BTW, insalling PVC conduit in walls is illegal in most areas. You would have to use steel conduit.
Please be aware that you are NOT suppose to run romex in conduit either. You use individual strand wires inside of conduit. PVC conduit is normally used outside when dealing with electric.
Tom
Concrete is a very good "blocker" of sound transmission . . . as the OP desires. Don't know what you mean by " . . . a good insulator for sound." that would by your definition exclude "blocking," as I interpret the OP. (I mean, the use of concrete definitely "is'nt a good insulator for sound" in the OP's proposed applicaion, but your statement implies any application.)
Jim
Not so, unless you are factoring in the probability there will be no wall remaining after the OP's concrete pouring (or pumping) effort. He also wants it "blocked" not just deadened. Actually, muffled is more like it.
Jim
Definitely not so, regardless of method of placing those other materials. You say you "think" but you need more information and knowledge to think rationally.
Jim
considerations
objections,
doesn't it depend upon the frequency of the sound that is the problem? how do prisoners have tap code since typical prisons have cement walls?
As this is likely a partition (otherwise, how can he get to both sides to reinforce the drywall to prevent bulging, as he indicates he can prepare for) and is a partition supposing temperature control on both sides (otherwise, it would be insulated with something that would prevent completely filling the voids with concrete, even if saturated and compressed . . . what a mess!), it must not be a party wall, as it would be between adjacent apartments, etc.
Therefore, it is likely a partition between adjacent rooms within the OP's own abode. Let us assume, then, the OP's spouse (I assume the OP is a male, but we don't really know. Only a male would even think he could make the improvements he proposes, but perhaps it the OP is a female.), whether male or female is entertaining someone other than the OP, himself or herself, in the room on the other side. That likely would bother the OP. Even if he/she might enjoy watching, hearing only certainly would be frustrating. And, if he really is bothered, maybe he can't describe what it is bothering him, despite not posting his/her identity, because prying eyes within his/her own household may well see his post, causing undesired ramifications. Or, the OP's signature may be known amongst his/her other correspondents.
I believe it is far more fun for us to hypothesize than to have known the actual cause of the OP's frustrations. I'm confident we will be sorely disappointed should we actually learn the truth. Aren't we usually?
I mean, if we were told in the original post, rather than the OP excusing him/herself, would this thread even have started? Perhaps, but not so continued.
Jim
I am a male. (Sorry, I should have taken care to grunt; this being a _construction_ forum afterall... )
Guest987
It may be more fun, but in my profession we usually define problems before we define resolutions for them.
application.)
They tap on the steel bars with a credit card.
Jim
>
Yeah, mine too; however, not too much of this thread has been about actually resolving the OP's "problem". I'm sure that in your profession as in mine, our problems and our solutions are genuine, "serious" problems . . . and even then we sometimes escape to the inane for a moment or two, unless you are a funeral director.
Jim
(And, even if you are, there are those moments . . . )
message
They took away our credit cards (along with a lot of other things) in the brig....
If I read your comment correctly... how can one be so certain that my sound transmission (i.e. noise) problem is not genuine or "serious" (...my 'off the wall' --yes, pun intended-- trial balloon "solution", notwithstanding)?
Guest987
I was aware that romex is not used in conduit. I had no idea it was NOT supposed to be. Is there some kind of safety issue involved here? I recently ran some wiring through conduit in my yard, underground. I used individual strand wires in the conduit. But when the lady of the house suddenly changed her mind as to the numbers of flood lamps, garden lamps, fountain water pumps, power outlets, etc, I realized the wire I had used (12.2) might not be able to supply peak current demands. So instead of trekkting back to the store and buying more single strand wire, I chose to additionally thread through a length of romex (10.2) I had on hand (providing for an additional circuit to connect to). Was that wrong? ()
Guest987
I worked for a guy who went in for some differences in opinion on his taxes. The first full day in jail, his credit card company called for him and I told them that he was "out of town for some time". ;-) After some prying, they told me there had been over $1,000 charged to it in half a day, all for gasoline. I guess someone working at the jail was taking and selling credit cards. I told them that he isn't in that city where the gasoline was purchased, but they wouldn't cancel his card until they spoke to his wife. I didn't know how to get hold of her that day so I called back and in a very poor sounding high pitched voice, acted as the Mrs. and gave them permission to cancel the card.
Okay. Consider the drywall-as-form idea tossed out then. (I didn't think this particular detail was workable anyway; just wanted to know more before completely ruling it out. Bear in mind though, "placing the concrete in small pours to allow curing in stages" was part and parcel of my idea; thus no need to consider the "enormous force of the hydrostatic pressure...". But thanks for that info just the same.)
Now, out of curiosity, what would you think of the concrete infill idea provided strong plywood be securely screwed over (or, if you prefer, in place of) the drywall?
I'm not clear as to what you are saying here.
And here, are you somehow referring to this wetness and pressure occurring even when "placing the concrete in small pours..."?
Would you happen to know what the weight/mass per square foot 5/8" GWB is these days? (I say, "these days", because I've read that GWB mass density --and therefore its sound absorbing capacity-- is today about half of what it was 30 years ago. See
I know! That's precisely what made me think of it. (BTW, I was planning on only about half that thickness of concrete, using dense styrofoam to fill in the rest of the space.)
I've studied the subject seemingly to death already. I'm confident I have a good handle on the principles of sound transmission abatement (not that I'm unwilling to learn more as I come across more info).
Why should I want to extend the working time? I don't understand.
Yes, I agree. Let me clarify what I posted earlier about the bags of Post-Haste cement I have: this product is premixed (i.e. has the aggregate in it already). So when I said I'd pour "one bag's worth" at a time, I was talking about approx. 12 liters worth. (See product guide at
The Post-Haste has pea sized pebbles plus sand/gravel fines in it.
I had considered mixing my own concrete using just what you are talking about here (expanded rock/microspheres/etc.) as my first choice. But I came up against an abrupt dead end when I phoned around to try and locate where to buy the materials. Nobody in the various concrete (or plaster and stucco) businesses that I talked to (around my area, of Vancouver, that is) admitted to even hearing about such.
Okay I'm obviously missing something crucial in my concept of how concrete works. You mean not all of the water that goes into mixing concrete becomes _chemically_ incorporated/tranformed into solid concrete compound/s when the concrete has set?
Well I might consider supplementing with something like this if I choose to overcome my present overwhelming urge to do something ASAP, and instead wait a few months until I can properly afford to acoustically modify the wall and pursue methods which, in fact, were my very first choices (i.e. staggered-stud frame reconstruction of wall; plus 1/8" thick lead sheeting sandwiched between two layer drywall shell [or alternatively, single layer of lead-lined "radiation shield" drywall shell --can order lead component thicknesses up to 1/4"], followed by drywall suspended on Gold Bond [aka "hat track"] resilient furring channels.).
Thank you for your civil and informative response...
Guest987
Guest987:
I missed this post of yours. You are more the imitator-poseur than I would have guessed. You ignore the true scientific meanings of terms, and you use terms for the concrete effect of social appearances without an understanding of the consequences.
You don't think in terms of the principles involved with what you say, and you refuse to understand the cause and effect relationships of the ideas that you spew out. Your questions are phony.
It appears that it doesn't matter what people say, and that you intend to accomplish a failure.
You also have failed to seriously acknowledge the suggestions that people have made, and you insult them by persisting in some fancy verbal dancing about the matter without actually recognizing the reality of the problem or the suggested recommendations.
Ultimately, you say that you were trolling for effect.
You've lost respect.
Ralph Hertle
Most likely you are trying to block one of two types of noise. High pitch or low pitch. Low would be base drums, base guitar, stomping, etc.. Most others would be high. Each type is attacked differently. Cheapst way to block low would be with lead sheets or cement board attached to one side of the walls. You can always do the other side if you must later on.
For other common sounds you would need to block air flow between rooms. So if two outlets share the same stud cavity, one must be disconected and blocked off. Fill the wall with foil foam by scoring and snappin sheets just like with drywall. When putting drywall back on one side that was removed use generous amounts of construction adhesive between the studs and drywall. This is one of the best uses for adhesive. It is rubbery so it reduces sound transmission. The drywall on that side will no longer act like a large speaker.
Unless is was UF, definitely, and if it wasn't I would recommend removing it (eventually, at least) before it degrades--which it will as there will be water accumulated in the conduit...which, if I read you right, if you used conduit the whole run isn't a real good idea, either...
HomeOwnersHub website 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.