Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91220 > unrolled thread

OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ???

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-10 01:22 -0400
    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-10 11:46 +0100
      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-11 01:43 -0400
        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-11 11:40 +0200
          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-11 23:49 -0400
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:33 +0200
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 17:46 +0100
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 21:47 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 00:45 -0400
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-12 18:58 +0000
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 23:59 -0400
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 23:17 -0400
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:51 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-13 16:30 +0000
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:45 +0200
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 21:05 +0100
                      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 22:17 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 21:03 +0100
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 22:18 +0200
                      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 21:55 -0400
                        Glulam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:01 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-13 20:07 +0000
        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-11 10:47 +0100
          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 01:03 -0400
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 11:04 +0100
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:48 +0200
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 17:48 +0100
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:40 +0200
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 17:47 +0100
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 23:29 -0400
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-13 05:09 +0000
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 02:33 -0400
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 10:00 +0100
                      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 19:50 -0400
                        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-14 03:32 +0000
                          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-14 00:24 -0400
                          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 11:09 +0100
                            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-14 12:57 +0100
                              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-14 19:09 +0100
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:57 +0200
                  Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-13 12:23 +0000
                    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:47 +0200
        Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-09-11 16:22 +0000
          Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-12 02:21 -0400
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 11:22 +0100
            Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-09-12 19:29 +0000
              Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-13 00:16 -0400
                Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-13 05:09 +0000
    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-09-10 16:06 +0000
      Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-11 02:42 -0400
    Re: OT : MAY Have To Build New House - CBC On PIERS ??? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-09-10 09:46 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#91378

Le 13-09-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
> On 2026-09-13 05:29, c186282 wrote:
>> On 9/12/26 07:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-12 07:03, c186282 wrote:
>>>>    Also, running plumbing and such INSIDE walls - a
>>>>    disaster waiting to happen. There are aesthetic
>>>>    solutions for OVER-wall routing, looks like
>>>>    intentional decoration but you CAN easily get
>>>>    to everything.
>>>
>>> Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard 
>>> here. Since decades.
>> 
>>    Yep - because it's CHEAP.
>
> Where else would you put them?

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/W35KPC/centre-georges-pompidou-beaubourg-museum-for-modern-art-paris-france-W35KPC.jpg

Sorry (almost), I couldn't stop myself to do it.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91383

On 2026-09-13 14:23, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 13-09-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>> On 2026-09-13 05:29, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 9/12/26 07:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-09-12 07:03, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>     Also, running plumbing and such INSIDE walls - a
>>>>>     disaster waiting to happen. There are aesthetic
>>>>>     solutions for OVER-wall routing, looks like
>>>>>     intentional decoration but you CAN easily get
>>>>>     to everything.
>>>>
>>>> Putting plumbing and electrical ducts inside walls is the standard
>>>> here. Since decades.
>>>
>>>     Yep - because it's CHEAP.
>>
>> Where else would you put them?
> 
> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/W35KPC/centre-georges-pompidou-beaubourg-museum-for-modern-art-paris-france-W35KPC.jpg
> 
> Sorry (almost), I couldn't stop myself to do it.
> 

So just outside the walls. That's ugly in a house, can't do.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91275

On 2026-09-11, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>
>    ...
>
>    The IDEA is a 24" crawlspace underneath where it's possible
>    to get at the pipes and such easily. Also, per local regs,
>    the ability of rain to get UNDER the structure and thus
>    absorbed may earn you eco brownie points.

If your area gets enough rain (like maybe ~43 inches per year)
and your soil is something akin to sandy loam, having rain UNDER
a structure is problematic--maybe unless your pilings go all the
way to bedrock.  Over time, water erodes the silt/soil and
creates voids, voids grow, grown voids turn into caverns, and
caverns collapse.

A few decades ago, I had a house built in a location that was
enough below street level that there was no practical way to get
storm/rain water into the public storm sewer system.  I had
drainage trenches installed downhill from the house and shed.
After arguing that he should have required me to spend several
hundred dollars (as much as to build the trench system) to have
an "engineer" dig a hole, pour water in the hole, and measure how
long it took for the water to drain from the hole, the plumbing
inspector reluctantly signed off on the drainage system.  He was
concerned that the drainage system would create underground
rivers.  A side benefit of that drainage system was an excemption
from the do-nothing bureaucratic monthly "storm water management"
fee added to everyone else's water/sewer bills.

In HEAVY rain in that area, it was not uncommon to see rain water
pouring _OUT_ of gopher holes just a little downhill from the
gopher holes into which rain water was entering.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91291

On 9/11/26 12:22, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2026-09-11, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>>     ...
>>
>>     The IDEA is a 24" crawlspace underneath where it's possible
>>     to get at the pipes and such easily. Also, per local regs,
>>     the ability of rain to get UNDER the structure and thus
>>     absorbed may earn you eco brownie points.
> 
> If your area gets enough rain (like maybe ~43 inches per year)
> and your soil is something akin to sandy loam, having rain UNDER
> a structure is problematic--maybe unless your pilings go all the
> way to bedrock.  Over time, water erodes the silt/soil and
> creates voids, voids grow, grown voids turn into caverns, and
> caverns collapse.

   No 'bedrock' where I am. Well, if you go down
   five or six hundred feet maybe ......

   Sandy soil absorbs/dissipates rainwater. "Clay-like"
   soils, well, THERE you may have problems. Clay kinda
   liquifies and washes away. Sand stays put.

> A few decades ago, I had a house built in a location that was
> enough below street level that there was no practical way to get
> storm/rain water into the public storm sewer system.  I had
> drainage trenches installed downhill from the house and shed.
> After arguing that he should have required me to spend several
> hundred dollars (as much as to build the trench system) to have
> an "engineer" dig a hole, pour water in the hole, and measure how
> long it took for the water to drain from the hole, the plumbing
> inspector reluctantly signed off on the drainage system.  He was
> concerned that the drainage system would create underground
> rivers.  A side benefit of that drainage system was an excemption
> from the do-nothing bureaucratic monthly "storm water management"
> fee added to everyone else's water/sewer bills.
> 
> In HEAVY rain in that area, it was not uncommon to see rain water
> pouring _OUT_ of gopher holes just a little downhill from the
> gopher holes into which rain water was entering.

   Not even gonna inquire WHY you would buy property
   that was in a 'pit' .......

   Really NO good way to deal with run-off and even
   ordinary water uses in a 'pit'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91305

On 12/09/2026 07:21, c186282 wrote:
> No 'bedrock' where I am. Well, if you go down
>    five or six hundred feet maybe ......
> 
>    Sandy soil absorbs/dissipates rainwater. "Clay-like"
>    soils, well, THERE you may have problems. Clay kinda
>    liquifies and washes away. Sand stays put.

Actually the reverse is true.

But the problem with clay is that it swells when it gets wet,

You need to create strong foundations to deal with that. and not build a 
floor directly in contact with it as the soil will in time shrink 
underneath it.

  I'm on 100% thick gooey clay. Foundations are in general 0.5 metres 
deep concrete block with rebar, rising to 2 meter where there are tree 
roots that can suck the soil dry.

Sandy soil is mostly stable except where it gets washed away.

Many houses on sandy cliffs end up in the sea. Indeed whole towns have

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2yrj1lxpvo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20220227-dunwich-the-british-town-lost-to-the-sea

In general if your footings are well tied together sandy soil is a good 
base., You create a tied together structure that 'floats' on the sand, 
or go deep.

https://www.groundscrewcentre.co.uk/choosing-the-best-foundations-for-different-soil-types
-- 
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that 
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is 
fully understood.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91332

On 2026-09-12, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 9/11/26 12:22, Robert Riches wrote:
>> On 2026-09-11, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>     ...
>>>
>>>     The IDEA is a 24" crawlspace underneath where it's possible
>>>     to get at the pipes and such easily. Also, per local regs,
>>>     the ability of rain to get UNDER the structure and thus
>>>     absorbed may earn you eco brownie points.
>> 
>> If your area gets enough rain (like maybe ~43 inches per year)
>> and your soil is something akin to sandy loam, having rain UNDER
>> a structure is problematic--maybe unless your pilings go all the
>> way to bedrock.  Over time, water erodes the silt/soil and
>> creates voids, voids grow, grown voids turn into caverns, and
>> caverns collapse.
>
>    No 'bedrock' where I am. Well, if you go down
>    five or six hundred feet maybe ......
>
>    Sandy soil absorbs/dissipates rainwater. "Clay-like"
>    soils, well, THERE you may have problems. Clay kinda
>    liquifies and washes away. Sand stays put.

Around here, the soil is called "sandy loam", but about 12-18"
below the surface is (mostly) clay.

>> A few decades ago, I had a house built in a location that was
>> enough below street level that there was no practical way to get
>> storm/rain water into the public storm sewer system.  I had
>> drainage trenches installed downhill from the house and shed.
>> After arguing that he should have required me to spend several
>> hundred dollars (as much as to build the trench system) to have
>> an "engineer" dig a hole, pour water in the hole, and measure how
>> long it took for the water to drain from the hole, the plumbing
>> inspector reluctantly signed off on the drainage system.  He was
>> concerned that the drainage system would create underground
>> rivers.  A side benefit of that drainage system was an excemption
>> from the do-nothing bureaucratic monthly "storm water management"
>> fee added to everyone else's water/sewer bills.
>> 
>> In HEAVY rain in that area, it was not uncommon to see rain water
>> pouring _OUT_ of gopher holes just a little downhill from the
>> gopher holes into which rain water was entering.
>
>    Not even gonna inquire WHY you would buy property
>    that was in a 'pit' .......
>
>    Really NO good way to deal with run-off and even
>    ordinary water uses in a 'pit'.

In this case, the "pit" wasn't deep enough to cause a problem for
sanitary sewer, just for storm sewer.  The sanitary sewer was 13
feet deep at the street, and there was an existing house a couple
of feet lower in elevation than the one I had built, so sanitary
sewer was known to be okay.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91343

On 9/12/26 15:29, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2026-09-12, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 9/11/26 12:22, Robert Riches wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-11, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      ...
>>>>
>>>>      The IDEA is a 24" crawlspace underneath where it's possible
>>>>      to get at the pipes and such easily. Also, per local regs,
>>>>      the ability of rain to get UNDER the structure and thus
>>>>      absorbed may earn you eco brownie points.
>>>
>>> If your area gets enough rain (like maybe ~43 inches per year)
>>> and your soil is something akin to sandy loam, having rain UNDER
>>> a structure is problematic--maybe unless your pilings go all the
>>> way to bedrock.  Over time, water erodes the silt/soil and
>>> creates voids, voids grow, grown voids turn into caverns, and
>>> caverns collapse.
>>
>>     No 'bedrock' where I am. Well, if you go down
>>     five or six hundred feet maybe ......
>>
>>     Sandy soil absorbs/dissipates rainwater. "Clay-like"
>>     soils, well, THERE you may have problems. Clay kinda
>>     liquifies and washes away. Sand stays put.
> 
> Around here, the soil is called "sandy loam", but about 12-18"
> below the surface is (mostly) clay.


   Every area is different - which thus demands
   different solutions.

   It'd be NICE if I had solid bedrock 25 feet under
   the dirt, but NO WAY. Instead I have a 3' water
   table and 300' of SAND underneath. Sorry, no
   basements or bomb shelters .......

   Hmmm ... read that JFK had a bomb shelter installed
   under his Palm Beach FL mini-mansion. Again, super
   high water table and nothing but sand all the way
   down. Would be interested in HOW they managed
   that (govt funded, of course). Even concrete would
   not be water-proof enough, would require some weird
   rubber/plastic outer-liner. Probably cost millions.

>>> A few decades ago, I had a house built in a location that was
>>> enough below street level that there was no practical way to get
>>> storm/rain water into the public storm sewer system.  I had
>>> drainage trenches installed downhill from the house and shed.
>>> After arguing that he should have required me to spend several
>>> hundred dollars (as much as to build the trench system) to have
>>> an "engineer" dig a hole, pour water in the hole, and measure how
>>> long it took for the water to drain from the hole, the plumbing
>>> inspector reluctantly signed off on the drainage system.  He was
>>> concerned that the drainage system would create underground
>>> rivers.  A side benefit of that drainage system was an excemption
>>> from the do-nothing bureaucratic monthly "storm water management"
>>> fee added to everyone else's water/sewer bills.
>>>
>>> In HEAVY rain in that area, it was not uncommon to see rain water
>>> pouring _OUT_ of gopher holes just a little downhill from the
>>> gopher holes into which rain water was entering.
>>
>>     Not even gonna inquire WHY you would buy property
>>     that was in a 'pit' .......
>>
>>     Really NO good way to deal with run-off and even
>>     ordinary water uses in a 'pit'.
> 
> In this case, the "pit" wasn't deep enough to cause a problem for
> sanitary sewer, just for storm sewer.  The sanitary sewer was 13
> feet deep at the street, and there was an existing house a couple
> of feet lower in elevation than the one I had built, so sanitary
> sewer was known to be okay.

   Ah ... a RELATIVE 'pit'.

   Still not so great alas.

   There are some good reasons anyone with $$$ wants
   to build up on a hill-side, beyond the 'elite
   overlord' factor. The Prime Elite in the area
   get the hill-TOP and everyone else gets their
   shit in the water supply  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91346

On 2026-09-13, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

>    There are some good reasons anyone with $$$ wants
>    to build up on a hill-side, beyond the 'elite
>    overlord' factor. The Prime Elite in the area
>    get the hill-TOP and everyone else gets their
>    shit in the water supply  :-)

"Shit flows downhill and payday is Friday."

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91234

On 2026-09-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> Hmmmmm ... HAVE seen weird "shock systems" for
> termites ... once or twice a day placed wires
> will send like a 50,000 volt shock under the
> foundation. Kills or freaks termites and such.
> You could home-build using an automotive ignition
> coil if you wanted. Plenty of diagrams.

Based on my father's experience with an automotive ignition coil
powering an electric fence to keep Bambi's cousins from
devastating the landscaping, I'd advise making sure the coil is
active on a very low duty cycle.  I would think your "once or
twice a day" should suffice if the pulse is less than a second in
duration.  Randomizing the time of the pulse would also make it
less likely anyone nearby would sleuth you out.

As I mentioned some time ago here, my father's experience
included a visit from the FCC.  His fence was wiping out TV and
possibly radio reception for the whole neighborhood.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91260

On 9/10/26 12:06, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2026-09-10, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Hmmmmm ... HAVE seen weird "shock systems" for
>> termites ... once or twice a day placed wires
>> will send like a 50,000 volt shock under the
>> foundation. Kills or freaks termites and such.
>> You could home-build using an automotive ignition
>> coil if you wanted. Plenty of diagrams.
> 
> Based on my father's experience with an automotive ignition coil
> powering an electric fence to keep Bambi's cousins from
> devastating the landscaping, I'd advise making sure the coil is
> active on a very low duty cycle.  I would think your "once or
> twice a day" should suffice if the pulse is less than a second in
> duration.  Randomizing the time of the pulse would also make it
> less likely anyone nearby would sleuth you out.
> 
> As I mentioned some time ago here, my father's experience
> included a visit from the FCC.  His fence was wiping out TV and
> possibly radio reception for the whole neighborhood.

   The older electric fence systems used a mechanical
   'vibrator' to make and break the circuit to the
   coil - basically like an old automotive 'points'
   ignition. The little sparks could cause huge RF
   effects - and a long long fence would be a large
   large antenna  :-)

   MIGHT impringe on the VLF/ELF range the military
   uses to talk to submarines. That WOULD piss 'em
   off considerably.

   Electronic switching is 'quieter'. Plenty of detailed
   diagrams on the net - build yer own.

   The anti-termite approach I read about did not require
   frequent or long power applications. Indeed two times
   a day, maybe as little as one second, will damage the
   termites. The wire should be buried maybe an inch below
   the slab line so the current conducts just under the
   slab, not IN it. In SOME high-organic soils that dry
   out periodically, there MIGHT be a slight fire hazard.

   Anyway, you can't GET the GOOD insecticides anymore.
   Didn't even realize Chlorodane was being phased out
   and only bought a tiny container "on sale" - DAMN !
   There MAY be alts for SOME critters, boron salts maybe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91236

On 9/9/2026 22:22, c186282 wrote:
> My existing house is OLD ... no longer really
> trust the electric or plumbing or foundation
> and I think there's a carpenter ant infestation
> but can't FIND it.
> 
> HAVE a spare, smaller, lot.
> 
> Regs mean I'd have to kind of build AROUND the
> existing trees - remember the house of Odysseus ? -
> but there are several good reasons to put the new
> house UP on piers, not just a dirt mound.
> 
> Only need like 24 inches. Greatly reduces bug
> issues AND all the underfloor works can be GOT
> at easily in the future.
> 
> Not looking for anything major - a 1:1 or maybe
> 2:1.5 retirement house. "Generous enough" but not
> super large or expensive. WILL want to add an
> eventual wheelchair lift to the front door though.
> Legs ain't getting any better dontchaknow.
Surely, the most cost-effective is to put up a double-wide manufactured 
home. Modern materials are not termite-prone.
Why would you not do that?
-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web