In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

The photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG



Thanks for re-linking that photo. Substantiates my WAG that the sun
caused this. Look at the shadow from the light fixture. Points right
towards the melted area. Could've been the glass in that fixture,
theoretically at least.

Doubtful IMO for two reasons: first, the glass is flat (look at its shadow -
no distortion, as there would be if it were not) and hence it won't act like a
lens; second, if the glass in the fixture were the culprit, I'd certainly
expect the damage to be a lot closer to the fixture, wouldn't you?

My skepticism about the barbecue is that, as others have said, it's a
hell of an unlikely place to park a barbecue. Railing in the way, right
in front of the door.

I dunno.... I could see somebody parking a hibachi there, maybe, thinking it's
nice and convenient to have it right outside the door. I particularly could
see a teenage kid doing that. I still think it's from the stain and the
solvent, but I have three questions for the OP:
1) I think you already said you don't have little kids. How about teens?
2) If yes, did you leave them at home recently, while Mom & Dad were out for
the evening / out of town for the weekend?
3) If yes, did they fix their own dinner?

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

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

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

"Abundantly clear" only to someone who has already made up his mind to refuse
to see any evidence that contradicts his assumptions. (Perhaps you'll
recognize yourself.)

To anyone else, the discoloration is plainly obvious. Your continued denial
that any discoloration exists is astonishing.

Your have given a clear example of overlooking other possibilities and
fixating on your conclusion. The discoloration was not visible on an LCD
monitor, it is on a CRT monitor.

That still doesn't change the conclusion since all the other evidence
points to an internal heat source, and absent evidence there is no
comparable discoloration on the back side of the siding there is nothing
to contradict the other evidence.

Pete C.

"T. Rex" wrote:

In article , says...
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C." wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

You're just too ****ing stupid to see it. Everyone else can.

Apparently you're the stupid one if you think that.

Pete C.

dpb wrote:

Dan Espen wrote:
dpb writes:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "CraigT" wrote:
All right, I've been convinced by you guys to open up the wall.
My prediction of what you will find: absolutely nothing wrong.
I still think the cause is what I said the first time: solvent
exposure, either in the form of overspray from staining the deck, or
whatever was used to clean up the overspray.
Before opening up the wall, at least look at the back side of the
siding you removed. If the problem *was* a heat source inside the
wall, then the damage on the back side should be at least as bad as
the damage on the face. OTOH, if there is no (or only slight)
discoloration visible on the back side, that would be the strongest
possible indication that the source of the damage was on the outside
of the house -- with solvent exposure being IMO the most likely
culprit.
I gotta' go w/ PeteC on this mostly...the OP said the solvent/deck was
done in '06 and this damage didn't show up until within the last two
weeks -- that's pretty long incubation time for a solvent to act.

Looks like discoloration to me.
More than that, looks like the height and shape of a gas grill.
Looks like the heat rose from the grill and went to the left.
It spread out as it rose.
Move that grill up against the fence and see how well the outline
fits. Oh right, too late for that, the siding is gone.

Besides that, there's no need for name calling.

Definitely OP should find out what's going on inside the wall if only
to confirm conclusively it was all a surface damage on the outside...

From what I've seen, I wouldn't.

If I were there and could see it directly, I might not either, because
then I could conclusively judge the condition of the OSB and the siding.
Lacking that, since OP isn't sure enough on his own, I can only
recommend the safest course of action which is to exclude the
possibility of Pete's hypothesis.

The possible ramifications of being wrong are too serious to recommend
otherwise imo...

A point I've made several times.


If we're betting/guessing, I'm still on the side of somebody pushed
the still hot grill over there sometime...

Yep.

Or lit it over there to be closer to the door/kitchen and saw what
happened and moved it back real quick and kept their mouth shut!

Fits w/ kids very well, or even a neighbor or friend "helping out"...

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

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

In the original photo, the center of the damaged area can be seen to be at
roughly the same height as the handle on the sliding door. In the second
set
of photos, that same handle is visible at roughly the same height as the
countertop backsplash -- thus, while some of the damage is indeed below
the
cabinet top, not all of it is. Nearly half of it is above as well, and the
visibly damaged area on the outside definitely extends at least a short
distance above the top of the backsplash.

So suddenly OSB has the same fire rating as sheetrock? I'm sure the fire
marshal would be very surprised.

Where did I say that? First, you can't see things that plainly *are* there.
Now, you *are* seeing things that *aren't* there.

So you're claiming that a fire inside the wall that transfers enough
heat through the OSB to deform the vinyl siding is also certain to
transfer enough heat through the sheetrock on the other side of the wall
to show indications on the fairly dark painted wall surface?

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.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

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

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

Pete C.

Looking again, this time on a system with a CRT monitor instead of LCD,
it appears there may be some discoloration on the vinyl siding.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon?

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:

* Greater damage to the Tyvek.
* Damage pattern not consistent with radiant heat from a grill placed
too close.
* Damage continuing behind the railing also not consistent with radiant
heat from a grill.
* Electrical boxes surrounding the damage location indicating numerous
wires in that wall area.
* Extra nails seen in the damage area and indeed very close to a known
electrical box location.

Pete C.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

The photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG



Thanks for re-linking that photo. Substantiates my WAG that the sun
caused this. Look at the shadow from the light fixture. Points right
towards the melted area. Could've been the glass in that fixture,
theoretically at least.

Doubtful IMO for two reasons: first, the glass is flat (look at its shadow -
no distortion, as there would be if it were not) and hence it won't act like a
lens; second, if the glass in the fixture were the culprit, I'd certainly
expect the damage to be a lot closer to the fixture, wouldn't you?

I agree with that assessment.


My skepticism about the barbecue is that, as others have said, it's a
hell of an unlikely place to park a barbecue. Railing in the way, right
in front of the door.

I dunno.... I could see somebody parking a hibachi there, maybe, thinking it's
nice and convenient to have it right outside the door. I particularly could
see a teenage kid doing that. I still think it's from the stain and the
solvent, but I have three questions for the OP:
1) I think you already said you don't have little kids. How about teens?
2) If yes, did you leave them at home recently, while Mom & Dad were out for
the evening / out of town for the weekend?
3) If yes, did they fix their own dinner?

Someone parking a grill or a hibachi there would be very unlikely to
create the damage pattern seen. Heat from either would be almost
entirely radiant. Based on the 4" wide outlet in the photo, a grill
parked in that location would have damaged the siding almost all the way
over to the door, and would not have caused damage to the siding that
continues past the railing as it clearly does. Radiant heat from a
hibachi also would not have caused damage continuing past the railing.

Pete C.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C." wrote:
Dan Espen wrote:

dpb writes:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "CraigT"
wrote:
All right, I've been convinced by you guys to open up the wall.
My prediction of what you will find: absolutely nothing wrong.
I still think the cause is what I said the first time: solvent
exposure, either in the form of overspray from staining the deck, or
whatever was used to clean up the overspray.
Before opening up the wall, at least look at the back side of the
siding you removed. If the problem *was* a heat source inside the
wall, then the damage on the back side should be at least as bad as
the damage on the face. OTOH, if there is no (or only slight)
discoloration visible on the back side, that would be the strongest
possible indication that the source of the damage was on the outside
of the house -- with solvent exposure being IMO the most likely
culprit.

I gotta' go w/ PeteC on this mostly...the OP said the solvent/deck was
done in '06 and this damage didn't show up until within the last two
weeks -- that's pretty long incubation time for a solvent to act.

Looks like discoloration to me.

Yes, looking again on a CRT monitor it does look like discoloration.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon?

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.

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

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

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The
photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly
obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

"Abundantly clear" only to someone who has already made up his mind to refuse
to see any evidence that contradicts his assumptions. (Perhaps you'll
recognize yourself.)

To anyone else, the discoloration is plainly obvious. Your continued denial
that any discoloration exists is astonishing.

Your have given a clear example of overlooking other possibilities and
fixating on your conclusion.

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 was not visible on an LCD
monitor, it is on a CRT monitor.

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?)

That still doesn't change the conclusion since all the other evidence
points to an internal heat source,

There is *no* evidence *at* *all* pointing to an internal heat source, and
considerable evidence pointing to exterior solvent exposure or exterior heat.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

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

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

In the original photo, the center of the damaged area can be seen to be at
roughly the same height as the handle on the sliding door. In the second
set
of photos, that same handle is visible at roughly the same height as the
countertop backsplash -- thus, while some of the damage is indeed below
the
cabinet top, not all of it is. Nearly half of it is above as well, and the
visibly damaged area on the outside definitely extends at least a short
distance above the top of the backsplash.

So suddenly OSB has the same fire rating as sheetrock? I'm sure the fire
marshal would be very surprised.

Where did I say that? First, you can't see things that plainly *are* there.
Now, you *are* seeing things that *aren't* there.

So you're claiming that a fire inside the wall that transfers enough
heat through the OSB to deform the vinyl siding is also certain to
transfer enough heat through the sheetrock on the other side of the wall
to show indications on the fairly dark painted wall surface?

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.

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.

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

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

*What* signs?

* More damage to the Tyvek wrap than the siding.

Have you actually looked at the photos?

A number of times.

And yet you claim that there's more damage to the Tyvek than to the siding.
Amazing.


* Extra nail visible in the sheathing in the suspect area.

Yep, nails start invisible fires all the time.

They damage wiring, create shorts and start fires with some regularity.
Indeed that is the reason for code requirements regarding stapling
wiring back from the edges of the studs and the use of metal nail
protection plates at locations where wiring passes through studs close
to the edge.

And because of *one*nail* you assume a fire. Amazing.


* Four electrical boxes surrounding the suspect area.

And yet *no* evidence of any electrical fires visible anywhere.

Apparently none that you are able to realize.

None that you can recognize either -- it's not there.

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...

I never made any such claim. You are the only one who ever suggested
there would be discoloration on the siding.

False. You wrote:

True. I never once claimed there was any discoloration on the siding.

Oh, my, there's your reading comprehension problem again.

I said I was still waiting for your explanation of how an internal heat source
discolors the siding on the surface away from the heat -- discoloration
plainly visible in the OP's original photo, which even you now admit to being
able to see -- without discoloring the back side of the siding.

You said you never made any such claim.

And that's a lie. You did make *exactly* that claim when you wrote this:

"Heat coming through the sheathing could very
easily build to the level required to soften and deform the vinyl siding
without discoloring the back side."

because the siding in question -- in addition to being softened and deformed
-- is also quite plainly discolored. Badly.

I clearly state "soften and deform", and nowhere state "discolor".

"without discoloring the back side"


The siding is visibly discolored; no suggestion is necessary. And I was not
the first to suggest that the OP should check for discoloration on the back
side, either.

Looking at the photo again on a system with a CRT monitor, it does
appear that there is some discoloration.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon.

In that case I would expect
comparable discoloration on the back side of the siding as well. My
assessment of the likely cause remains unchanged.

In other words, you've already made up your mind, and won't be swayed by
anything as mundane as actual facts, because that would mean that your
assumptions were wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

In the original photo, the center of the damaged area can be seen to be
at
roughly the same height as the handle on the sliding door. In the
second
set
of photos, that same handle is visible at roughly the same height as
the
countertop backsplash -- thus, while some of the damage is indeed below
the
cabinet top, not all of it is. Nearly half of it is above as well, and
the
visibly damaged area on the outside definitely extends at least a short
distance above the top of the backsplash.

So suddenly OSB has the same fire rating as sheetrock? I'm sure the fire
marshal would be very surprised.

Where did I say that? First, you can't see things that plainly *are*
there.
Now, you *are* seeing things that *aren't* there.

So you're claiming that a fire inside the wall that transfers enough
heat through the OSB to deform the vinyl siding is also certain to
transfer enough heat through the sheetrock on the other side of the wall
to show indications on the fairly dark painted wall surface?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The
photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly
obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

Pete C.

Looking again, this time on a system with a CRT monitor instead of LCD,
it appears there may be some discoloration on the vinyl siding.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon?

No, since you attacked my analysis of the evidence well before there was
any discussion of discoloration.

I disagreed with your analysis of the evidence precisely *because* of the
discoloration PLAINLY visible on the outside.

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.

You have *no* evidence pointing, solidly or otherwise, to an internal heat
source.

Other evidence:

* Greater damage to the Tyvek.
* Damage pattern not consistent with radiant heat from a grill placed
too close.
* Damage continuing behind the railing also not consistent with radiant
heat from a grill.
* Electrical boxes surrounding the damage location indicating numerous
wires in that wall area.
* Extra nails seen in the damage area and indeed very close to a known
electrical box location.

Pete C.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

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

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

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The
photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly
obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

"Abundantly clear" only to someone who has already made up his mind to refuse
to see any evidence that contradicts his assumptions. (Perhaps you'll
recognize yourself.)

To anyone else, the discoloration is plainly obvious. Your continued denial
that any discoloration exists is astonishing.

Your have given a clear example of overlooking other possibilities and
fixating on your conclusion.

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 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.


The discoloration was not visible on an LCD
monitor, it is on a CRT monitor.

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?)

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.


That still doesn't change the conclusion since all the other evidence
points to an internal heat source,

There is *no* evidence *at* *all* pointing to an internal heat source, and
considerable evidence pointing to exterior solvent exposure or exterior heat.

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.

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

In article , "Pete C."
wrote:
Dan Espen wrote:

dpb writes:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "CraigT"
wrote:
All right, I've been convinced by you guys to open up the wall.
My prediction of what you will find: absolutely nothing wrong.
I still think the cause is what I said the first time: solvent
exposure, either in the form of overspray from staining the deck, or
whatever was used to clean up the overspray.
Before opening up the wall, at least look at the back side of the
siding you removed. If the problem *was* a heat source inside the
wall, then the damage on the back side should be at least as bad as
the damage on the face. OTOH, if there is no (or only slight)
discoloration visible on the back side, that would be the strongest
possible indication that the source of the damage was on the outside
of the house -- with solvent exposure being IMO the most likely
culprit.

I gotta' go w/ PeteC on this mostly...the OP said the solvent/deck was
done in '06 and this damage didn't show up until within the last two
weeks -- that's pretty long incubation time for a solvent to act.

Looks like discoloration to me.

Yes, looking again on a CRT monitor it does look like discoloration.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon?

No, you attacked my analysis before there was any discussion of
discoloration.

False. I disagreed with your analysis precisely *because* of the
discoloration.

The discoloration doesn't change the conclusion of that
analysis either.

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.

Discoloration doesn't negate the conclusion and the
conclusion is supported by significant other evidence.

Your conclusion isn't supported by *any* evidence.

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

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

*extra bull**** snipped*

Doug and Pete.

Where does it end? This isnt a "who's dick is bigger" or "who's
eyesight is bettter" contest. We are trying to help the OP out on
what caused this discoloration. The OP said he was going to open up
the OSB, so lets just wait til he reports back.

Damn..

Josh

Doug Miller wrote:

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

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

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

In the original photo, the center of the damaged area can be seen to be
at
roughly the same height as the handle on the sliding door. In the
second
set
of photos, that same handle is visible at roughly the same height as
the
countertop backsplash -- thus, while some of the damage is indeed below
the
cabinet top, not all of it is. Nearly half of it is above as well, and
the
visibly damaged area on the outside definitely extends at least a short
distance above the top of the backsplash.

So suddenly OSB has the same fire rating as sheetrock? I'm sure the fire
marshal would be very surprised.

Where did I say that? First, you can't see things that plainly *are*
there.
Now, you *are* seeing things that *aren't* there.

So you're claiming that a fire inside the wall that transfers enough
heat through the OSB to deform the vinyl siding is also certain to
transfer enough heat through the sheetrock on the other side of the wall
to show indications on the fairly dark painted wall surface?

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

In article , "Pete C."

wrote:

You're quite the moron aren't you? You are the only one who has ever
suggested that there would be discoloration on the vinyl siding. Vinyl
siding will soften to the point of sagging from gravity well before it
will discolor. The photos the OP posted clearly do not show any
discoloration on the siding either.

Moron? Me? No, actually, Pete, I think that would be *you* here. The
photos
the OP posted VERY CLEARLY show substantial discoloration of the
siding.
Here's the link that was in the original post:
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Now go look at that for the FIRST time, Pete, since it's blindingly
obvious
you've never seen it before. See the discoloration, MORON?

I've looked at it several times and it's abundantly clear that there is
no discoloration of the siding, only a change in the shadows and the
reflection angle due to the deformation. Perhaps if you clean the crud
of your monitor and or get some glasses you'll be able to see this fact.

"Abundantly clear" only to someone who has already made up his mind to
refuse
to see any evidence that contradicts his assumptions. (Perhaps you'll
recognize yourself.)

To anyone else, the discoloration is plainly obvious. Your continued
denial
that any discoloration exists is astonishing.

Your have given a clear example of overlooking other possibilities and
fixating on your conclusion.

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 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.


The discoloration was not visible on an LCD
monitor, it is on a CRT monitor.

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?)

You if you think that the discoloration on the outside is somehow
conclusive proof of an external heat source.

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 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.

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.


That still doesn't change the conclusion since all the other evidence
points to an internal heat source,

There is *no* evidence *at* *all* pointing to an internal heat source, and
considerable evidence pointing to exterior solvent exposure or exterior heat.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The fact that the Tyvek was
heated to the point that holes formed in it

ASSUMPTION!! Where is your evidence that the Tyvek was heated *at*all*??

while the siding only sagged
also points away from an external source.

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.

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

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

In article , "Pete C." wrote:

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

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.

since one side is in free
air and the other in confined space which could affect discoloration.

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.

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,

That argues against an external heat source. It does *not* argue *for* an
internal heat source.

the more significant damage to the Tyvek,

???

The damage to the siding is *much* worse than the 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.

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?

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

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

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

*What* signs?

* More damage to the Tyvek wrap than the siding.

Have you actually looked at the photos?

A number of times.

And yet you claim that there's more damage to the Tyvek than to the siding.
Amazing.

Are there holes in the siding? There are in the Tyvek.



* Extra nail visible in the sheathing in the suspect area.

Yep, nails start invisible fires all the time.

They damage wiring, create shorts and start fires with some regularity.
Indeed that is the reason for code requirements regarding stapling
wiring back from the edges of the studs and the use of metal nail
protection plates at locations where wiring passes through studs close
to the edge.

And because of *one*nail* you assume a fire. Amazing.

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.



* Four electrical boxes surrounding the suspect area.

And yet *no* evidence of any electrical fires visible anywhere.

Apparently none that you are able to realize.

None that you can recognize either -- it's not there.

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.


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...

I never made any such claim. You are the only one who ever suggested
there would be discoloration on the siding.

False. You wrote:

True. I never once claimed there was any discoloration on the siding.

Oh, my, there's your reading comprehension problem again.

Apparently, if you claim I ever indicated there was discoloration prior
to my discovery of the LCD monitor issue.


I said I was still waiting for your explanation of how an internal heat source
discolors the siding on the surface away from the heat -- discoloration
plainly visible in the OP's original photo, which even you now admit to being
able to see -- without discoloring the back side of the siding.

You said you never made any such claim.

And that's a lie. You did make *exactly* that claim when you wrote this:

"Heat coming through the sheathing could very
easily build to the level required to soften and deform the vinyl siding
without discoloring the back side."

because the siding in question -- in addition to being softened and deformed
-- is also quite plainly discolored. Badly.

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.


I clearly state "soften and deform", and nowhere state "discolor".

"without discoloring the back side"

Misquoting doesn't help your loosing argument.



The siding is visibly discolored; no suggestion is necessary. And I was not
the first to suggest that the OP should check for discoloration on the back
side, either.

Looking at the photo again on a system with a CRT monitor, it does
appear that there is some discoloration.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon.

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.


In that case I would expect
comparable discoloration on the back side of the siding as well. My
assessment of the likely cause remains unchanged.

In other words, you've already made up your mind, and won't be swayed by
anything as mundane as actual facts, because that would mean that your
assumptions were wrong.

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.

wrote:

*extra bull**** snipped*

Doug and Pete.

Where does it end? This isnt a "who's dick is bigger" or "who's
eyesight is bettter" contest. We are trying to help the OP out on
what caused this discoloration. The OP said he was going to open up
the OSB, so lets just wait til he reports back.

Damn..

Josh

Alrighty. I just don't want to be hearing on the news about a family
killed in a house fire after they didn't fully investigate the cause of
mysterious siding damage.

Pete C.

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

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

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

*What* signs?

* More damage to the Tyvek wrap than the siding.

Have you actually looked at the photos?

A number of times.

And yet you claim that there's more damage to the Tyvek than to the siding.
Amazing.

Are there holes in the siding? There are in the Tyvek.

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.



* Extra nail visible in the sheathing in the suspect area.

Yep, nails start invisible fires all the time.

They damage wiring, create shorts and start fires with some regularity.
Indeed that is the reason for code requirements regarding stapling
wiring back from the edges of the studs and the use of metal nail
protection plates at locations where wiring passes through studs close
to the edge.

And because of *one*nail* you assume a fire. Amazing.

No, I assess there is a probability of a fire inside the wall based on
all of the evidence.

You have *no* evidence, just assumptions.

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.

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.



* Four electrical boxes surrounding the suspect area.

And yet *no* evidence of any electrical fires visible anywhere.

Apparently none that you are able to realize.

None that you can recognize either -- it's not there.

What evidence would you have to see for you to believe that there may
have been a fire within that wall?

Charred wood would do it for me.

The evidence of a significant heat
source having been present within that wall is quite clear.

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.

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.

There's no evidence whatever that there ever was any such fire.


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...

I never made any such claim. You are the only one who ever suggested
there would be discoloration on the siding.

False. You wrote:

True. I never once claimed there was any discoloration on the siding.

Oh, my, there's your reading comprehension problem again.

Apparently, if you claim I ever indicated there was discoloration prior
to my discovery of the LCD monitor issue.

Reading comprehension again, Pete...


I said I was still waiting for your explanation of how an internal heat
source
discolors the siding on the surface away from the heat -- discoloration
plainly visible in the OP's original photo, which even you now admit to being
able to see -- without discoloring the back side of the siding.

You said you never made any such claim.

And that's a lie. You did make *exactly* that claim when you wrote this:

"Heat coming through the sheathing could very
easily build to the level required to soften and deform the vinyl siding
without discoloring the back side."

because the siding in question -- in addition to being softened and deformed
-- is also quite plainly discolored. Badly.

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

Liar. You stated that there was no discoloration.

(due to the monitor issue)

That only came later -- after you could no longer continue to deny, even to
yourself, that there was any discoloration present.

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.

There isn't anything wrong with my reading comprehension here, Petey.


I clearly state "soften and deform", and nowhere state "discolor".

"without discoloring the back side"

Misquoting doesn't help your loosing argument.

That's an exact, direct quote.

BTW -- it's spelled "losing". Moron.



The siding is visibly discolored; no suggestion is necessary. And I was
not
the first to suggest that the OP should check for discoloration on the
back
side, either.

Looking at the photo again on a system with a CRT monitor, it does
appear that there is some discoloration.

I assume this means I'll be seeing an apology from you sometime soon.

No, you won't. My not seeing the discoloration due to a monitor issue

You denied that any discoloration existed, and called me a moron for stating
that it did.

in no way changes my conclusion of the likely cause of the damage based on
all the evidence we have available.

Only because your mind is already made up, and you're not willing to listen to
anything to the contrary.


In that case I would expect
comparable discoloration on the back side of the siding as well. My
assessment of the likely cause remains unchanged.

In other words, you've already made up your mind, and won't be swayed by
anything as mundane as actual facts, because that would mean that your
assumptions were wrong.

You are the one who refuses to revisit the evidence I have pointed out

You haven't pointed out any evidence, just assumptions.

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.

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.


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

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

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:25:36 -0500, dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...
My skepticism about the barbecue is that, as others have said, it's a
hell of an unlikely place to park a barbecue. Railing in the way, right
in front of the door.

To "park" it yes...to use it from in the kitchen w/o having to walk so
far; not such a stretch...

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Look at the bottom piece of vinyl, between the door and railing. That
piece also seems discolored (hard to tell), so I would guess it is not
the grill if the bottom piece is damaged..


--
Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:34:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


The damage to the siding is *much* worse than the damage to the Tyvek.


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?



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

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

In article , Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:25:36 -0500, dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...
My skepticism about the barbecue is that, as others have said, it's a
hell of an unlikely place to park a barbecue. Railing in the way, right
in front of the door.

To "park" it yes...to use it from in the kitchen w/o having to walk so
far; not such a stretch...

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Look at the bottom piece of vinyl, between the door and railing. That
piece also seems discolored (hard to tell), so I would guess it is not
the grill if the bottom piece is damaged..

All the more reason that I think it's due to the overspray of the stain and
the solvent the OP used to wipe it up.

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

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

According to Pete C. :
Chris Lewis wrote:

Eg: applied in the fall, doesn't show any severe effects until
full hot days in the summer, which have driven out the solvents
and the plastic rehardened.

[I should have said "which have _since_ driven out ..."]

The OP indicated spring '06 for the solvent and it's now summer '07.
Summer '06 apparently went by with no issues.

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?
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Pete C. :

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.

I'm still holding out an open mind on it. I don't think it's even
that conclusive. Nor am I sure that I fully accept the OP's knowledge
and recollection of every possibility.

Secondly, Tyvek != vinyl. The vinyl may show less damage than the
tyvek even if there was an external heat source. The tyvek may have
a lower melt point than vinyl, will likely shrink (causing tension)
when heated, and it's so thin to begin with, it'll blow holes much
more quickly than the vinyl would.

Given the information we have to date, I still think he needs
to pull some sheathing off. The tyvek melt pattern is too suggestive
of a hot wire for my comfort.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Pete C." writes:

Someone parking a grill or a hibachi there would be very unlikely to
create the damage pattern seen. Heat from either would be almost
entirely radiant. Based on the 4" wide outlet in the photo, a grill
parked in that location would have damaged the siding almost all the way
over to the door, and would not have caused damage to the siding that
continues past the railing as it clearly does. Radiant heat from a
hibachi also would not have caused damage continuing past the railing.

Yep, you keep saying that. But it looks exactly like what I would
expect a grill to do.

Not so much heat near the bottom, a lot right where the grill bottom
and lid met (even with the top of the railing) and a deflection
where the heat rose from the grill and was carried by a breeze.
That might explain why the melt isn't a bit wider.
If that plate is 4 inches the melt is about 9 inches.
I'd guess the grill depth at at least 12 but the melt pattern
would be a bit narrower and could be deflected a bit by a breeze.

Then there is the issue of the light and door.
Why would someone move the grill there?
Do see in the dark and to stand out of the rain.

Anyway, these are all guesses, no need to call anyone a moron.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:23:18 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:



Thanks for re-linking that photo. Substantiates my WAG that the sun
caused this. Look at the shadow from the light fixture. Points right
towards the melted area. Could've been the glass in that fixture,
theoretically at least.

Glass, etc. can concentrate light and cause damage, but it is in a
concentrated area. Now the sun moves and that would cause the
damaging rays to move, but the damage does not follow a line. It's a
whole area, pretty broad. I don't think it could be the sun, through
the light fixture or any other bottle etc.

My skepticism about the barbecue is that, as others have said, it's a
hell of an unlikely place to park a barbecue. Railing in the way, right
in front of the door.

The OP says he hasn't moved the barbecue, but I think the barbecue
probably moved itself, damaged the wall, and moved back. Barbecues
are very touchy and they can be very nasty when they are angry.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:08:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:25:36 -0500, dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...
My skepticism about the barbecue is that, as others have said, it's a
hell of an unlikely place to park a barbecue. Railing in the way, right
in front of the door.

To "park" it yes...to use it from in the kitchen w/o having to walk so
far; not such a stretch...

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Look at the bottom piece of vinyl, between the door and railing. That
piece also seems discolored (hard to tell), so I would guess it is not
the grill if the bottom piece is damaged..

All the more reason that I think it's due to the overspray of the stain and
the solvent the OP used to wipe it up.

Has the OP yet told us about damage on the inside of the siding, etc.
How about a picture of it?

The OP has the siding he just removed, and he knows what stains and
solvent he used.

He should try to duplicate the application, including overspray and
exposure to sun, on the undamgage parts of the siding he has removed.
Even if it takes two years. (Did someone say the staining and
cleaning was 2 years ago.)

I think that is the cause, and why it took two years, I don't know.

He could even make an array of test pieces, keeping one away from the
sun, one in it.

And he could increase the amount of stain, the amount of cleaner, and
both, by a factor of 10 or 20 or more. That's how preliminary drug
testing is done, on rats. Then if it shows damage in 3 months instead
of 2 years, most people would think that is how the damage arose.



I have no experience with used tyvek, but nonetheless the damage to
the tyvek seems small, and I can't measure without the siding being
held next to the tyvek, but without that help, it looks close to the
spacing of the siding. Does tyvek never rip on its own accord after
two years, or would it look perfect.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:56:08 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Someone parking a grill or a hibachi there would be very unlikely to
create the damage pattern seen. Heat from either would be almost
entirely radiant. Based on the 4" wide outlet in the photo, a grill
parked in that location would have damaged the siding almost all the way
over to the door, and would not have caused damage to the siding that
continues past the railing as it clearly does. Radiant heat from a
hibachi also would not have caused damage continuing past the railing.

Maybe they only turned on half of the gas grill, or only lit one
section of a hibachi.

Although I don't think it is the hibatchi either, probably.

Pete C.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:08:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:25:36 -0500, dpb wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
...
My skepticism about the barbecue is that, as others have said, it's a
hell of an unlikely place to park a barbecue. Railing in the way, right
in front of the door.

To "park" it yes...to use it from in the kitchen w/o having to walk so
far; not such a stretch...

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/IMG_6627.JPG

Look at the bottom piece of vinyl, between the door and railing. That
piece also seems discolored (hard to tell), so I would guess it is not
the grill if the bottom piece is damaged..

All the more reason that I think it's due to the overspray of the stain and
the solvent the OP used to wipe it up.

The Lift-Off product he used to clean up the over spray lists "trade
secret ingredients", plus Acetone. Not sure what the secret stuff
would do :-))

MSDS

http://www.liftoffinc.com/pdfs/5_MSDS.PDF


--
Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:52:57 -0700, Oren wrote:


All the more reason that I think it's due to the overspray of the stain and
the solvent the OP used to wipe it up.

The Lift-Off product he used to clean up the over spray lists "trade
secret ingredients",

I believe those are spring water, reconstituted water, condensed
water, and tap water.

plus Acetone. Not sure what the secret stuff
would do :-))

MSDS

http://www.liftoffinc.com/pdfs/5_MSDS.PDF

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:07:22 -0400, mm
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:52:57 -0700, Oren wrote:


All the more reason that I think it's due to the overspray of the stain and
the solvent the OP used to wipe it up.

The Lift-Off product he used to clean up the over spray lists "trade
secret ingredients",

I believe those are spring water, reconstituted water, condensed
water, and tap water.

Ya left out carbonated water ..


plus Acetone. Not sure what the secret stuff
would do :-))

MSDS

http://www.liftoffinc.com/pdfs/5_MSDS.PDF
--
Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

Oren wrote:
....
The Lift-Off product he used to clean up the over spray lists "trade
secret ingredients", plus Acetone. Not sure what the secret stuff
would do :-))
....

Send in the black helicopters, no doubt...

--

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:39:32 -0500, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
The Lift-Off product he used to clean up the over spray lists "trade
secret ingredients", plus Acetone. Not sure what the secret stuff
would do :-))
...

Send in the black helicopters, no doubt...

Hidden away somewhere, no doubt. We will/may never know if this was
chemical damage; by not knowing what was used in clean up :-/

I hope the OP posts pics of the open wall.


--
Oren

"I didn’t say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you."

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:39:32 -0500, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
The Lift-Off product he used to clean up the over spray lists "trade
secret ingredients", plus Acetone. Not sure what the secret stuff
would do :-))
...

Send in the black helicopters, no doubt...

Hidden away somewhere, no doubt. We will/may never know if this was
chemical damage; by not knowing what was used in clean up :-/

I already "know" -- no chance!

I hope the OP posts pics of the open wall.

Me, too...but I'm pretty sure I know what it's going to show.

--

There's really no reason to maim the house further. It's obvious to me that
some chemical was slopped on the siding, splashed through the vinyl vents
onto the tyvek and there, done. ate the **** up. fukin re-side, and go on
with life. There obviously no way there was a fire in the wall, or the
****IN wood would be gone. DUH!

steve


wrote in message
oups.com...
*extra bull**** snipped*

Doug and Pete.

Where does it end? This isnt a "who's dick is bigger" or "who's
eyesight is bettter" contest. We are trying to help the OP out on
what caused this discoloration. The OP said he was going to open up
the OSB, so lets just wait til he reports back.

Damn..

Josh

how the HELL is a wire going to get hot enough to melt vinyl, but not burn
the wood between the wire and the vinyl???? Jeeeeze you people...


steve



"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

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.

Chris Lewis,

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:00:11 -0500, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:39:32 -0500, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
...
The Lift-Off product he used to clean up the over spray lists "trade
secret ingredients", plus Acetone. Not sure what the secret stuff
would do :-))
...

Send in the black helicopters, no doubt...

Hidden away somewhere, no doubt. We will/may never know if this was
chemical damage; by not knowing what was used in clean up :-/

I already "know" -- no chance!

I hope the OP posts pics of the open wall.

Me, too...but I'm pretty sure I know what it's going to show.

Tell me first, I can't wait!!

Illegal electric box in the wall?

You can trust me I'm from the government :-)))



--
Oren

"I didn’t say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you."