BF’s Basement Studio Build Journal

sharward wrote:

Is this legal?

Code states that the separate grounds be run in proximity with the conductors, and that the wires need to be protected. All the code states is that they will be protected, this does not specifically mean conduit. Check with knightfly if you need details, :shock: I know that he has covered this here.

BF wrote:

sharward wrote:

Is this legal?

Code states that the separate grounds be run in proximity with the conductors, and that the wires need to be protected. All the code states is that they will be protected, this does not specifically mean conduit. Check with knightfly if you need details, :shock: I know that he has covered this here.

I believe he has as well - but i don't recall him coming to the same conclusion as you - Forgetting the protection issue for a moment - the code specifically requires the following:

"All conductors of the same circuit and, where used, the grounded conductor and all equipment grounding conductors shall be contained within the same raceway, cable tray, trench, cable, or cord."

This article then goes on to list a number of exceptions for this rule - which I went through one at a time this morning - and none of which apply to this situation. In the case of the exception allowing isolated grounds the code states:

"The receptacle grounding terminal shall be grounded by an insulated grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors."

Note that this does not allow for - or create an exception to the earlier rule. It does not state that it can be run outside of the same raceway, cabletray, cable, or cord. It only allows you to add a ground which is in addition to the system ground, and thus isolated form the general field ground. In my opinion what I see would not be compliant from that perspective. In addition, I would have to raise the question of how you have protected the conductor itself........... WIth the NM Sheathed Cble you provided for the rest of the citcuit - each of the conductors (with the exception of the ground) is sheathed - and then protected by the cable jacket. There are requirements in the code for individual conductors to be protected through the use of cable trays, raceways, conduits, etc. So please describe in what manner this individual conductor is protected. I do recall converstion with Steve where it was discussed that these cables could be enclosed within conduits and thus gain the required protection - but not fully exposed within the wall itself. The bottom line (in this case as with most others) ends up being the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)- and perhaps is a conversation you should have with your local electrical inspector - Sincerely, Rod

I must have interpreted this incorrectly.

knightfly wrote:

since these will be INSIDE walls, that putting the metal protector plates over the studs where the wiring goes through should be enough. All the code states is that they will be protected.

As the plates were applied I thought we were covered. I can see how lacking the outer sleeve of the romex on the extra grounds could be an issue. I don't see how what we are doing is different from doublehelix in his build thread . . . Edit: Inserted in-line photo... --Keith :mrgreen: . . . and sharward neglected to comment on it in his application. Perhaps DH needs rescuing as well. No biggie though, I still have access to this and need to run to the store now anyhow. I'll pick up some conduit and run it this evening.

BF wrote:

I don't see how what we are doing is different from doublehelix in his build thread (picture with the big red arrow) and sharward neglected to comment on it in his application. Perhaps DH needs rescuing as well. No biggie though, I still have access to this and need to run to the store now anyhow. I'll pick up some conduit and run it this evening.

I was just wondering the same thing!!! Crap!!! I hate having to redo things!!! It sucks being an amateur!!!

Holy crap! I hadn't noticed that either until now! I guess there were so many other colors of cables running around that I didn't notice the small green one... :roll: And I admit that I often can only afford the time to skim stuff... And much of what I do skim is on my tiny smartphone screen, which makes viewing the photos difficult if not impossible at times. --Keith :mrgreen:

Not a problem as this has been corrected Keith. Clearly I should not assume that your lack of comment should be taken as approval. I see how HD's post could have been skimmed over on a phone, even with the large red arrow. A combination of my misinterpretation of knightfly's description and assuming that DH was proceeding with your approval was easily fixed at that point in time. If I am unsure of something I will make a point of asking directly in the future. I am fortunate that you and Rod have taken an interest in this thread to keep me on track.

Cool - how'd you fix it, given it looks like you covered everything up with drywall? Also, I can't remember whether or not I mentioned this already on your thread (I remember mentioning it somewhere aroun here recently)... What's the deal with the framing around the door? You only have one stud on the latch side. You need two: a king stud and a jack stud. (Queen stud optional. ;-)) Again, I'd be remiss in my duty not to reinforce the fact that I still believe you're pursuing unpermitted construction, regardless of whatever mixed messages you may have received at the local level. The perils of this are well documented in the "Permits, Codes, Licenses" sticky thread. The code violations I pointed out were pretty obvious to me - and I'm hardly a code expert. At best I know not the answers but the questions to ask. A building inspector would surely have spotted these items, and by design the system would afford you the oppportunity to make corrections without too much demolition. --Keith :mrgreen:

The right wall was still exposed on the back as the outer wall hadn't gone up yet. The left side didn't have layer 2 applied yet, so the 2ft strip of drywall came off fairly easily. It had been calked at the top but not the bottom and not mudded yet (thankfully), so it wasn't a total mess to get into. We intend to 'toe nail' the jack studs in for the doors so we don't have to take the walls apart, but we have yet to get that far.

I have a few questions and could use some input, one on sealing around obstructions, and a second on building isolated monitor stands. At the top of the outer front wall (wall of the machine room) I have ductwork, pipe and a bunch of 2&1, coax and Cat5 running along a truss. In order to create a sealed space between the inner and outer room we are going to need to seal around all of these elements as we take the wall to the ceiling. Hopefully the picture will convey what we are up against. Top half is the right, bottom the left. Any tips on sealing around elements that will protrude from a wall face such as this? Cut drywall as a close fit, use backer rod and calk it to death? Is there any type of, spray 'foam' for example that will produce a lasting seal? Tackling this is still a bit off, but I'm trying to wrap my head around it and all I am coming up with is drown it in calk lol. Question two. Well a bit of background first. The monitors are planned to sit upon a poured concrete pillar within the soffits. The pillar will sit upon a 2x4 triangular base which will sit upon 3 neoprene pucks. We built the bases and introduced some vertical lags for the concrete to take hold on, carefully cut shallow recesses of the same depth wide enough not to contact the pucks under compression and placed the base upon the pucks. The pucks will not be attached to the structure. Here is a shot with the form on top (the concrete has not been poured), a basic idea of where we are going whit this. Bolts will be placed protruding from the top end of the wet concrete that will attach to a pair of 2x4s attached to the bottom of the box that will enclose the monitors. This hardware should provide a marginal amount of adjustment of the monitor platform by moving a pair of nuts and washers along the exposed shafts. See any problems so far? Any input or questions welcome. Now to the question. I am of the opinion that the platform should be placed on the pucks and placed exactly where it needs to be to achieve correct monitor placement. The form lowered onto it, leveled then braced to the structure until the concrete cures when the bracing will be removed. The other suggested option is to place the base without the pucks onto a level surface in the garage, set and brace the form and pour there. Once cured take the pillars down to the basement and lower them into position onto the pucks. The reasoning is that removing the pucks eliminates a variable in keeping the pillars level and stable until they cure. The concrete itself should come in at 186 lbs once cured. Thoughts on either idea, a third option or more questions? Thanks again for the input. BF

Ick. Those are ugly obstructions. I don't know how to advise you there. This might be one of those cases where three leaves may be necessary. Can you take more photos from various angles? This is one of the reasons I do not envy you basement conversion folks. :-( If you bolt the monitor pedestals to the floor, the pucks will serve no purpose. Imagine a fixed bar running parallel to the shock absorbers of an automobile. Will the car bounce? No, it won't. The purpose of the pucks (acting as elastomers) is to allow the pedestal to bounce with the pucks deflecting slightly under the weight of the structure above it. No bounce, no decoupling. My guess is that you're only making matters more complicated than they need to be. You're probably better off doing a concrete block stack like AaronW did on his build. --Keith :mrgreen:

sharward wrote:

If you bolt the monitor pedestals to the floor, the pucks will serve no purpose. Imagine a fixed bar running parallel to the shock absorbers of an automobile. Will the car bounce? No, it won't. The purpose of the pucks (acting as elastomers) is to allow the pedestal to bounce with the pucks deflecting slightly under the weight of the structure above it. No bounce, no decoupling. My guess is that you're only making matters more complicated than they need to be. You're probably better off doing a concrete block stack like AaronW did on his build.

Lol, the description must have been confusing. The bolts go up into the form where the concrete will cure around them. The bolts do not stick through the bottom of the base.

If it has not been taken in to account already, the water used to activate the pre-mixed concrete will gravitate towards the bottom of the sauna tube. For that reason maybe a good oil paint on the white wood would help protect it. Also, when the concrete is placed, as it piles up it is then that the weight of the concrete can begin to settle and creep under the form and move it upward. So in reference to doing the pour in the exact place, maybe somewhere else is a better place. Like a flat level part of the floor to eliminate the need to plumb the form by simply attaching the form to the base. I'm thinking duct tape but you may develop a better means. Brien

#1, the bolts would have to be galvanized in order to not corrode. #2, you'd need to accurately measure the deflection of the pucks to ensure that they were indeed acting as springs.

#1 good call #2 has been done, 10% compression under 232 lbs.

232 pounds of compression will yield 10% deflection for a single puck, or a combination of all three? If it's a single puck, there won't be enough compression unless the monitor is about 750 pounds. :roll: Assuming you've got your weights and measures right... I'd suggest you use three 12" long x 5/8" galvanized J-bolts, available at Home Depot. These come with mattchig nuts and 2" square washers. Actually, the J-bolts would be inserted into the top after the pour, leaving threads exposed about 1¼". (You're building this thing upside-down.) After curing, cut off the form cylinder, then cover the top with 1/8" thick closed cell foam, such as that used as laminate floor underlayment (the cheap stuff). This will protect the wood from any moisture contained in the concrete. Trim the foam sheet to the contour of the pillar. Then the attach the base to the bolts. For the base, use three layers of ¾" plywood cut into a single triangle. Use 2" screws at the corners and cut the pieces with a jigsaw or table saw while they are fused together. Remove the screws and separate the base layers. Drill ¾" holes into the first layer of base to accommodate the bolts. Attach with washer and nut. About 3/8" of bolt thread will remain beyond the nut. For the middle layer of base, drill three 2¼" holes to accommodate the bolts and washers. Apply middle layer to first layer.Some of the nut and bolt will extend beyond the middle layer. For last layer, drill three 1" holes to accommodate the bolts. You may bore out your puck recesses and glue the feet on... But make the recesses a little larger than the diameter of the pucks themselves as you must not constrain the "bulge" of the lateral deflection of the pucks as doing so would affect their ability to do their job. Actually, you might even skip the recesses entirely. Screw the three bases together again, using the original 2" wood screws. All three layers should align perfectly and no fasteners will be visible. Not bad for typing on my Smartphone while still lying in bed, eh? ;-) --Keith :mrgreen:

You could also eliminate the base bolt assembly completely and epoxy the base to the concrete pillar after sufficient drying time...

sharward wrote:

Ick. Those are ugly obstructions. I don't know how to advise you there. This might be one of those cases where three leaves may be necessary. Can you take more photos from various angles?

I'm not sure what angles will provide the best information. We can start with these and I can take more if I have a better idea of what you are looking for.

Wow... :roll: ...That's quite a rat's nest of cabling, plumbing, and ducting you've got going there. You're really in a pickle because it seems you approached these obstacles as "a bridge you'll cross when you get to it." You've already engaged in construction activity up to this point, so you're committed to a certain strategy -- but now you gaze at the bridge to be crossed and wonder if you'll be able to safely navigate across. This is why planning around these types of things is so important before doing any actual construction, because you might have approached it completely differently. For example, if there is one particularly problematic area as far as obstructions are concerned (as may be the case where your large round duct is), you might have planned to lose that area in your usable space, making it some kind of mechanical access and storage closet. That may still be an option, but you may have some retrofitting of the construction you've done so far ahead of you. I've reread all five pages of this thread, and studied all of the photographs and floorplan. Still, I'm not even clear where these obstructions are on your floorplan... You described the problem area as your "front outer wall"... ...and that you need to create a space between "the inner and outer room." Even the pictures aren't giving me the perspective that you have with your familiarity with the space. While I'm envious of you in how fast you're executing and how much energy and help you have on hand to get through the "what to do" activities, I'm worrying (again) about you're doing this in the absence of clear "how to do." I'm feeling like I'm just out of my league in terms of being able to be effective in directing you out of this maze... :roll: I really wish I could be more helpful. --Keith :mrgreen:

These obstructions run over the inner room, through the top of the (outer) wall of the machine room that is adjacent to the control room. These will have to pierce the wall and be sealed around as far as I can determine. I don't think it will be a big problem, just tedious and slow. I thought I might ask if there was something that I had not stumbled across that might make sealing around obtrusions less of a precise and tedious exercise. This is the down side of a basement build. Anywhere you try to place things (at lest in my case) there was going to be some obstructions. It came down to picking the best place and working with them.

sharward wrote:

232 pounds of compression will yield 10% deflection for a single puck, or a combination of all three? If it's a single puck, there won't be enough compression unless the monitor is about 750 pounds. :roll:

Yes for all three. My Mason rep and I researched this quite thoroughly. We have tested the weight on the pucks and I am confident in the pucks performing as expected. I have to confess, the eye roll thing is really starting to get to me. I think if you really rolled your eyes that much they might fall out of your head. :wink: While I appreciate the continued help and input, every bit of help being offered while being looked down upon could be disheartening. Clearly if we knew all of the answers we wouldn't be here asking for input. I'm not asking for a pat on the back every step of the way, but is expecting one to be sensitive enough not to be discouraging at every possible mis-step unreasonable? Maybe I am just being overly sensitive.

sharward wrote:

Actually, the J-bolts would be inserted into the top after the pour, leaving threads exposed about 1¼". (You're building this thing upside-down.)

You may have missed this part, but there will be bolts in the bottom (securing to the base) and bolts in the top to secure to and adjust the monitor platform. I don't know that building it upside down would be advantageous. Perhaps I am missing something glaringly obvious.

sharward wrote:

But make the recesses a little larger than the diameter of the pucks themselves as you must not constrain the "bulge" of the lateral deflection of the pucks as doing so would affect their ability to do their job.

BF wrote:

carefully cut shallow recesses of the same depth wide enough not to contact the pucks under compression

Yes, this is understood.

sharward wrote:

For the base, use three layers of ¾" plywood cut into a single triangle.

Am I understanding that you do not believe that the 2x4 base pictured above will be sufficient?

sharward wrote:

Not bad for typing on my Smartphone while still lying in bed, eh? ;-)

Yes, your thumbs must be quite mighty :D Thanks again BF

The point of building it upside down is that you'd be able to set J-bolts instead instead using the lag bolts. You're hoping that the threads of the lag bolts will be enough for the concrete to "bite" on, but I don't think they'll be sufficient for that, especially the short length ones you're proposing. On the other hand, the J-bolts will resist pullout. I used J-bolts in my slab and I also used smaller J-bolts in the mortar-filled concrete blocks that my mini split condenser is sitting on. Sorry about the eyerolling being offensive. I honestly had no idea it was coming across that way. :roll: Ack! I mean, I honestly had no idea it was coming across that way. :) Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to change my habit...... Sorry I missed the info about the pucks. I should have known Mason would set you off in the right direction on that. As for the plywood, I just have an uneasy feeling about the multiple 2x4s attached with lag bolts and of course the lag bolts up into the concrete pillar. If I were going to build them, I'd probably build them the way I described. So, back to the obstructions -- you had written: "Any tips on sealing around elements that will protrude from a wall face such as this?" Looking at the drawing (thanks for that) and the pictures, I don't understand why you'd have to do so at all -- which means one of us is missing something. Normally, if you have two adjacent spaces decoupled spaces, whatever obstructions that are above the ceiling of those adjacent spaces wouldn't matter -- you wouldn't want to extend the surface of the wqall all the way to the floor above. Now where those obstructions would cause a problem is if you had to beef up the upstairs floor from below -- but that's not what you appear to be asking about. Still lost, I'm afraid... --Keth :mrgreen:

Rod, in your book you mention in regards to room testing and treatment that you wouldn't bother testing the room when you know 22-25% of the surface area will need to be treated. Are you of this belief when planing to build resonators in a room as well and simply build them for broad band absorption, or do you build them tuned to findings from room testing? The info I have found here for building resonators for broadband use indicates 2x1, 3x1 & 4x1 slats with gaps varying from 1/4" to 1/2". That makes an effective range of 243-675 for the side resonators and down to 143 in my rear corners. With the only absorptive trapping being the cloud, front and rear walls should I be building the resonators to have a lower effective range? Thanks

BF wrote:

Rod, in your book you mention in regards to room testing and treatment that you wouldn't bother testing the room when you know 22-25% of the surface area will need to be treated. Are you of this belief when planing to build resonators in a room as well and simply build them for broad band absorption, or do you build them tuned to findings from room testing?

BF- I would not build a tuned reasonator unless after completely treating the room I found I had no choice. I will always opt for broadband - and (if the room is large enough) diffusion. Rod

So go with a mixture of heights of one by slats for broadband, or maybe a mixture of thicker slats for a little deeper effective range?

BF wrote:

So go with a mixture of heights of one by slats for broadband, or maybe a mixture of thicker slats for a little deeper effective range?

Unless I plan on a wood slat finish in the beginning stages of design - I usually use just simple 703 & 705 broadband treatments with cloth finishes throughout the room. Rod