Insulating Solid walls

Page 3 of 5  

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

thats just stating the obvious.

but that has nothing to do with reality at all. It is singularly ineffective, the fluid merely takes the paths of least resistance.
What does make a difference for a while is replacement of the plaster, removing salt laden and putting on fresh. This is why there were no complaints with the company that injected water - they replastered.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bricks are porous, the pore sizes vary widely. Simple physics tells us that an injected fluid will follow the path of least resistance, which is via the biggest pores. The idea that injecting something can make a brick waterproof or vapourproof just doesnt fly. Show us some support for your claim, perhaps some evidence. If there is none, I can think of an easy experiment using food dye mixed with the fluid, and the brick sliced up once dried out.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

I'd rather believe that there's a good reason we build houses with damp courses. Flying in the face of 100 years worth of experience might be seen as being a trifle loopy. I've never seen RD but I don't doubt it exists. I've never had smallpox either
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stuart Noble wrote:

I see, so the existence of a regulation proves its necessity in your eyes? Your logic is loopy.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It comes from "Moisture Movements in render on brick wall" KK Hansen, TA Munch, PS Thorsen, C Villumsen, LC Bentzon; in Research in Building Physics By J. Carmeliet, Hugo S. L. C. Hens, Gerrit Vermeir; Pub Taylor & Francis, 2003 ISBN 90 5809 565 7.
The paper cites the most common pore size in fired bricks as 2000nm.
There may be pores musch larger than 4200nm, but the important factor for wicking is the size of the pores in continuous contact through the matrix of the brick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Firth wrote:

There's something that doesn't sound quite right.
Isn't that reference about render? In that case, they mention the higher porosity (at least a factor of 10) of render, and that appears to be one of their points. Also, it's to do with penetrating (largely) horizontal damp through brick, rather than vertical travel. This page is interesting:
http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/2auffen.htm
It obviously rabidly anti rising damp, but contains some interesting photos (including brick walls in water without dpcs - anyone living near a canal can see similar) and references.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It rises to a point where evaporation balances capillary action. That can be a distance several feet to tens of feet, not the "inches" that you referred to.

Mr. know-nothing boasting of being a natural philosopher and shpwing no signs of talent in that field of human experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Firth wrote:

I can't believe that. I've tried getting water to wick upwards in absorbent materials, and inches would be the scale

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I used to regularly run thin layer chromatography plates in which the water phase rises along the plate by capillary action. The plates were about a foot long and the water made it all the way to the end of the plate. These were only run for short periods.
I'm led to conclude that the absorbent materials that you used either permitted evaporation at such a rate that liquid couldn't rise very high or that the pore size in the absorbent material was much larger than you thought.
Besides, you're turning blind eye to the fact that capillary action can (and does) raise water over well over 10metres in trees.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher

I have direct experience of this in my last house - a 1920s cottage where the walls were mass concrete and no DPC. The site was on the edge of a drained and filled duck pond, according to locals. The lower internal 6" of the front wall was definitely damp - not enough to blow plaster, but not dry. Surrounding the cottage was a concrete path which ran right up to the walls; it was definitely below floor level, by a couple of inches. So, imo, the only place the damp was coming from was underneath the wall, iow, the ground. Oh, the same local who told me about the duck pond also mentioned there were no foundations as such, but the walls were about 20" thick, so I suspect they weren't needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

- and rain splash and of course condensation Seems the rising damp people always offer that illogic
NT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Ah yes. Rain splash in the middle of a house miles away from any exterior wall is always the obvious reason.
And you get tons of condensation in the middle of a hot summer with the windows wide open don't you?
What's it with you? You are like Hansen, no matter what the evidence is, your Faith triumphs over Reason..

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I dont recall ever saying that applied to interior walls.

not normally. Most houses suffer damp more in winter of course.

strange, i could say exactly the same
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

I am afraid so.
I LIVED with rising damp for about 7 years. All on or near the INSIDE walls that hadnt been injected. The outer walls which had, were fine.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

?
And what do you believe that proves?
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

things.
And your failure to accept either, makes you a prat?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I dont recall claiming it doesnt exist, merely that nearly all cases of damp at the base of walls weren't rising damp.
This is all too familiar. If you'd done your reading you'd have known that the BRE experiment shows that it does exist.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have experianced rising damp. Our last house was built sometime before 1835, the morgage lender insisted that the 9inch solid brick walls have damp course treatment. All remained damp free except an 18inch section of a front outside wall and a 3ft internal dividing wall. The damp proofing company were called back under the garantee period and admitted the insde wall had been missed on the original treatment and fractured bricks had caused a break in coverage of the fromt wall. They re injected these sections, after which we had no more rising damp.
The damp in these areas could be clearly seen by a wavy line of bubbling in the internal paintwork.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember snipped-for-privacy@care2.com saying something like:

Nope. The roof overhang ruled out splash the and cottage, being an old thing, was well ventilated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.