On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:18:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:06:55 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

My God! The "technology" is not in the erection. That is like saying a
bricklayers skills is "technology".

Together with the bricks, it is.

It isn't.

He's behind you.




As can be done with any construction method.
SIP panels just happen to be
the easiest method to get a highly sound
and thermally insulated self
supporting highly rigid shell up.

Easiest for who?

Icky the Firebobby, that's who.

I see.


The technology and the skills to implement are mutually excusive.

In terms of the outcome, both are required.

Still mutually excusive.

If you read the Juneau article, both product and installation issues
are mentioned.

From the standpoint of the customer, the result was still a failure.


I am simply pointing out that it is
subject to problems if not used
or inspected properly.

Nonsense. You came in with a tabloid headline attempting to pass off poor
workmanship as in inherent problem of SIP design and the technology
behind
the panels, implying that all SIPs will go the same way.

The article was published by an industry association.

In fact it does cite some manufacturing defects and tolerance issues,
but mainly it points out that construction is not unskilled.

Like the skilled labour we have in the UK construction industry that build
the worst tack in the western world.

Well I'm not sure about that, but if the situation is really that bad,
it would seem imprudent to foist a new technology on them.




There is no problem with SIPs as long as they are installed properly,
then
no problems. The advantages are colossal compared to other methods in
construction (a quick weather tight shell) and the finished end product.

Go and read the article. It indicates that there are a whole bunch
of issues ranging from manufacturing to design and engineering to
installation where a tightening up in the industry is clearly
required.

The official report clearly went down on workmanship.

Manufacturing defects and tolerances were also mentioned.


You are advocating its use in the UK.
Is the training and inspection
infrastructure in place, and the skills to design?

Yes. Just not scaled up yet.

Is it validated for long term use in our climate?

Yep. NHBC will guarantee them.

... and this has a lot of value?





Are the manufacturers and builders willing
to offer a long and fully
remedial guarantee?

NHBC will guarantee them.

Not if installed correctly, which is an easy thing to do with SIPs.

So why did the construction people run into trouble in Alaska?

Cowboys. They left out joining splines, etc, etc.

So why did the pieces fit together without?


..

Once the shell was up the tiles were
put on the SIP roofs, and the
rest was easily worked on. House were
built in no time at all. Many SIP
companies are sprouting up in preparation
for the building boom.

The question will then be whether people
will buy these ticky-tacky
houses or prefer traditional masonry.

These houses are super solid and people are flocking to them. One last
winter never even had its heating system on. The systems were put in
just
in case.

Are they? Where?

I told you where.

Oh *there*. I wouldn't want to go *there*.


If there is then damage to the structure
as the result of damp or
vermin attack, this would be a question
mark.

A question mark one what? Vermin attack can happen to any construction
material, less likely with SIPs as the foam is impregnated..

So rats eat bricks now?

They go through block and houses are made of that stuff. The block holds up
the house, the brick is a facade to kid people it is "solid", which is
bunkum.

Seems to have worked pretty well for several thousand years....



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl