast into the 5-10 kiloton range?
Not really. Fuel-air explosives, which have to be aircraft delivered, can make a kiloton or two. > Keeping in mind you’re sticking with pretty primitive equipment and >a 1940’s method of detonating it.
A 1940s method of detonating it would use explosives, not shooting it from cannons. Even an 1840s method would use explosives.
I have had a local discussion with someone. Well, two actually. One concerns the possibility of using medieval catapults to collide two pieces of uranium in the air, for at least a visible fission reaction- ala the old physical gun assembly method. The apparent given is that such accuracy exists that two such thrown objects will impact. The person who believes this has recently begun preparations to backpedal into saying that 18th century cannons would be able to collide two chunks of U-235 fast enough. (Again, given that they do in face hit each other.) Personally I think this is a load of bunk, but I haven’t been able to track down velocity figures for any catapults or any cannon shot. Granted the Hiroshima gun assembly means are pretty primitive and inefficient, but does anyone have any idea how fast -do- catapults and 1700’s cannon could propel something, on average? Are there any other details to making uranium go fission (not talking about the more efficient chemical trigger implosion method, or far superior fission trigger setting off a fusion reaction) that should be considered? Say you were stuck somewhere isolated, had all the materials and the know-how to build a catapult (as good as it got- what circa 1200ad?), possessed the proper uranium isotopes, and the desire to do some treaty violations personally. Is it feasible? How fast do the steam ‘catapults’ on aircraft carriers push those jets off the deck? Am i missing something here in the thinking? The second argument was that, were such a fission explosion possible, it would be so small as to be overcome by the initial blast damage of the best non-nuclear explosives the military posseses? Are there any non-nuclear weapons that can push a blast into the 5-10 kiloton range? I know that most modern-day tactical nukes usually start at 15 kilotons, but given that you were going about this in a really inefficient manner, are smaller blasts possible? Keeping in mind you’re sticking with pretty primitive equipment and a 1940’s method of detonating it. Thanks for any pointers, information, conjecture anyone can offer on this point. Mail replies would be extra appreciated. j.b.