drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
maybe lath and plaster
drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
are there over paneling
drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
once you get it on the wall you have to tape it
then the mud coats and the mess
then the multiple sandings and all the mess
then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint
paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
done
maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
products might get close in price
and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
go
now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 10:27:08 PM UTC-5, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700
> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> and the dust from sanding is everywhere
>
> maybe wet sanding is the key
>
With my drywall "work" now, I always use wet sanding. Not really sanding. Just take a damp/wet cloth and rub over the dried drywall. It smoothes it out very well.
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 8:44:06 PM UTC-4, Iggy wrote:
> replying to Electric Comet, Iggy wrote:
> Drywall nor lathe and plaster have no "advantage" over paneling. Paneling is
> the advantage. Drywall and plaster are just seamless, and drywall's installed
> wrong by most everyone (horizontal idiots listening to the likes of Moron
> Frauderson) to kill any minimal hedge of fire protection.
> >
> Paneling never needs to be thrown out. You can remove it and put it back as
> many times as you want to do wiring 1-year, piping the next year and
> insulation in a decade. No waste ever, can't easily pop a hole through it, it
> doesn't ding and dent, no crumbing from hanging a picture, can be painted or
> stained and highly resistant to water...compared to any gypsum stuff.
> I
You are so funny! Who writes your stuff?
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:14:06 AM UTC-4, Iggy wrote:
> replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
> Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
> You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.
>
Why did you pick out that one item? Why did you snip the rest of your list?
The discussion was about drywall vs. paneling, not about one method of hanging drywall
vs. another. Your list of reasons of why paneling is better then drywall is what I find humorous.
On 10/31/2017 11:13 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:14:06 AM UTC-4, Iggy wrote:
>> replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
>> Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
>> You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.
>>
>
> Why did you pick out that one item? Why did you snip the rest of your list?
>
> The discussion was about drywall vs. paneling, not about one method of hanging drywall
> vs. another. Your list of reasons of why paneling is better then drywall is what I find humorous.
>
Iggy has been preaching the value of vertical drywall for years. Sadly,
few people listen to him so we are all doomed to inferior houses.
replying to Ed Pawlowski, Iggy wrote:
Yepper, another year of failure in trying to save the world. It's really
amazing that the word "except" hasn't very simply been corrected to
"especially" in 10-years. I got nowhere with any of the manufacturers nor the
ASTM. They just don't see a problem with completely abandoning their own
air-tight requirement.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:45:43 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 10/31/2017 7:14 AM, Iggy wrote:
>> replying to DerbyDad03, Iggy wrote:
>> Oh, the horizontal drywall absurdity? I can provide proof for that truth.
>> You'll be surprised how flawed it is, which is in everyway.
>>
>
>Please fill us in.
Remember Iggy is short for ignoramous. It's obvious where he got his
name.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:43:27 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
> >On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
> >> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
> >> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never =
be=20
> >> right:
> >>>
> >> 1 =E2=80=93 DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one dry=
wall panel
> >> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and a=
re a
> >> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,=20
> >> window and
> >> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets don=E2=80=99t si=
t flat. Using
> >> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
> >
> >All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and=
=20
> >the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in=20
> >this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,=20
> >even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable=20
>=20
> I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
> long and makes for a cleaner surface.
http://butttaper.com/home.htm might be worth looking into...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 16:20:44 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:43:27 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>> >On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
>>> >> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
>>> >> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never =
>>be=20
>>> >> right:
>>> >>>
>>> >> 1 =E2=80=93 DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one dry=
>>wall panel
>>> >> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and a=
>>re a
>>> >> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,=20
>>> >> window and
>>> >> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets don=E2=80=99t si=
>>t flat. Using
>>> >> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
>>> >
>>> >All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and=
>>=20
>>> >the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in=20
>>> >this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,=20
>>> >even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable=20
>>>=20
>>> I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
>>> long and makes for a cleaner surface.
>>
>>http://butttaper.com/home.htm might be worth looking into...
>
>Which lead me to
>
>https://www.usg.com/content/usgcom/en_CA_east/resource-center/gypsum-construction-handbook.html
Pretty extensive coverage
On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
> right:
>>
> 1 â DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
> window and
> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets donât sit flat. Using
> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable
regardless of how the drywall is stacked. Again, I don't see issues,
and that is a visual inspection. The bigger issues are non straight
studs, no drywall direction hides that and creates the issues you
mentioned above concerning pictures and mirrors.
Maybe all the builders are doing it wrong.
>>
> 2 â UNSUPPORTED SEAM â Horizontalâs tapered seam is 90% unsupported,
> only 10% (instead of Vertical's 100%) contacts framing, the seam WILL
> AND DOES
> crack. Light switch and countertop electrical boxes within the seam equals
> MORE weakness and butt-joint doubled, MINIMUM, efforts.
Agreed again but you are assuming that the studs are actually 16" OC.
Often studs are 20" OC and walls are not always a perfect length to
avoid butt joints.
>>
> 3 â STRUCTURAL DEFECT - Horizontal only reinforces a wall height of 4â or
> less, a full-height wall's top-plate is never connected to the
> bottom-plate.
> As in and due to #2 above, Frictional Contact is MINIMIZED (instead of
> maximized by Vertical).
I could be wrong but I don't think dry wall helps much to reinforce the
connection between the top plate and bottom plate. I do however know
that it helps to prevent racking.
>>
> 4 â SEAM DECEPTION...(4'x8' PANELS) â Example 1: 48â tall by 102â long
> wall, Horizontal = 48â (technically) and itâs a 24â wide butt-joint or a
> MINIMUM of doubling the 48" (Vertical = the same, generously, 96â but
> theyâre easy 6â wide joints). Example 2: 96â tall by 102â long wall,
> Horizontal = 222â with 50% being 24â wide butts (Vertical = 192â of 6â
> wide easy joints, yes LESS)...in a Kitchen, Horizontal = 100% of 24â wide
> butts (Vertical = 0%). Yes, Horizontal does the taper area twice
> (MINIMUM) in
> order to hide its butts, so VERY minimally just another 24â was added
> AND #5
> below was not factored into Horizontal's monumental FRAUD.
>>
> 5 â SELF-DEFEATING ANGLES â Horizontal only uses ONE of a panelâs
> tapered edges and PUTS the other taper at the ceiling corner and baseboard,
> CREATING (instead of AVOIDING) a twisted angle that MUST be shimmed or
> ADDITIONALLY mudded. This too, instantly erases ALL "claimed" benefits of
> Horizontal by DOUBLING the seam amount, patching itself to equal Vertical!
Well the bottom is typically covered by base boards so no need to mud
the bottom. The top has to be taped and floated anyway to join the ceiling.
>>
> 6 â UNFRIENDLY SEAMS â Horizontal celebrates the chest height seam and
> PRETENDS thereâs no 24â-WIDE floor to ceiling butt-joint OR the EVER
> present baseboard bevel of UNFINISHED WORK (Vertical has easy joints and
> the
> top's screwed, taped and mudded later with the ceiling corner and the
> baseboard SPOTS can also be done separately).
>>
> 7 - FIRE HAZARD LIABILITY - Horizontal only fills the coin-thin SEAM'S FACE
> and has NO back-blocking, CAUSING smoke and fireâs spread by inviting
> fuel-air for a fire's growth (Vertical is full depth and airtight once
> simply
> screwed-in).
>>
> 8 - UNSAFE INSTALLATION - Horizontal needs 2-PEOPLE for a safe installation
> and the panel is airborne, literally CREATING the chance to CAUSE injury
> (Vertical easily tilts-up with just 1-person). Panel lifters aren't even as
> easy and safe as Verticalâs tilt-up.
>>
> 9 - ADDITIONAL WASTE - When correctly covering a knee wall, half wall, tub
> front, column or soffit by first removing both tapered edges, Horizontal
> CAN'T
> use the tapers elsewhere (Vertical can and does). AND, Horizontal WASTES
> 4-times the mud on their completely unnecessary butt-joints AND baseboard
> bevel's...if ever done.
>>
> 10 - DESTRUCTIVE IGNORANCE - Foundation and Framing crews go to great
> pains to
> make everything flat, level, plumb and square. Horizontal DESTROYS those
> efforts with their DEFECTIVE humps and baseboard bevels (Vertical keeps the
> perfection).
>>
> 11 - GRASPING AT STRAWS WITH OUTRIGHT FRAUD - Horizontals FALSELY AND
> UNKNOWINGLY wave the absurdly INVALID (FPL439) 1983 testing
> âContribution of
> Gypsum Wallboard to Racking Resistance of Light-Frame Wallsâ by the
> self-convicted fraud Ronald W. Wolfe. FPL439 found that ALL tapered
> paper-wrapped edges must be FULLY INTACT for Horizontal to beat Vertical,
> PERIOD. In the real-world, Horizontal's bottom paper-wrapped edge is
> REMOVED
> BY LAW, for spacing from all floors and thereby COMPLETELY NEGATE Wolfeâs
> inexcusably deceitful and worthless "study" (LAUGHABLE) and summation.
>>
> 12 - JOINT OR SEAM TREATMENT - According to the ASTM's C840 8.2,
> Horizontal's
> seams MUST be mudded to provide ANY fire, smoke and air travel resistance
> (Vertical's SO GOOD that it's NOT REQUIRED to have its seams treated AT
> ALL).
>>
> 13 - COSTLY SLOW COMPLICATION - Horizontal's depend upon PRICEY special
> muds
> and even messy tape or taping tools that WASTE mud. Taping tools still
> require
> a 2nd step of knifing the tape and the muds require a mixing step.
> That's MORE
> expense, MORE time, MORE tools and equipment and MORE water...for an
> INFERIOR
> job! Vertical's SUPERIOR with the cheapest ready-mix bucket muds and dry
> self-adhesive tape. Again, Vertical's seam treatment is JUST for looks.
>>
> 14 - FIRE RATING FAIL - Most Single-ply or Single-layer drywall for
> Commercial
> Work is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's ACTUAL
> fire
> rating. This is well-known by the majority of Horizontals, but you and your
> children don't matter to a Horizontal. And for what, to honor the FRAUDS
> that
> taught them wrong? You've now seen that Vertical's FASTER overall and
> immensely BETTER in every way.
>>
> Only promote HORIZONTAL AS WRONG and confidently cite the above
> incontestable
> FACTS.
>
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Thank you and thank you again for actually reading, as well as comprehending
without emotional bias. Yep, and that's why nice new houses burn to the ground
in 20-minutes. A butt-joint 8', 10' or 12' up wouldn't bother anything and it
would be a horizontal hump instead of vertical...if you didn't turn it into a
taper.
>
If you know how to map a room or prep the site correctly, you end up with
extremely few corrections in a vertical install. Again, if the panel goes
floor to ceiling, there isn't even a single butt in the entire building.
>
You're not wrong, drywall can never be considered structural. However, by
connecting the top and bottom plate the drywall can't crack and all movement
is forced into the screws, where they can harmlessly widen their holes if and
as needed.
>
Correct, but why purposely MAKE anyone's job more difficult by not completing
your job? You wouldn't stand for framers putting in just enough studs to hold
the place up (72"-o.c.) and leave you with finishing their work. Same goes for
the ceiling, try cutting-in a horizontally installed room with a roller. You
can't, the angle's less than 90-deg., instead of more than 90-deg.
>
Great questions! You're actually the only sane person I've ever run into. I
hope you give vertical a try someday and finally allow drywall to do it's
best. Cracks, sags, specialty compounds, tape indecision, additional tools or
cords and bad-day mud jobs will all go away to leave you with a superior job.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
On 10/31/2017 2:44 PM, Iggy wrote:
> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
> Thank you and thank you again for actually reading, as well as
> comprehending
> without emotional bias. Yep, and that's why nice new houses burn to the
> ground
> in 20-minutes. A butt-joint 8', 10' or 12' up wouldn't bother anything
> and it
> would be a horizontal hump instead of vertical...if you didn't turn it
> into a
> taper.
>>
> If you know how to map a room or prep the site correctly, you end up with
> extremely few corrections in a vertical install. Again, if the panel goes
> floor to ceiling, there isn't even a single butt in the entire building.
>>
> You're not wrong, drywall can never be considered structural. However, by
> connecting the top and bottom plate the drywall can't crack and all
> movement
> is forced into the screws, where they can harmlessly widen their holes
> if and
> as needed.
>>
> Correct, but why purposely MAKE anyone's job more difficult by not
> completing
> your job? You wouldn't stand for framers putting in just enough studs to
> hold
> the place up (72"-o.c.) and leave you with finishing their work. Same
> goes for
> the ceiling, try cutting-in a horizontally installed room with a roller.
> You
> can't, the angle's less than 90-deg., instead of more than 90-deg.
>>
> Great questions! You're actually the only sane person I've ever run into. I
> hope you give vertical a try someday and finally allow drywall to do it's
> best. Cracks, sags, specialty compounds, tape indecision, additional
> tools or
> cords and bad-day mud jobs will all go away to leave you with a superior
> job.
>
I appreciate the input. I'm not an installer but I am inside new home
construction quite a bit. And for better or worse horizontal is the
norm in the Houston area.
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Yeah, it's too bad and it's not just Houston it's the norm everywhere. I've
even seen builders, quite laughably, listing horizontal as a selling
point...like no-one else is doing the garbage.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
Iggy <[email protected]> writes:
>replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
>Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be right:
[snip refererence-free angry rant]
>14 - FIRE RATING FAIL - Most Single-ply or Single-layer drywall for Commercial
>Work is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's ACTUAL fire
>rating.
Every commercial installation around here installs the drywall with
the long edge parallel to the floor.
replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote:
It is entirely possible. But, you also may be also seeing just the 2nd layer.
A 2-layer Fire-Rated Assembly usually is required to start-out vertical (for
air-sealing) and the 2nd layer is required to be either perpendicular or fully
offset to the first. Again, it may not be the case, I'm just saying as an FYI.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be right:
>
1 â DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates, window and
door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets donât sit flat. Using
ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
>
2 â UNSUPPORTED SEAM â Horizontalâs tapered seam is 90% unsupported,
only 10% (instead of Vertical's 100%) contacts framing, the seam WILL AND DOES
crack. Light switch and countertop electrical boxes within the seam equals
MORE weakness and butt-joint doubled, MINIMUM, efforts.
>
3 â STRUCTURAL DEFECT - Horizontal only reinforces a wall height of 4â or
less, a full-height wall's top-plate is never connected to the bottom-plate.
As in and due to #2 above, Frictional Contact is MINIMIZED (instead of
maximized by Vertical).
>
4 â SEAM DECEPTION...(4'x8' PANELS) â Example 1: 48â tall by 102â long
wall, Horizontal = 48â (technically) and itâs a 24â wide butt-joint or a
MINIMUM of doubling the 48" (Vertical = the same, generously, 96â but
theyâre easy 6â wide joints). Example 2: 96â tall by 102â long wall,
Horizontal = 222â with 50% being 24â wide butts (Vertical = 192â of 6â
wide easy joints, yes LESS)...in a Kitchen, Horizontal = 100% of 24â wide
butts (Vertical = 0%). Yes, Horizontal does the taper area twice (MINIMUM) in
order to hide its butts, so VERY minimally just another 24â was added AND #5
below was not factored into Horizontal's monumental FRAUD.
>
5 â SELF-DEFEATING ANGLES â Horizontal only uses ONE of a panelâs
tapered edges and PUTS the other taper at the ceiling corner and baseboard,
CREATING (instead of AVOIDING) a twisted angle that MUST be shimmed or
ADDITIONALLY mudded. This too, instantly erases ALL "claimed" benefits of
Horizontal by DOUBLING the seam amount, patching itself to equal Vertical!
>
6 â UNFRIENDLY SEAMS â Horizontal celebrates the chest height seam and
PRETENDS thereâs no 24â-WIDE floor to ceiling butt-joint OR the EVER
present baseboard bevel of UNFINISHED WORK (Vertical has easy joints and the
top's screwed, taped and mudded later with the ceiling corner and the
baseboard SPOTS can also be done separately).
>
7 - FIRE HAZARD LIABILITY - Horizontal only fills the coin-thin SEAM'S FACE
and has NO back-blocking, CAUSING smoke and fireâs spread by inviting
fuel-air for a fire's growth (Vertical is full depth and airtight once simply
screwed-in).
>
8 - UNSAFE INSTALLATION - Horizontal needs 2-PEOPLE for a safe installation
and the panel is airborne, literally CREATING the chance to CAUSE injury
(Vertical easily tilts-up with just 1-person). Panel lifters aren't even as
easy and safe as Verticalâs tilt-up.
>
9 - ADDITIONAL WASTE - When correctly covering a knee wall, half wall, tub
front, column or soffit by first removing both tapered edges, Horizontal CAN'T
use the tapers elsewhere (Vertical can and does). AND, Horizontal WASTES
4-times the mud on their completely unnecessary butt-joints AND baseboard
bevel's...if ever done.
>
10 - DESTRUCTIVE IGNORANCE - Foundation and Framing crews go to great pains to
make everything flat, level, plumb and square. Horizontal DESTROYS those
efforts with their DEFECTIVE humps and baseboard bevels (Vertical keeps the
perfection).
>
11 - GRASPING AT STRAWS WITH OUTRIGHT FRAUD - Horizontals FALSELY AND
UNKNOWINGLY wave the absurdly INVALID (FPL439) 1983 testing âContribution of
Gypsum Wallboard to Racking Resistance of Light-Frame Wallsâ by the
self-convicted fraud Ronald W. Wolfe. FPL439 found that ALL tapered
paper-wrapped edges must be FULLY INTACT for Horizontal to beat Vertical,
PERIOD. In the real-world, Horizontal's bottom paper-wrapped edge is REMOVED
BY LAW, for spacing from all floors and thereby COMPLETELY NEGATE Wolfeâs
inexcusably deceitful and worthless "study" (LAUGHABLE) and summation.
>
12 - JOINT OR SEAM TREATMENT - According to the ASTM's C840 8.2, Horizontal's
seams MUST be mudded to provide ANY fire, smoke and air travel resistance
(Vertical's SO GOOD that it's NOT REQUIRED to have its seams treated AT ALL).
>
13 - COSTLY SLOW COMPLICATION - Horizontal's depend upon PRICEY special muds
and even messy tape or taping tools that WASTE mud. Taping tools still require
a 2nd step of knifing the tape and the muds require a mixing step. That's MORE
expense, MORE time, MORE tools and equipment and MORE water...for an INFERIOR
job! Vertical's SUPERIOR with the cheapest ready-mix bucket muds and dry
self-adhesive tape. Again, Vertical's seam treatment is JUST for looks.
>
14 - FIRE RATING FAIL - Most Single-ply or Single-layer drywall for Commercial
Work is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's ACTUAL fire
rating. This is well-known by the majority of Horizontals, but you and your
children don't matter to a Horizontal. And for what, to honor the FRAUDS that
taught them wrong? You've now seen that Vertical's FASTER overall and
immensely BETTER in every way.
>
Only promote HORIZONTAL AS WRONG and confidently cite the above incontestable
FACTS.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:49:44 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:43:27 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> >On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
>> >> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
>> >> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
>> >> right:
>> >>>
>> >> 1 DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
>> >> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
>> >> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
>> >> window and
>> >> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets dont sit flat. Using
>> >> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
>> >
>> >All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
>> >the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
>> >this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
>> >even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable
>>
>> I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
>> long and makes for a cleaner surface.
>
>http://butttaper.com/home.htm might be worth looking into...
If doing much drywalling, definitely worth looking at! Under $200.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 9:44:05 AM UTC-5, Iggy wrote:
> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be =
right:
> >
> 1 =E2=80=93 DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywal=
l panel
> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are =
a
> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates, window=
and
> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets don=E2=80=99t sit f=
lat. Using
> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
>
So, what you are saying is the companies that make drywall sheets, the manu=
facturers of drywall, are F---ing stupid and DO NOT know how to hang the dr=
ywall they have spent millions of dollars building plants to manufacture it=
. Do you know drywall comes in 8, 10, 12, 16 foot lengths. And 4, 4.5, 5 =
foot widths. Why would a drywall manufacturer make these sizes? Most hous=
es in the USA have 8 foot high walls. And 10 to 20 foot wall lengths. So =
by using two 4 foot wide drywall sheets and various lengths, its easy to co=
ver a wall horizontally. And now days 9 foot and 10 foot walls are getting=
very common. So drywall manufacturers make 4.5 and 5 foot wide drywall sh=
eets. Use two of them horizontally to cover a wall from floor to ceiling. =
Go to any drywall retailer and you will find lots of 4x12 and 4x16 drywall=
sheets. How many walls in a house are 12 or 16 feet tall? Most are 8 feet=
high. So you can easily stack two 4 foot wide sheets of whatever length h=
orizontally and cover a wall.
Your vertical hanging rant is akin to saying NASA doesn't have a F---ing cl=
ue how to launch rockets into space. Yes NASA can build and manufacture go=
od rockets to get into space. But they are stupid on the launching aspect.=
You know how to launch rockets. You know the right way is to shoot them =
into the ground so they come out the other side of the earth. That's the r=
ight way to do it.
replying to russellseaton1, Iggy wrote:
No, the manufacturers know very well that Vertical's the only right way. They
even make their products specifically for Vertical. If they made it for
horizontal, they'd taper only 1 edge and both ends, so there's never a
butt-joint and never any Carpenter and Painter screwing bevels.
>
But, the idiots of the world keep training more idiots. So, the manufacturers
just said "hey we can make more money off these fools", after DECADES they
finally stooped to the horizontal level with 4.5' and 5' wide sheets.
>
And absolutely not, horizontal is not faster. As soon as horizontals have to
do butt-joints, they're spending 4-times the time on them...4-times the mud
too. I know its not easy to accept, but you really have to try it.
>
Sorry, I can't get into the ISS, NASA, GPS, Voyager, String Theory, Big Bang,
Diamond Rain, Ball Earth or the Moon and Mars here. Post a question on
Homeowners Hub for that bevy of nonsense.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
On 10/31/2017 10:43 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
>>> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
>>> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
>>> right:
>>>>
>>> 1 ââ¬â DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
>>> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
>>> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
>>> window and
>>> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets donââ¬â¢t sit flat. Using
>>> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
>>
>> All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
>> the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
>> this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
>> even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable
>
> I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
> long and makes for a cleaner surface.
>
Yeah, that is how I see it being done.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:41:34 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>Iggy <[email protected]> writes:
>>replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
>>Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be right:
>
> [snip refererence-free angry rant]
>
>>14 - FIRE RATING FAIL - Most Single-ply or Single-layer drywall for Commercial
>>Work is required to be installed Vertically, to obtain drywall's ACTUAL fire
>>rating.
>
>Every commercial installation around here installs the drywall with
>the long edge parallel to the floor.
Which is the "proper" way to do it.
Often done with panels significantly more than 8 ft in length too.
[email protected] writes:
>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:43:27 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> >On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
>> >> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
>> >> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never =
>be=20
>> >> right:
>> >>>
>> >> 1 =E2=80=93 DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one dry=
>wall panel
>> >> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and a=
>re a
>> >> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,=20
>> >> window and
>> >> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets don=E2=80=99t si=
>t flat. Using
>> >> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
>> >
>> >All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and=
>=20
>> >the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in=20
>> >this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,=20
>> >even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable=20
>>=20
>> I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
>> long and makes for a cleaner surface.
>
>http://butttaper.com/home.htm might be worth looking into...
Which lead me to
https://www.usg.com/content/usgcom/en_CA_east/resource-center/gypsum-construction-handbook.html
replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote:
Yep, that Handbook is based on the error that's always been in the ASTM...the
word "except" should actually be "especially". But again, I got nowhere with
any of the manufacturers nor the ASTM this year. They just won't recognize
their air-tight requirement was completely abandoned due to 1-wrong-word.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>On 10/31/2017 9:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
>> replying to Leon, Iggy wrote:
>> Fill, I will. Here's what's wrong with Horizontal and why it'll never be
>> right:
>>>
>> 1 â DEFECTIVE SEAM - Horizontal rows needing more than one drywall panel
>> CREATES (instead of AVOIDS) butt-joint HUMPS, which are NOT flat and are a
>> TWICE (minimum) the effort DEFECT. Outlet and switch cover-plates,
>> window and
>> door trim, baseboards, pictures, mirrors and cabinets donât sit flat. Using
>> ANY "butt-joint product" erases ALL "claimed" benefits of Horizontal!
>
>All valid points but in the Houston area I do not see these problems and
>the vast majority of dry wall goes up horizontally. Because homes in
>this also have other than 8' ceilings, 10, 11, 12 footers are common,
>even 16'10' tall walls are common, the but joint is unavoidable
I generally manually taper the butt edges before taping. Doesn't take
long and makes for a cleaner surface.
replying to Scott Lurndal, Iggy wrote:
Bravo! Yep, a very shallow 1/8" "V" in framing for Vertical or a recessed stud
or butt-board attached to blocking makes all the difference in quality and
speed.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> On 10/31/2017 7:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Electric Comet <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
>>> maybe lath and plaster
>>
>> Ha. Ha Ha Ha. That's funny.
>>
>
> He is from the persuasion of people that believe if they can think it
> they can do it.
On its face it's easy to do, especially for a single person. Perhaps even
more forgiving. Doing it well so it doesn't look like your 5-year-old took
point... that's an entirely different matter.
I keep meaning to practice on some exposed lathe underneath my staircase.
The previous owner of my house cheaped-out fixing a leaky southerly wall of
a stairwell. His contractors didn't fix the leaks properly. Then they used
drywall to replace the plaster on that entire wall.
I've had (or I think I've had) two of the biggest culprits fixed, but
there's still too much moisture penetration on that wall. The drywall is too
damp and beginning to sag--probably didn't hang it right. An adjacent wall
is still the original plaster+wood lathe, and even with a leaky window (took
awhile to realize) the only serious damage was some peeling paint and a
small, contained area of plaster that needed patching. (Painter got to do
that; not me :(
At some point I'm going to have to take that drywall down just to see what
the previous homeowner was hiding. And I'm definitely not going to put
drywall back up. The house is too old (1926) and passes too much moisture
(near the ocean). That's fine for plaster, but not kind to drywall. Removing
all the cladding (3 sides clapboards, 1 side stucco) and re-wrapping[1] the
house would be way too expensive (can't even entertain that idea) and
unnecessary.
There are good plasterers here. I live in a major city where there's enough
work to keep the skill alive, not just for high-end restoration work.
(Though I suppose any job putting up new plaster might be considered
high-end.) But they're still expensive given the amount of time involved. So
I may give it a go myself if I can find the time to practice first. I also
need to parge[2] the foundation, which I'm hoping will help me learn some.
[1] The house is wrapped in tar paper, but it's not as impermeable as the
modern stuff, and at 90 years old probably no longer as impermeable as it
once was.
[2] I think the previous owner tried to parge with a portland cement
mixture, which failed horribly. (Pretty sure he was trying to hide some
disintegration.) AFAIU, portland cement is much less water permeable than
the cement used in the old foundation. The parge coat is popping off in
large chunks. The parge coat needs to have the same permeability as the
concrete so the water and salts can pass through to the surface. The parge
coat becomes a sacrificial layer, I guess, extending the life of the
foundation. Presumably a bad parge coat hastens disintegration. Like with
the stairway wall, using modern products piecemeal is just a really bad
idea.
Markem <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just go rustic log cabin and then
> you do not need no stinking drywall.
Chip & Jo loves them some shiplap!
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0207/8508/products/shiplap_1024x1024.JPG
https://www.pinterest.com/explore/fixer-upper-shiplap/
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 5:10:41 PM UTC-5, Electric Comet wrote:
> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
> maybe lath and plaster
>=20
> maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
> products might get close in price
>=20
> and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
> go
>=20
> now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster
Drywall is fast. I think it became the norm during the 1950s and the post =
WW2 housing boom. A couple guys could drywall, finish the interior, of an =
entire house in a couple days and the house was done!!! Kind of like why c=
arpet became the norm too. Easy and quick to install flooring in the whole=
house in a few hours!!! You're done! When you are building 100 houses a =
year or more, being able to do things quickly and still look good or at lea=
st OK, is important. And as important, the skill level is not that high. =
No offense to anyone here, but you do not need a high school degree to pain=
t walls, hang drywall, trowel mud, or install carpet. All things that crea=
te the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As for=
replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and plaster?=
Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled with lots and =
lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much easier to screw a 4'x8' s=
heet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes=
in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You can cover a hell of a lot of area in mi=
nutes with drywall. Boom. Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a=
paint brush to paint a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:39:48 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
>> for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
>> plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
>> with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
>
>i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
>with a staple hammer in very little time
>
>i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
>that is the hard part
>
>but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
>in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
>
>
>> easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
>> 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
>> can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
>> Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
>> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
>
>it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
>to get to the paint stage
Try it once and see if you still think it's so efficient.
On 10/30/2017 8:39 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
>> for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
>> plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
>> with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
>
> i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
> with a staple hammer in very little time
>
> i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
> that is the hard part
>
> but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
> in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
And ignores the laws of gravity. . . right!
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:27:06 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700
>Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
>> maybe lath and plaster
>>
>> drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
>> are there over paneling
>>
>> drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
>> once you get it on the wall you have to tape it
>>
>> then the mud coats and the mess
>> then the multiple sandings and all the mess
>> then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint
>
>also there is corner bead to buy and install
>and the dust from sanding is everywhere
>
>maybe wet sanding is the key
>
>one pro for drywall is the fire delay factor and in some
>munis is a requirement
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
What about the mess involved in buttering a whole wall with plaster???
Corner bead is MANDATORY with plaster as well.
I've seen many drywall installations where there has been virtually
NO sanding (and therefore dust) involved. Sponge finishing of drywall
compound is quite common. Using setting compound for the first coat
makes it pretty fast -45 minute set is common - then finish with
drywall finishing compound that takes a bit longer as it has to DRY.
But it only needs to be a thin skim coat, so it still dries relatively
quickly
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 9:52:59 PM UTC-5, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> > a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
>=20
> for a crew yeah with square plumb level walls and ceilings
> and separate crews to hang tape and finish
I'm just one man and I have hung and taped and mudded more than a few sheet=
s of drywall over the years. Picking up and hanging heavy sheets of drywal=
l is not easy or fun. But it can be done by one person. I have hung 4x12 =
sheets of 1/2" drywall all by myself. The mesh tape is easier for me to us=
e than the wet paper tape. Applying mud requires care and detail. You hav=
e to be careful smoothing everything out nicely. Takes some time but not a=
huge amount of effort or technical skill. Touch is needed, is the best wa=
y to describe it.
>=20
> but for one man operation it is like a make work project
>=20
No. Its not snap your fingers easy. But its not a huge amount of work tha=
t requires an unbelievable amount of technical skill. No offense to anyone=
connected to the drywall trade, but none of the kids hanging drywall have =
a college degree. And its likely many did not even finish high school with=
a degree. Its not rocket science, to use a clich=C3=A9.
> add coved ceilings or slanted ceilings
> ten foot walls
>=20
Ceilings do require extra equipment to hang the drywall. And or extra peop=
le. Ten foot walls don't need any extra equipment. A 5 foot high seam isn=
't any harder to mud than a 4 foot high seam. And both 8 foot and 10 foot =
ceilings both require ladders or those stilt things to tape/mud the wall-ce=
iling corners.=20
> fire codes requiring thicker dry wall
>
I think 5/8" drywall is fire rated. 1/2" is not. I've hung some 5/8" dryw=
all and it is heavier. But not a lot heavier. Its not 2, 3, 4 times heavi=
er. Its 25% heavier. 5/8" is 25% thicker than 4/8" (1/2").
I think you are just imagining and making up excuses to not work with drywa=
ll. No need to do that. Just say I don't want to use drywall and go with =
something else. That is it. Be done and move on. Just don't distort the =
real world of drywall hanging.
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:39:51 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> > the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
> > for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
> > plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
> > with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
>=20
> i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
> with a staple hammer in very little time
>=20
> i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
> that is the hard part
>=20
> but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
> in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
>=20
>=20
> > easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
> > 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
> > can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
> > Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
> > a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
>=20
> it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
> to get to the paint stage
Are you trying to bait us, or are you really being serious? Assuming the la=
tter, not sure if you are referring to prefinished paneling so popular in t=
he 60's and 70's or t&g/shiplap boards...In either case, material cost is d=
rastically different, maintenance and ease of installation, is so much simp=
ler with GWB (other than the short learning curve of properly dealing with =
butt joints). There are any number of tape and finishers that will do the d=
irty (skilled) work after you install the GWB for incredibly reasonable cos=
t...
On 10/30/2017 6:10 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>
>
> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
> maybe lath and plaster
>
> drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
> are there over paneling
>
> drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
> once you get it on the wall you have to tape it
>
> then the mud coats and the mess
> then the multiple sandings and all the mess
> then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint
>
> paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
> done
>
>
> maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
> products might get close in price
>
>
> and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
> go
>
> now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster
>
>
>
Depending upon where you want to use it, think fire and flame spread
ratings.
Electric Comet <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
>maybe lath and plaster
Ha. Ha Ha Ha. That's funny.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:27:06 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700
>Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
>> maybe lath and plaster
>>
>> drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
>> are there over paneling
>>
>> drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
>> once you get it on the wall you have to tape it
>>
>> then the mud coats and the mess
>> then the multiple sandings and all the mess
>> then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint
>
>also there is corner bead to buy and install
>and the dust from sanding is everywhere
You're using way too much mud (I do too).
>maybe wet sanding is the key
Or a wet sponge.
>one pro for drywall is the fire delay factor and in some
>munis is a requirement
For some applications.
On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 12:15:49 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrot=
e:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:57:46 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 10:27:08 PM UTC-5, Electric Comet wrot=
e:
> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700
> >> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>=20
> >> and the dust from sanding is everywhere
> >>=20
> >> maybe wet sanding is the key
> >>=20
> >
> >With my drywall "work" now, I always use wet sanding. Not really sandin=
g. Just take a damp/wet cloth and rub over the dried drywall. It smoothes=
it out very well.
> a firm sponge is my choice of tool.
This must be baiting...True plaster work is an art form...Please, please, p=
lease, video-record your project and post to YT so we may all learn how eas=
y, cheap and expedient plaster work is (and in HD, especially while you att=
empt the ceiling work).
Sanding, while cleaner/neater/better done wet, can be nearly avoided using =
several thinned finish coats of JC rather than trying to do it all in 2-3 p=
asses. Even resultant dust from dry sanding can be kept under control using=
readily available (and inexpensive) wet vacuum collection systems and sand=
ing screens... I installed 94 sheets for an addition I DIYed and by the ti=
me I was finished, I had 1 major takeaway - I wished I had thought to use 1=
2' sheets for my ceilings to reduce the butt joints, but otherwise pretty p=
lease with the outcome. This was the first time I had ever install GWB...Ne=
xt time I would seriously consider contracting out the T & S...
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:11:19 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 21:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm just one man and I have hung and taped and mudded more than a few
>> sheets of drywall over the years. Picking up and hanging heavy
>> sheets of drywall is not easy or fun. But it can be done by one
>> person. I have hung 4x12 sheets of 1/2" drywall all by myself. The
>> mesh tape is easier for me to use than the wet paper tape. Applying
>> mud requires care and detail. You have to be careful smoothing
>> everything out nicely. Takes some time but not a huge amount of
>> effort or technical skill. Touch is needed, is the best way to
>> describe it.
>
>i still will not call drywall efficient
>does that mean the current alternatives are more efficient
>nope
>
>but there is much room for improvement and i am surprised at what a
>make work workflow doing drywall is
>
>
>> No. Its not snap your fingers easy. But its not a huge amount of
>> work that requires an unbelievable amount of technical skill. No
>> offense to anyone connected to the drywall trade, but none of the
>> kids hanging drywall have a college degree. And its likely many did
>> not even finish high school with a degree. Its not rocket science,
>> to use a cliché.
>
>nor rocket surgery
>
>the task does not tax me mentally and it is more that the process
>does have room for vast improvement
>
>doubt improvement will come from the hangers and tapers of the world
>
>
>> I think you are just imagining and making up excuses to not work with
>> drywall. No need to do that. Just say I don't want to use drywall
>> and go with something else. That is it. Be done and move on. Just
>> don't distort the real world of drywall hanging.
>
>
>no imagining here just the first job doing drywall larger than a patch
>from a stray elbow or so
>
>but i like the idea of wiping when still wet with a wet cloth
>
>
>
>
Ever patch plaster?? Cracks, or impact damage (chips) or loss of
"traction" with the lath?
Makes patching drywall childs' play.
>
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
>maybe lath and plaster
>
>drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
>are there over paneling
>
>drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
>once you get it on the wall you have to tape it
>
>then the mud coats and the mess
>then the multiple sandings and all the mess
>then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint
>
>paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
>done
>
>
>maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
>products might get close in price
>
>
>and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
>go
>
>now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster
they're all a lot more work than the shift and punctuation keys.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 4:17:04 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:39:51 PM UTC-4, Electric Comet wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >=20
> > > the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
> > > for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
> > > plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
> > > with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
> >=20
> > i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
> > with a staple hammer in very little time
> >=20
> > i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
> > that is the hard part
> >=20
> > but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
> > in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
> >=20
> >=20
> > > easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
> > > 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
> > > can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
> > > Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
> > > a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
> >=20
> > it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
> > to get to the paint stage
>=20
> Are you trying to bait us, or are you really being serious? Assuming the =
latter, not sure if you are referring to prefinished paneling so popular in=
the 60's and 70's or t&g/shiplap boards...In either case, material cost is=
drastically different, maintenance and ease of installation, is so much si=
mpler with GWB (other than the short learning curve of properly dealing wit=
h butt joints). There are any number of tape and finishers that will do the=
dirty (skilled) work after you install the GWB for incredibly reasonable c=
ost...
I was reading your post and could not figure out what GWB meant. Thought a=
bout it awhile and figured out its "Gypsum Wall Board". Drywall.
On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:39:48 -0700, Electric Comet
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
> >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
> >> for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
> >> plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
> >> with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
> >
> >i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
> >with a staple hammer in very little time
> >
> >i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
> >that is the hard part
> >
> >but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
> >in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
> >
> >
> >> easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
> >> 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
> >> can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
> >> Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
> >> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
> >
> >it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
> >to get to the paint stage
>=20
> Try it once and see if you still think it's so efficient.
"once"? Ha ha ho ho. I've drywalled a few rooms and many walls over the y=
ears. It is damned efficient to hang drywall. Full 4x8 foot sheets cover =
32 square feet. Four on a wall and the whole wall is covered. 30-60 minut=
es later you are done hanging and taping and spreading the first coat of mu=
d. Wait a day and smooth and apply the second mud coat in a few minutes. =
Wait another day and smooth and apply a finish third mud coat. Smooth it a=
day later and your are ready to paint. You might have 2-3-4 hours of tota=
l time in drywalling and taping and mudding an entire room. Pros of course=
can probably hang and apply the first coat of mud in under a day to an ent=
ire house, including the ceilings. Drywall is cheap and efficient!!! Hous=
e builders LOVE it for those reasons. And it makes a good looking wall whe=
n done too.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:57:46 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 10:27:08 PM UTC-5, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700
>> Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> and the dust from sanding is everywhere
>>
>> maybe wet sanding is the key
>>
>
>With my drywall "work" now, I always use wet sanding. Not really sanding. Just take a damp/wet cloth and rub over the dried drywall. It smoothes it out very well.
a firm sponge is my choice of tool.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 19:52:55 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
>
>for a crew yeah with square plumb level walls and ceilings
>and separate crews to hang tape and finish
>
>but for one man operation it is like a make work project
>
>depends too
>
>add coved ceilings or slanted ceilings
>ten foot walls
>
>fire codes requiring thicker dry wall
>
>
>if i ever have to decide on the walls i will go with lath and
>plaster
>
>not wood lath of course
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I can just see you half way through - totally defeated and discusted
with yourself for being so stubborn - and then having to pay through
the nose to get ptos to finish the job ot go back to drywall - - -
Rither that or I can see a mediocre job, finished LONG after the
target date.
replying to Electric Comet, Iggy wrote:
Drywall nor lathe and plaster have no "advantage" over paneling. Paneling is
the advantage. Drywall and plaster are just seamless, and drywall's installed
wrong by most everyone (horizontal idiots listening to the likes of Moron
Frauderson) to kill any minimal hedge of fire protection.
>
Paneling never needs to be thrown out. You can remove it and put it back as
many times as you want to do wiring 1-year, piping the next year and
insulation in a decade. No waste ever, can't easily pop a hole through it, it
doesn't ding and dent, no crumbing from hanging a picture, can be painted or
stained and highly resistant to water...compared to any gypsum stuff.
--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/paneling-versus-drywall-811751-.htm
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
> for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
> plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
> with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
with a staple hammer in very little time
i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
that is the hard part
but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
> easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
> 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
> can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
> Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
to get to the paint stage
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
for a crew yeah with square plumb level walls and ceilings
and separate crews to hang tape and finish
but for one man operation it is like a make work project
depends too
add coved ceilings or slanted ceilings
ten foot walls
fire codes requiring thicker dry wall
if i ever have to decide on the walls i will go with lath and
plaster
not wood lath of course
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
[email protected] wrote:
> material cost is drastically different, maintenance and ease of
> installation, is so much simpler with GWB (other than the short
obviously i disagree with maintenance and ease of installation
cost not sure about but drywall requires taping and mud which are
pretty cheap but still is a factor plus corner bead
> learning curve of properly dealing with butt joints). There are any
> number of tape and finishers that will do the dirty (skilled) work
> after you install the GWB for incredibly reasonable cost...
this is diy
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700
Electric Comet <[email protected]> wrote:
> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
> maybe lath and plaster
>
> drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
> are there over paneling
>
> drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
> once you get it on the wall you have to tape it
>
> then the mud coats and the mess
> then the multiple sandings and all the mess
> then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint
also there is corner bead to buy and install
and the dust from sanding is everywhere
maybe wet sanding is the key
one pro for drywall is the fire delay factor and in some
munis is a requirement
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> With my drywall "work" now, I always use wet sanding. Not really
> sanding. Just take a damp/wet cloth and rub over the dried drywall.
> It smoothes it out very well.
ok i will try this
sanding dust is a mess
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 21:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm just one man and I have hung and taped and mudded more than a few
> sheets of drywall over the years. Picking up and hanging heavy
> sheets of drywall is not easy or fun. But it can be done by one
> person. I have hung 4x12 sheets of 1/2" drywall all by myself. The
> mesh tape is easier for me to use than the wet paper tape. Applying
> mud requires care and detail. You have to be careful smoothing
> everything out nicely. Takes some time but not a huge amount of
> effort or technical skill. Touch is needed, is the best way to
> describe it.
i still will not call drywall efficient
does that mean the current alternatives are more efficient
nope
but there is much room for improvement and i am surprised at what a
make work workflow doing drywall is
> No. Its not snap your fingers easy. But its not a huge amount of
> work that requires an unbelievable amount of technical skill. No
> offense to anyone connected to the drywall trade, but none of the
> kids hanging drywall have a college degree. And its likely many did
> not even finish high school with a degree. Its not rocket science,
> to use a clich=C3=A9.
nor rocket surgery
the task does not tax me mentally and it is more that the process
does have room for vast improvement
doubt improvement will come from the hangers and tapers of the world
> I think you are just imagining and making up excuses to not work with
> drywall. No need to do that. Just say I don't want to use drywall
> and go with something else. That is it. Be done and move on. Just
> don't distort the real world of drywall hanging.
no imagining here just the first job doing drywall larger than a patch
from a stray elbow or so
but i like the idea of wiping when still wet with a wet cloth
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:17:07 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> material cost is drastically different, maintenance and ease of
>> installation, is so much simpler with GWB (other than the short
>
>obviously i disagree with maintenance and ease of installation
>
>cost not sure about but drywall requires taping and mud which are
>pretty cheap but still is a factor plus corner bead
>
>
>> learning curve of properly dealing with butt joints). There are any
>> number of tape and finishers that will do the dirty (skilled) work
>> after you install the GWB for incredibly reasonable cost...
>
>this is diy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
If you can't teach yourself to tape and mud drywall, you don't stand a
chance with lath and plaster!!!! You can't handle a few 6-8 inch wide
joints, how are you EVER going to get an 8 x 12 foot wall perfectly
flat and smooth without defects?????
On 11/1/2017 10:52 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
>
> for a crew yeah with square plumb level walls and ceilings
> and separate crews to hang tape and finish
>
> but for one man operation it is like a make work project
>
> depends too
>
> add coved ceilings or slanted ceilings
> ten foot walls
>
> fire codes requiring thicker dry wall
>
>
> if i ever have to decide on the walls i will go with lath and
> plaster
>
> not wood lath of course
>
Good for you. Report back when you are doing the second wall and let us
know what method you are using.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:10:38 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
>maybe lath and plaster
>
>drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
>are there over paneling
>
>drywall is heavy but easy to cut but it is fragile
>once you get it on the wall you have to tape it
>
>then the mud coats and the mess
>then the multiple sandings and all the mess
>then you have to primer and then a coat or two of paint
>
>paneling you cut it nail it and finish it with a clear coat and you are
>done
>
>
>maybe drywall is cheaper but i am guessing that some engineered panel
>products might get close in price
>
>
>and really maybe metal lath and plaster is the cheapest fastest way to
>go
>
>now come to think of it how did drywall replace lath and plaster
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lath and plaster is BY FAR the most expensive, the most work, and the
most mess. Panelling is "so 70s" - definitely simple and cheap if you
buy cheap panelling, and is generally NOT fire rated, so cannot
legally be used in many places without putting drywall up first (no
sanding required) - and drywall is "generally" more damage resistant
than most "panelling"
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 00:37:53 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:39:48 -0700, Electric Comet
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
>>> for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
>>> plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
>>> with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
>>
>>i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
>>with a staple hammer in very little time
>>
>>i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
>>that is the hard part
>>
>>but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
>>in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
>>
>>
>>> easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
>>> 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
>>> can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
>>> Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
>>> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
>>
>>it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
>>to get to the paint stage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You have obviously never platered.
>You put on the lath, either wood, mesh, or GtpRoc, then you apply the
>"scratch coat " and let it dry, then you apply the finish coat - and
>if you think THAT is easy --- Well - let's just say the reason lath
>and plaster has gone almost entirely from thehomebuilding industry is
>there is virtually no-one left under 70 who knows how to do it, or is
>willing to learn to do it properly. It is a skill - an art, and a
>science, all rolled into one. It is NOT simple, and it is NOT fast -
>and it most definitely is NOT CHEAP!!!
>
> With current state of the art materials and equipment, a house can be
>totally rocked in one day, and totally taped and mudded in another day
>- ready for priming. A good mudder/taper can get the finish coat on
>smooth enough it virtually does not need sanding if the primer is put
>on with a texture gun - makes the wall finish just a WEE bit gtainy -
>not silky smooth like plaster or sanded drywall compound.
> With airless spraying, getting a whole house primed takes a matter of
>hours, not days.
>
> The pros are FAST!!! (which translates to pretty darn cheap compared
>to plastering.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Plaster is still done but they put up Blue board then plaster in two
coats, cost more than just dry wall. Just go rustic log cabin and then
you do not need no stinking drywall.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:39:48 -0700, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
>> for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
>> plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
>> with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
>
>i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
>with a staple hammer in very little time
>
>i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
>that is the hard part
>
>but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
>in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
>
>
>> easier to screw a 4'x8' sheet of drywall to the wall. Or 4x12 or
>> 4x16 sheet. I think drywall comes in 4.5 and 5 foot widths too. You
>> can cover a hell of a lot of area in minutes with drywall. Boom.
>> Done. Kind of like using a roller instead of a paint brush to paint
>> a wall. Drywall is damned efficient.
>
>it does not seem that efficient to me with all the steps involved just
>to get to the paint stage
>
>
>
>
>
You have obviously never platered.
You put on the lath, either wood, mesh, or GtpRoc, then you apply the
"scratch coat " and let it dry, then you apply the finish coat - and
if you think THAT is easy --- Well - let's just say the reason lath
and plaster has gone almost entirely from thehomebuilding industry is
there is virtually no-one left under 70 who knows how to do it, or is
willing to learn to do it properly. It is a skill - an art, and a
science, all rolled into one. It is NOT simple, and it is NOT fast -
and it most definitely is NOT CHEAP!!!
With current state of the art materials and equipment, a house can be
totally rocked in one day, and totally taped and mudded in another day
- ready for priming. A good mudder/taper can get the finish coat on
smooth enough it virtually does not need sanding if the primer is put
on with a texture gun - makes the wall finish just a WEE bit gtainy -
not silky smooth like plaster or sanded drywall compound.
With airless spraying, getting a whole house primed takes a matter of
hours, not days.
The pros are FAST!!! (which translates to pretty darn cheap compared
to plastering.
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:11:02 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 10/30/2017 8:39 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> the finish you see in houses today. Not much thinking required. As
>>> for replacing lath and plaster. Have you ever seen old time lath and
>>> plaster? Wooden strips overlapped and nailed on the wall and filled
>>> with lots and lots of mud plaster. Lot of work involved. Much
>>
>> i have seen wood lath and metal lath like a coarse screen put it on
>> with a staple hammer in very little time
>>
>> i imagine now they can spray on the plaster but maybe it is the finish
>> that is the hard part
>>
>> but they may have solved that problem too with advanced materials
>> in other words it flows on easier and behaves uniformly
>
>And ignores the laws of gravity. . . right!
If they could spray it on and do it quickly, efficiently, and
cheaply, it would be done on every house. They can't, so it isn't.
Even stuccoing or parging is labour intensive - and it's a LOT simpler
than plastering. Getting a perfectly smooth and straight plaster
finisg is EXTREMELY difficult work.
On 10/30/2017 6:10 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>
>
> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
> maybe lath and plaster
>
> drywall probably gives better sound proofing but what other advantages
> are there over paneling
>
Not sure what kind of paneling you are looking at. Is it 1960 again?
On 10/31/2017 7:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Electric Comet <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>> drywall is a lot of work and i think next time i will do paneling or
>> maybe lath and plaster
>
> Ha. Ha Ha Ha. That's funny.
>
He is from the persuasion of people that believe if they can think it
they can do it.