In article , "Pete C." wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:
I think the chance of it being chemical related are close to zero. If it
was a chemical that got on the surface of the siding there is virtually
no chance that it would have any effect on the tyvek underneath.

"Virtually no chance" is completely incorrect. Vinyl siding is *not*
air-tight
by any means. Solvent wiped or sprayed on the outside would very rapidly
lead
to solvent vapors on the inside.

Not in enough concentration to affect the tyvek. Solvent on the outside
would almost entirely evaporate on the outside as well.

Got any data behind that assumption, or are you just guessing? Even a light
breeze could easily push solvent vapors through the gaps in vinyl siding --
that's why the Tyvek is there, because the stuff is so leaky.

The reason the Tyvek is there has nothing whatsoever to do with the
siding being "leaky". The Tyvek it there to block air infiltration

Isn't that what I just said?

while
allowing water vapor to pass preventing condensation buildup within the
walls. Vinyl siding is specifically vented to prevent condensation
buildup behind it, traditional wood siding or shingles are similarly
ventilated due to their lap joints.

How does that "vent" traditional wood siding?


Sure you'd get a
detectable amount on the inside if you were sampling the air inside,
but certainly not enough to do the damage seen on the tyvek.

How are you going to get a detectable amount on the inside if it almost
entirely evaporates on the outside? If you can get a detectable amount on the
inside

Inside as in behind the vinyl siding, not inside the house.

Oh, yeah, sure, that must be what you meant. How were planning to get a
sniffer between the vinyl siding and the sheathing?

The vinyl
siding has vent slots at each lap location just as traditional wood
siding effectively does. Of course you will get detectable amounts of a
solvent behind the siding, but detectable and sufficient to affect the
Tyvek are not even remotely synonymous.

Got any data behind that assumption? Or are you just guessing again?

-- after it's passed through the siding, the Tyvek, the sheathing, the
insulation, the drywall, and a layer or two of paint -- how can you possibly
think that there "certainly" wouldn't be enough to damage the Tyvek?

I never said that solvent applied to the surface of the siding would
ever make it past the Tyvek, OSB, etc., that is your moronic assumption
and entirely false.

You wrote "detectable amount inside". If you meant "behind the siding" you
could have said so -- not my fault if you didn't write what you meant.

Do you
have any data behind that assumption, or are you just guessing again? Do you
even know how much solvent, or what type of solvent, it takes to do that?

You're the only one making unfounded and dangerous assumptions.

OK, so you *don't* have any data behind that assumption, and you *are* just
guessing. Got it.

Suggest
you stick your head back up your butt and stop endangering people by
suggesting they ignore signs of a possible fire hazard in their wall.

*What* signs?


Look, I'm not saying that he absolutely shouldn't open up the wall -- just
saying that he should look at the back side of the vinyl siding first, which
he does not appear to have done. Somebody asked him a couple days ago what
the
back side of it looked like; as far as I can tell, he hasn't answered that
question yet.

And I've noted that looking at the back of the siding is not likely to
show any discoloration since it was not exposed to direct flame, it was
exposed to moderate heat, heat that will deform the vinyl siding well
before it discolors it.

Still waiting for your explanation of how your magic heat source discolors the
vinyl siding on the surface *away* from the heat, but not on the surface
*toward* it...

Suggest you go to your local building supply place and get a sample of
vinyl siding and a piece of OSB. Place the siding on top of the OSB in
your oven and start baking it at the lowest temp, say 150-170 degrees.
When the siding starts to sag check the back for any discoloration.

That "test" obviously doesn't even come close to replicating the conditions
you believe to exist. Here's a better one: place the siding on top of the OSB,
outdoors, and then build a wood fire underneath the OSB. When the surface of
the vinyl siding *away* from the heat source begins to discolor, examine the
surface of the siding *toward* the heat source, *and* the OSB, for signs of
damage. Go ahead -- try it. Then tell us what you find.


It's also been suggested to the OP that he perform a test on a scrap of
siding, to see if the stain and the solvent he used will produce similar
damage. He hasn't yet reported results of that test, either.

The solvent use in question was many months ago, and the damage to the
siding was obvious enough that it is very unlikely it went unnoticed all
those months.

Yet you don't find it unlikely at all that a heat source inside the wall would
discolor the surface of the vinyl siding *away* from the heat source, while
leaving the surface *toward* the heat source undisturbed.

Doesn't say much for your ability to evaluate what's likely or unlikely.


Both you and the OP have got the idea so firmly fixed in your heads that a
heat source inside the wall is the only possible cause of this problem, that
neither one of you is the least bit willing to entertain any alternative
explanation.

No, we have objectively analyzed the available information

ROTFLMAO!

and concluded
that an internal heat source is the most likely cause. The relative
location of the damage vs. the electrical boxes, combined with the
notable extra nail in that immediate area further support that
conclusion. Giving the significant risk of the likely cause, that avenue
needs to be investigated immediately.

Uh-huh. And it was this "objective" analysis that let you to conclude that the
presumed heat source discolored the side of the vinyl siding *away* from the
heat, the side exposed to free air, the side *guaranteed* to be the coolest,
while leaving undisturbed the surface of the siding with the greatest exposure
to heat.

The same "objective" analysis of the damage apparent on the successive layers,
namely, severe damage to the siding (outermost), slight damage to the Tyvek
(next inside), no damage evident on the OSB (innermost of the three visible),
also led you to conclude that the damage was caused by a heat source INterior
to the home. Right, a heat source INside the wall causes the greatest damage
on the OUTside, and the closer you get to the heat source, the less damage is
apparent.

Phooey. You *began* with the assumption of an internal heat source, and you're
inventing explanations for it, in the absence of any clear evidence.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.