A point I've made several times.
Look at the original picture carefully. Judge the width of the wall between the railing and the door based on the 4" wide outlet. Check the width of most any grill. Now as yourself how radiant heat from a grill parked there didn't damage the rest of the siding over to the door, and how that radiant heat caused the damage to continue back past the railing which clearly presents a radiant barrier.
Pete C.
In addition to your vision problems, you also seem to have *serious* difficulty with reading comprehension. Another poster suggested that any damage that might have occurred on the inside would be hidden because it's below the level of the countertop. I wrote what you quoted above in response, pointing out only that not *all* of the damaged area is below the countertop. I made no claims one way or the other about whether damage would, or would not, be visible on the inside as a result of your mythical magic fire that discolors siding on the side away from the heat without disturbing the side toward the heat. Any notion that I did is solely the product of your imagination.
No, since you attacked my analysis of the evidence well before there was any discussion of discoloration.
My analysis still stands as well since absent any evidence that there is not comparable discoloration on the back of the siding, all the other evidence still points solidly to an internal heat source.
Other evidence:
Pete C.
No, you attacked my analysis before there was any discussion of discoloration. The discoloration doesn't change the conclusion of that analysis either. Discoloration doesn't negate the conclusion and the conclusion is supported by significant other evidence.
Pete C.
Me? No. Just like with the "moron" comment, that would be *you*, Pete, not me. You overlooked the possibility that your LCD monitor prevented you from seeing the discoloration because you were fixated on your conclusion of an internal heat source. And because this conclusion is contradicted by *exterior* discoloration, you denied that any such discoloration existed, and even went so far as to impugn my intellectual capacities simply because I am able to see that which you refused to see. That's an example of overlooking other possibilities and fixating on a conclusion, to be sure -- but not on *my* part.
The discoloration that you so heatedly denied ever existed. The discoloration that I was a "moron" for seeing. The discoloration that everyone could see except you. (Who's the moron?)
There is *no* evidence *at* *all* pointing to an internal heat source, and considerable evidence pointing to exterior solvent exposure or exterior heat.
You're the only one that can't see it, dumbass.
Where is your evidence that the siding is not discolored on it's back side? I've not seen the OP post anything of the sort.
Pete C.
There's your reading comprehension problem again. I never once said that it was not -- I said the OP should check to see if it is.
I disagreed with your analysis of the evidence precisely *because* of the discoloration PLAINLY visible on the outside.
You have *no* evidence pointing, solidly or otherwise, to an internal heat source.
The conclusion of an internal heat source is in no way contradicted by evidence if discoloration on the external surface of the vinyl siding. If and only if we had evidence that the reverse side of that siding did not have comparable discoloration would there be anything to sway things against an internal heat source. Even so it would not be conclusive since the atmosphere between the siding and the Tyvek is different from the outside surface exposed to free air and that could affect discoloration. The other evidence still points to an internal heat source.
You if you think that the discoloration on the outside is somehow conclusive proof of an external heat source. We don't at this point have an answer from the OP on whether the back side of the siding showed comparable discoloration, and we do have a number of other pieces of evidence that point away from an external heat source.
Look again, closely and with an open mind. You're the one fixated on an external source. I've looked at that possibility and have not found any likely external source that would cause the damage seen in the photo. The position of the damage extending only about 12" in front of the railing and continuing behind the railing points strongly against pretty much any likely external heat source, including a grill, hibachi, jar of iced tea, decorative sun catcher, etc. The fact that the Tyvek was heated to the point that holes formed in it while the siding only sagged also points away from an external source.
Pete C.
False. I disagreed with your analysis precisely *because* of the discoloration.
It should, if you were intellectually honest and hadn't formed your conclusion first and gone looking for evidence to support it. The visible damage is greatest on the outside. There is less damage visible on the Tyvek than on the siding. There is less damage visible on the OSB -- none, in fact
-- than on the Tyvek. All this points to an external cause.
Your conclusion isn't supported by *any* evidence.
I agree that the OP should check the back of the siding. I do not however consider a lack of discoloration on the back side to be conclusive proof of an external heat source since one side is in free air and the other in confined space which could affect discoloration.
Based on the lack of conclusiveness of the discoloration, the evidence supporting an internal heat source such as the damage to the siding that extends past the railing where any likely external heat source would not reach, the more significant damage to the Tyvek, and the positions of electrical boxes and a suspect nail, an inspection of the interior of the wall in that area is more than warranted.
The risk of inspecting inside that wall and finding nothing is at most an hour of wasted time, the risk on not inspecting that wall and not seeing fire damage that is there is the risk of a reoccurrence with more devastating results.
Pete C.
I have never maintained that the discoloration is due to a heat source of any kind, and only a moron would think that I have. I've been quite clear and consistent in stating my belief that it's due to the stain that the OP already admitted to having oversprayed on the siding, and/or the solvent that the OP has already stated he used to clean it up.
We do indeed agree on that: a number of other pieces that point away from an external heat source. I think they point toward external solvent exposure.
You're not red-green colorblind, by any chance, are you? If not, then you haven't looked very carefully. The OP already said he had an overspray when staining the deck, and used a solvent to wipe it off. Curiously, the discoloration on the siding is very similar to the color of stain visible on the deck.
I agree. That's entirely consistent with solvent exposure, as I have maintained all along. It's clear, though, from the minimal damage sustained by the Tyvek and the sheathing, that the source was external, not internal.
ASSUMPTION!! Where is your evidence that the Tyvek was heated *at*all*??
Hardly that. Quite the contrary, actually -- the fact that the siding is visibly discolored and deformed, while the Tyvek is only slightly damaged, points strongly *toward* an external source.
What *would* you consider to be conclusive proof that you're wrong? You don't even consider a *photograph* to be conclusive proof that you were wrong about the discoloration on the siding.
Indeed it could -- the side in free air and away from your presumed heat source would be much *cooler* and therefore much *less* likely to be discolored.
That argues against an external heat source. It does *not* argue *for* an internal heat source.
???
The damage to the siding is *much* worse than the damage to the Tyvek.
I'll take your bet -- you said 95%, I think, that the OP will find evidence of a fire interior to the wall. That's 19:1 odds -- I'll take that, and be happy. What are the stakes?
Are there holes in the siding? There are in the Tyvek.
No, I assess there is a probability of a fire inside the wall based on all of the evidence. The nail which is clearly located close to a known electrical box position and is clearly redundant with the one an inch or two away from it is only one piece of evidence that supports that theory.
What evidence would you have to see for you to believe that there may have been a fire within that wall? The evidence of a significant heat source having been present within that wall is quite clear. A fire is the only likely source for such heat within the wall. An electrical fault is the most probably initiator of such a fire.
just
*toward* it...Apparently, if you claim I ever indicated there was discoloration prior to my discovery of the LCD monitor issue.
Your reading comprehension problem again. I apparently should have stated "without discoloring either side" to match your limited comprehension. Since I had already stated that I didn't see discoloration on the outside (due to the monitor issue) I presumed your reading comprehension was sufficient to understand that my statement should not be construed to indicate there would be discoloration on the outside, but not the inside.
Misquoting doesn't help your loosing argument.
No, you won't. My not seeing the discoloration due to a monitor issue in no way changes my conclusion of the likely cause of the damage based on all the evidence we have available.
You are the one who refuses to revisit the evidence I have pointed out and review your conclusions. You have provided no explanation for how the external heat source you have fixated on could cause the damage in the areas I have noted.
Pete C.
Tyvek is a few thousandths of inch thick; vinyl siding is thicker by far. And the area of the damaged siding is many times larger than the area of the damaged Tyvek.
You have *no* evidence, just assumptions.
And that nail *must* have pierced an electrical cable and started a fire, or you wouldn't have any justification at all for your assumptions.
Charred wood would do it for me.
Garbage. There is no evidence whatsoever of any heat source inside that wall, significant or otherwise. You have *assumed* an interior heat source from the beginning, and searched for evidence to support that assumption, instead of looking at the evidence and following where it leads.
There's no evidence whatever that there ever was any such fire.
Reading comprehension again, Pete...
Liar. You stated that there was no discoloration.
That only came later -- after you could no longer continue to deny, even to yourself, that there was any discoloration present.
There isn't anything wrong with my reading comprehension here, Petey.
That's an exact, direct quote.
BTW -- it's spelled "losing". Moron.
You denied that any discoloration existed, and called me a moron for stating that it did.
Only because your mind is already made up, and you're not willing to listen to anything to the contrary.
You haven't pointed out any evidence, just assumptions.
That's because I have *never* stated that this was caused by an external heat source. I have maintained all along that the cause is solvent exposure.
So what? The siding and the Tyvek are made from two different materials. In a car crash, does the glass dent like the metal parts? Get a grip, doofus.
The point is that Pete is claiming quite the opposite -- that the Tyvek is damaged more badly than the siding -- to support his assumption that the damage was caused by an internal heat source. It's clearly obvious in the photos posted by the OP that, in fact, the siding has sustained far more damage than the Tyvek underneath it, both in terms of the severity of the damage, and the size of the damaged area. This argues strongly for an external cause, but Pete is so firmly wedded to his notion of an internal heat source that when presented with evidence indicating otherwise he denies it exists (in the case of the discoloration of the siding) or states it to be exactly the opposite of what is plainly visible (as in the case of the extent of the damages to the siding and to the Tyvek). Get the point, doofus?
Man, are you ever slow. The Tyvek is a DIFFERENT material regardless if you think it, or the siding has sustained more damage. The two of you are a couple of babbling nitwits.
Here's a usenet "rule of thumb" that may help you: If you take more than 3 or 4 posts to win an argument, you automatically lose. Further posting just makes you look exactly like the f****ng retard you are arguing with to onlookers.
The first of you two that stops posting in this thread will be viewed as slightly smarter and more mature than the other, but it's too late for either of you to retain any dignity.
The tyvek and the siding are both in better shape than you two.
See ya!
[I should have said "which have _since_ driven out ..."]
Yes, I know, but I'm not getting warm and fuzzies that the OP's recollection is entirely accurate and/or complete.
The melt pattern on the Tyvek makes me think hot wiring between the two indoor outlets. But the vinyl damage seems a bit too widespread for that.
Vinyl will likely sag/distort at temperatures well below what would singe/discolor OSB. So, discoloration/lack thereof isn't terribly compelling.
Wiki torches? Citronella candles? Heck, a plate of just cooked and still very hot burgers might be able to do something like that in a short period of time.
The other comment about the shadow from the fixture is interesting. Is it possible that the glass on the fixture can focus a hot spot of light on the wall in that area at certain times of the day?
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.