FINISHED IN 2020! Sharward's Partial Garage Conversion

knightfly

Hey Bob, if you put a floated floor on TOP of PT lumber and float WALLS on THAT, isn't the PT stuff technically as "outside" as your sill plates are?

No. If there isn't a breeze between there and the neighbour's house across the street, it's not outside. i.e. it's the wind blowing away the contaminents that makes it safe. Different communities have different issues/problems, and different chemicals in their PT wood. Here, because we have lots of really nasty little critters, and a building code that says not to use it inside, it wouldn't surprise me if whatever they put in pressure treated wood here is vastly horrible stuff.

sharward:

I do plan to use plastic sheeting between the masonry floor and the subfloor it will sit on.

The reason I was asking about the vapor barrior is that it appeared to me as if you had two parallel vapor barriors separated by about 8". 'K' in your drawing shows two vapor barriors. I assume that they're both closed on the ends, otherwise there's no point in the vapor barrior. If they're both closed on the ends, then what you've created is a bag with wood in it. Normally when dealing with vapor barriors you only have one, that way both sides can wick moisture away and dry out as the temperature changes.

z60611 wrote:

it wouldn't surprise me if whatever they put in pressure treated wood here is vastly horrible stuff.

I'm pretty sure that arsenic is involved in a lot of PT lumber, at least in the midwest.

http://www.strongtie.com/productuse/PTWoodFAQs.html Mystery solv-ed, as Clouseau would have said...

z60611 wrote:

'K' in your drawing shows two vapor barriors. I assume that they're both closed on the ends, otherwise there's no point in the vapor barrior. If they're both closed on the ends, then what you've created is a bag with wood in it. Normally when dealing with vapor barriors you only have one, that way both sides can wick moisture away and dry out as the temperature changes.

Hi Z, Great stuff -- thanks so much for the input. I'm nodding my head on the outside, yet inside I'm still a little unclear. Yes, there are two vapor barriers involved. One is for the concrete floor in the garage. Steve recommended sealing it, and that seems like a great idea. The other is for the brick and mortar floor on the floating floor framing structure, which I have opted to do in lieu of pouring a concrete slab. I think I see your point about having basically a sandwich, where the two pieces of bread are vapor barriers -- and I can see why that might not be good. However, since there will be close to a 12" air gap around the perimeter of the floating floor (between the inner leaf and outer leaf walls), and the fact that there will be 9 1/2" to 11 1/2" between the barriers, variable due to sloping of garage floor, I was/am hoping that would be enough air space and escape hatch for any vapor to migrate sideways. Steve and I also discussed the possibility of a dehumidifier being installed in the area between the doors and leaving the walls in that area unfaced to allow the gaps to breathe easier. The inner door can be left open when the room is not in use, which will help condition the air in there. :?: Do you still see this as a "bag with wood in it" situation? If so, and assuming that is bad, do you have any suggestions on how to avoid it? Also, I read Sampson's PT Wood FAQ, which did answer some of our questions about the "nasty stuff" they used in the past (i.e., arsenic). However, I'm not sure the mystery's solved completely. :?: If I'm sealing the slab, do I still need PT sole plates and floating floor legs?

Meanwhile, over in Antny M Studioless' thread, Steve wrote:

...two exterior grade, heavy pre-hung doors at least 3 feet apart with good seals...

:?: Steve, do you recommend that I nudge my doors 2 1/2" feet farther apart and change the orientation of the inner door so that it opens into the space between the doors? I was debating whether or not to do that when I moved the doors over, since the swing of the door burns so much floor space anyway, and I might benefit from the larger distance between the doors for the sake of isolation. Thanks again for your insights! You guys ROCK. 8)

On the vapor crap, this will be as much a function of your location, weather, and heat/cool tendencies in the space as anything - in any case, having more than one vapor barrier is NEVER a good idea. If you seal the slab first, then there should be no other vapor barrier involved, but putting masonry products against wood without some sort of protection for the wood will also cause problems, especially with brick being very fond of moisture - For this application, one thing that could solve all the problems might be to lay 30# building felt (asphalt impregnated paper for under shingles) on TOP of the subfloor material, just under the bricks - don't overlap, just butt from strip to strip, and don't SEAL the gaps. Lay the brick sections over the building paper and mortar as you planned. What this should accomplish is to make your original slab's seal coat the vapor barrier, and allow all moisture in the brick and under the inner subfloor to normalize into the room, which would have humidity control. Setting the dehumidifier's control so it maintains 40% RH within the conditioned space, and the circulation fans we discussed on the phone, would keep the entire space within the OUTER walls at a constant humidity level that is low enough NOT to cause problems with mold growth, etc - Any time you put wood against masonry, you run the risk of the wood absorbing moisture from the masonry - so if it's not bad in another way, I would advise using PT in these cases. Alternatively, you might (under your floor for example) instead separate any wood framing from concrete using a double layer of 30# building felt, same stuff as under your bricks; and no, don't use the double layer under the bricks, too much chance of blocking one of the seams so moisture can't travel. Doors - if you can spare the space, yes. Use a wider gap, use absorbent within the "vestibule" created - the absorbent helps kill some of the leakage from seals, improving isolation a bit; and the wider gap will help the doors "keep up" with the rest of the structure isolation-wise. Try NOT, however, to make this "vestibule" SQUARE (as in having equal dimensions) - and don't end up with triple leaf construction by leaving the inner wall construction extended into the vestibule; exception to this might be if you intend to be making noise while people are using the door... Steve

knightfly wrote:

. . . lay 30# building felt (asphalt impregnated paper for under shingles) on TOP of the subfloor material, just under the bricks - don't overlap, just butt from strip to strip, and don't SEAL the gaps. Lay the brick sections over the building paper and mortar as you planned. What this should accomplish is to make your original slab's seal coat the vapor barrier, and allow all moisture in the brick and under the inner subfloor to normalize into the room, which would have humidity control. Setting the dehumidifier's control so it maintains 40% RH within the conditioned space, and the circulation fans we discussed on the phone, would keep the entire space within the OUTER walls at a constant humidity level that is low enough NOT to cause problems with mold growth, etc -

I dig it! 8) That seems like it would work very nicely! I just hope it's "kosher" for inspector's sake. :?: I got to thinking about the "circulation fans" thing... I'm assuming you're referring to some kind of thin ductwork (I had proposed fashioning something like this drain pipe -- the one with the holes) around the perimeter between the wall frames. However, I've since had second thoughts about this approach -- if I am pushing air through this area to ventillate it, wouldn't that reduce the effectiveness of the rather thick insulation throughout the area in terms of fireblock protection? (Recall that I'm anticipating needing to have a bulletproof explanation for the building department why I'm not using "conventional" fireblocks, for iso purposes, and that the insulation hopefully will suffice.)

Any time you put wood against masonry, you run the risk of the wood absorbing moisture from the masonry - so if it's not bad in another way, I would advise using PT in these cases. . .

:?: Bear in mind that I had already planned to use two layers of redwood 2x4s to frame the perimeter of the floor, on the room side of the joists -- which is naturally rot-resistant, and also more attractive (and safer for indoor use, I presume) than PT. Do you think that will be OK?

Alternatively, you might (under your floor for example) instead separate any wood framing from concrete using a double layer of 30# building felt, same stuff as under your bricks; and no, don't use the double layer under the bricks, too much chance of blocking one of the seams so moisture can't travel.

:?: By "alternatively" I assume you mean "instead of sealing the concrete slab (garage) floor" -- correct? :?: With the exception of the soleplates of the north and northwest outer leaf walls I'll be building, there will be no direct contact between slab and wood -- there will be the EPDM pucks as "feet" on all of the floating floor structure's vertical "legs." (I believe this differs from a lot of folks' basement projects, where they don't need to level the floating floor framing structure.) Is that sufficient separation? If not, perhaps a couple of 8" square pieces of asphalt impregnated paper would be good between the pucks and the concrete...? And the legs themselves should probably be made of PT 2x4s, as illustrated in my latest drawings -- right? I really appreciate everyone's assistance in getting this issue dialed in... It's fundamentally important! :mrgreen: (And it's 8) 8) cool 8) 8) that this thread is now officially

External image, not preserved — original: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/folder_hot.gif

! ;) Hee hee...)

if I am pushing air through this area to ventillate it, wouldn't that reduce the effectiveness of the rather thick insulation throughout the area in terms of fireblock protection? (Recall that I'm anticipating needing to have a bulletproof explanation for the building department why I'm not using "conventional" fireblocks, for iso purposes, and that the insulation hopefully will suffice. Things like this are almost always better left until AFTER the permits are finalized/signed off and the inspector has taken his bureaucratic bull elsewhere to hassle some OTHER poor defenseless taxpayer... I would find out about/do the rigid fiberglass fireblock deal, keeping a way to add the air cicrulation scheme LATER - if you were to ever have a fire, the low flow of air wouldn't make much difference anyway; and before too long any wires feeding the fan would short out and the fan would stop altogether anyway. Bear in mind that I had already planned to use two layers of redwood 2x4s to frame the perimeter of the floor, on the room side of the joists -- which is naturally rot-resistant, and also more attractive (and safer for indoor use, I presume) than PT. Do you think that will be OK? Naturally rot resistant, maybe a LITTLE - but not nearly as much as it's given credit for. That reputation was earned a century ago when men cut down a huge redwood, threw away all but the HEART, and made that part into things that wouldn't rot. That's the part of the Sequoia that's actually pretty rot resistant, for the same reason Cedar is; it has a higher concentration of SAP whicn, for the more aromatic woods, is very OILY and acts as a natural preservative. The stuff you buy these days is barely beneath the cambium layer of a tree, and is about as rot resistant as pine or fir, maybe a bit more. More attractive - granted. But keep in mind that every brick you replace with wood (if that's your plan for those diamond shapes) is that much LESS MASS for your floor - might be better if you want a pattern of some sort to use different colored masonry for the diamonds instead. By "alternatively" I assume you mean "instead of sealing the concrete slab (garage) floor" -- correct? No, I meant instead of using redwood - use either PT (the non-deadly kind) OR at least put a couple layers of 30# felt between the concrete (still sealed) and any wood parts. As long as the EPDM or other elastomer is what's in contact with the concrete, and as long as the concrete is smooth (whether level or not) then contact cement is all you'll need - in that application the building felt is unnecessary. And the legs themselves should probably be made of PT 2x4s, as illustrated in my latest drawings -- right? Right... Steve

Well, I've been busy refining my illustrations over the last several days. Here they are. Sorry they're so dang tall, but at least they're not wide and causing you to have to scroll sideways. :wink: All feedback is welcome!

Last one (for now)...

Looking really good Kieth; only one change I'd make so far, that's to move part "F" back so it overlaps the top plates by 2 to 2-1/4", this will still leave enough fastener support for 3 layers of wallboard, and in addition it will make the support plate more stable; with that much overlap, you can toenail that 2x6 tightly so it won't "rock" with the added weight of the gypsum. Also, the orientation for your bricks is normally called "edge-laid" IIRC. Any test results back on the EPDM yet? Steve

knightfly wrote:

. . . move part "F" back so it overlaps the top plates by 2 to 2-1/4", this will still leave enough fastener support for 3 layers of wallboard. . .

Actually, my spec is 1 1/2" from outer edge -- meaning, away from the inside of the room. That means it will be flush against the rim joist of the ceiling joists along the east and west walls, whereas it leaves 1 1/2" uncovered along the short north and south walls. I think you read that as having only 1 1/2" of coverage along the top plate. My plan allows for 2 full inches of coverage with 3 1/2" hanging over to attach the three interwoven layers of gypsum. :) The drawing is to scale, (with the obvious slice through the middle) so you can get a good idea of how sturdy that will be.

. . . you can toenail that 2x6 tightly . . .

Great idea.

Any test results back on the EPDM yet?

Unfortunately, the EPDM sample Rubber-Cal sent me was 1/8" thick, not 1/2" thick as I had requested. :( It's also only about 2" x 3", so layering it isn't even an option. Apparently I'll need to get them on the phone to ask for a more generous sample of the correct thickness... If they balk, I'll offer to "purchase" the sample if they apply the amount towards my upcoming $500 order. Nice rubber though. This looks like a real winner and I'm extremely glad you turned me onto it. I'm continuing to work madness on my "spreadsheet from hell," which is how I'm accounting all the estimated weight and costs of materials. I have a healthy respect for the fact that those efforts will make or break this project, and I'm looking forward to handing in that assignment to Professor Knightfly, hopefully next week.

Rubber-Cal, in the letter that accompanied the EPDM sample, actually wrote:

P.S.: Most elastomers are poisonous and hazardous to the digestive tract so please, please, please do not attempt to eat it.

...But...But...it smells...soooo...gooooood...I...I don't...I can't.........resist....... :? ...Chomp... :shock: :( ... :shock: ... :? ... :) ............... :D ............... :) ... :( ... :oops: ... :shock: ... :evil: ...Thud...

I'm very pleased to report that I purchased an "overrun" of 1/2" thick 60 durometer EPDM today from a company called BRP -- a 2' x 3' sheet that will allow me to cut out about 164 individual 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" pucks. I was very pleased with the price (about US$70 plus ground shippping, billed to credit card) and especially happy that I didn't have to meet a minimum, since it was essentially a left-over piece. You can check out their "hopefully current" inventory of overrun stock - type "60D EPDM" in the "Part Number or Description" field to see what's available in 60 durometer EPDM. If you see something you like, you have to actually call them to make your purchase. I made a very preliminary puck placement layout (below) that calls for 157 pucks. The spacing varies from about 10" to 20" apart, including diagonal, with closer spacing around the perimeter (walls). I'm hoping that based on my final weight calculations that I'll revise the puck layout by actually removing legs/pucks rather than adding them. The most important thing I've learned here is that overloading pucks is almost as bad as underloading pucks, so it all comes down to accurate weights and measures. I'm accounting for this on a wild spreadsheet, and I'll post it when I'm done so that everyone has the benefit of my methods, and so I can blame y'all if something goes wrong. ;) And now, questions for Professor Knightfly... :?: So that I'm clear, we are looking for, ideally, 10% deflection, not 10% of the total deflectability (I just made up that word - do you like it?)... Right? I had initially misunderstood that. In other words, the material cannot deflect 100% because that would mean it would disappear; the maximum deflection is, I assume, somewhere around 40%-60%. Thus, it's the amount it compresses as a ratio of its total thickness, NOT a ratio of it's total compression span. Is that right? Assuming that's the case, then I'm thinking that I won't need the super high tech testing method that we discussed privately after all. I could probably just get two pucks on a flat surface, place a stiff board across them, and insert a wafer that is 90% of 1/2" (i.e., 9/20" -- I'm thinking of a piece of 7/16" plastic or acrylic, with maybe a couple of sheets of paper added to it), shining a light behind it, then stacking weights on the board until the light disappears (touchdown on the wafer)... Then dividing the weights plus the board weight in half to determine the final ideal weight "per puck." Makes sense? :? How much testing weight should I plan to need to put on it? (I'll likely need to borrow the weights from someone.) Or would you rather see me do the high tech test, since I saved so much dough on the rubber? ;) ;) 8)

No fucking idea...

knightfly wrote:

No fucking idea...

Uh, can you be a little more specific with regard to that which you have no f*%&ing idea? :oops:

Gotcha... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: OK, all seriousness aside; First question, yes Second question, right Third question, see previous post... :roll: OK, REALLY all seriousness aside... This part (question 3) can get tricky to "second guess", partly because I'm not sure just how constant different manufacturer's Durometer ratings are, plus other variables like the amount of material left to "squish out" of the compression area, whether pucks will be ACROSS the joist or lengthwise, which would affect total surface contact area - If I had to take a "SWAG", I'd say somewhere between 10 and 40 psi; so, if your contact area is 1.5" x 1.5", you'd be looking at around 20-80 pounds - However, for this particular question I REALLY meant the PREVIOUS post... Steve

knightfly wrote:

. . .If I had to take a "SWAG", I'd say somewhere between 10 and 40 psi; so, if your contact area is 1.5" x 1.5", you'd be looking at around 20-80 pounds . . .

OK. Well, I'm planning on going with 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" pucks, so that would be 5.25 square inches. Based on that swag, that's around 50-210 pounds. Doubling that is 100-420 pounds. That's a lot of testing weight. Perhaps I will go ahead and do the "high tech test." The "hich tech test," by the way, is something that I hope a local machine/fabrication shop can do for me. They have special equipment that they can supposedly set up to test how many pounds of pressure these pucks can take at various compression rates. Hopefully I'll have the rubber soon so that I can get the testing done. It will cost me some money, but I'm hoping it will a lot of the guesswork out of the equation.

Steve, you've mentioned in several places on the forum that we should not use fire-rated gypsum if we can avoid it, since fire rated gypsum has less mass. However, I'm having a little trouble locating a supplier of NON-fire rated 5/8" gypsum. Home Depot only carries 1/2" non-fire and 5/8" fire (besides 3/8", greenboard, etc.). Acoustical Material Services (a.k.a. "AMS") carries many types of gypsum, but they said "all 5/8" sheet rock is fire rated." They carry Gold Bond gypsum, and according to the National Gypsum Web site, that appears to be true. :?: Does this mean I should keep looking, and specifically look for a brand of gypsum wall board that comes in 5/8" and is NOT fire rated? :?: Also, there are many varieties of gypsum available... The above link demonstrates how many varieties are available. Should I be interested in any of these other types? :?: Finally (yeah, right), I got to thinking... rather than using PT 2x4 to to brace my PT 2x4 leveling block legs (as represented in my illustration, note "O"), should I use hot-dip galvanized metal fasteners instead? Do you think that would be more or less expensive? Easier or more difficult (given that I'll probably have over a hundred legs)?

Well, after several weeks of research, I'm finally ready to unveil my cost and weight estimate spreadsheet. I'm very interested in feedback on this, especially from Steve (of course ;-) ). I'm :shock: utterly amazed :shock: at how much my structure is going to weigh -- floating floor, walls, and ceiling (the "box within my box") is going to weigh about 15,000 POUNDS (7 1/2 TONS) or about the weight of six small cars! I'm a little bit freaking out about this, wondering if my garage floor will handle it in such a relatively small area. I'm also concerned that I'll have to buy more EPDM material for pucks, as I'll only have enough for about 90 pounds per puck, assuming I distribute the pucks properly. Needless to say, I'm most interested in feedback about my weight estimates. If I screw this up, I'm toast. Many thanks to all.

Kieth, just a quick try before I crash; Does this mean I should keep looking, and specifically look for a brand of gypsum wall board that comes in 5/8" and is NOT fire rated? I hope you misinterpreted a statement from me, and I didn't use the term Fire Rated when describing separate sheets of drywall; The term for a specific formulation of drywall wouldbe Fire CODE, or "X-Core" - this refers to non-gypsum additives that raise the temperature at which the gypsum cracks, etc, letting air/smoke through. Fire RATED assemblies can use STANDARD formulations of gypsum, it's more the thickness/layers vs type of framing that determines whether a wall is a 1-hour fire rated wall, or a 2-hour fire-rated wall; there are specific temperatures, etc, that are spec'd for these ratings. So, any gypsum wallboard can be "fire RATED", when used in a proper wall ASSEMBLY: but only specially FORMULATED gypsum can be "X-Core", or Fire CODE, gypsum. This type of gypsum is the one with a slightly less dense makeup, due to the different composition of the board itself. Also, there are many varieties of gypsum available... The above link demonstrates how many varieties are available. Should I be interested in any of these other types? No - see above. Finally (yeah, right), I got to thinking... rather than using PT 2x4 to to brace my PT 2x4 leveling block legs (as represented in my illustration, note "O"), should I use hot-dip galvanized metal fasteners instead? Do you think that would be more or less expensive? Easier or more difficult (given that I'll probably have over a hundred legs)? Hard to say on that one; you want to maintain stiffness, so will likely want some blocking BELOW your 2x6 joists where the "legs" are tallest; otherwise, you may get more sway in the floor than you want. Costwise; things are just plain crazy, you'd need to cost out the brackets and compare to PT lumber prices. I bought a single 20' length of 4x4 square steel tubing last week, 3/16" wall thickness - 2 years ago that would have cost about $60, last week it was $179 - 1" EMT last week at HD was $10 per stick, over 3 times what it cost a couple of years ago. The PVC conduit was still around $3. At those prices, you might be ahead to use CONCRETE spacers... Steve

OK, thanks for clarifying "fire rated" vs. "fire code." I think I got it. Now, to rephrase my question with hopefully the correct terminology... :?: It appears to me that all 5/8" gypsum wallboard is "fire code." Examples: SHEETROCK® Brand HUMITEK™ Gypsum Panels | Gold Bond® BRAND Gypsum board. Perhaps I misunderstood a post from you (Steve) that I can now not find. Please confirm that I just need to use "normal" 5/8" gypsum, which will be "fire code." :?: Fitz suggested I look into Kinetics KIP isolators as a possible alternative to the EPDM pucks. Steve, the only mention of this product on this board is this post in which you didn't really state an opinion. What are your thoughts on this? It would seem that one advantage would be that I wouldn't have to do all the fancy EPDM testing I was planning, and there seems to be less risk of overloading. FYI, I recetly priced PT lumber at my local Home Depot... 1 1/2" x 3 1/2" x 8' is $5... And yes, the stuff is supposedly acceptable for indoor use. Also, In other news, I am meeting with two HVAC guys next week for proposals. Wish me luck!

Your walls, as designed, are so far beyond "fire rated" it's funny. Just build 'em and fuhgeddaboutit... :=)) Seriously, no prob - and, fire CODE is a TYPE of wallboard with a different formulation, so that THIN stuff can meet fire RATING, which has NOTHING to do with formulation. Fire RATING means, this frame, this insulation, that wallboard in this thickness, is RATED to withstand a fire for 1 hour, 2 hours, etc - I'm not even sure they HAVE a fire rating for THREE layers of 5/8 gypsum, no matter WHOSE brand/type it is. You may obsess about something ELSE now... :wink: Kinetics Kips; haven't used 'em, but WSDG has (and doesn't hide the fact) - since they are compressed fiberglass, I'm not sure what all would react differently. Life should be good, I've no idea about compression range vs. lifespan. Kinetics, similar to Auralex' UBOATS, just says "put 'em in and do your floor", no calcs, no nuttin' - I tried to get Jeff at Auralex to say why they did that, and got stone-walled :?: :?: haven't talked to the Kinetics guys about it. AFAIK, you would still need to stay within a range that wouldn't allow the pads to either LEAVE compression or BOTTOM OUT under any circumstances, but beyond that as I said I don't know yet whether the fiberglass pads have the same limitation as EPDM, etc, as far as staying toward the LIGHT side of loading for longevity... Steve

Cool. I understand. Thanks for clarifying. For the record, I was most concerned about buying the wrong stuff, as I'm really not worried about 3 layers of rock not meeting building code for fire containment. (The word "overkill" comes to mind! ;) ) I'm faced with buying 40+ panels of the stuff and getting it delivered, and I'd hate to post a photo of it and then see comments from you and everyone else that say, "WTF is that??" ;) Otay! This weekend I'll be working out electrical details in preparation for hopefully paying my friendly neighborhood building department a visit for what I hope will be the necessary permits, or as a runner-up prize, a clear understanding of what (more) I'll need to do in order to get them (and, of course, pass the inspections). This week's record-breaking 15-degrees-above-normal high pressure ridge has really got me motivated to get some of this construction completed (ahem... started...) before the infamous triple-digit summer heatwaves come unapologetically to make for a very uncomfortable building environment! :shock: And next week I'll call the Kinetics folks to hopefully get pricing and more details about their KIP product... Naturally, I'll post what I learn.

One other possibility - if you have any commercial drywall suppliers close, ask if they have any NON-tapered-edge drywall - if so, this will give slightly better results for all but the TOP layer, which will look better using tapered edges where the mud/tape goes - less voids in the wall when using non-tapered boards may improve TL near joints by a SMALL amount. If you can't find it, not to worry; this is just a new twist I've been discussing with a REALLY smart guy on another forum... Steve

I wrote:

Otay! This weekend I'll be working out electrical details in preparation for hopefully paying my friendly neighborhood building department a visit for what I hope will be the necessary permits, or as a runner-up prize, a clear understanding of what (more) I'll need to do in order to get them (and, of course, pass the inspections).

SIGH. :? Last night I spent some time on my municipality's Web site, where they must have done quite a revamp since the last time I was in their building department section. It's been completely transformed and includes a lot more information now. Unfortunately, much of that information is scary. Their requirements for plan reviews are pretty strict. I may also have to cough up much more $ in fees than I had anticipated. Plus, there may be plan review delays. :( It's a little discouraging, but not enough to take me off my track. (BTW, please don't try to talk me into not doing this by the book. The risks are far too great.) Also, I've met with three HVAC contractors the last three mornings in a row. The first bid came in :shock: much higher :shock: than I expected. Hopefully the other two will be better. Oh well... I knew this wouldn't be easy! Stay tuned...