Page 12

Post your comments and notes on the Summit Draft right here.
johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Page 12

Postby johnleeke » August 28th, 2011, 6:13 pm

Steve writes:
>>I don't think the collaborative should be telling anyone to use this method or that. I don't think we need to mention any kind of removal method.<<

These Standard are definitely voluntary. (Check out the bottom of page 5 and top of page 6 of the Summit draft.)
The Standards will not be telling anyone to use a specific method. It will be providing a whole "catalog" or "menu" of methods that can be used, but it is always up to each individual to decide what methods will be used. In fact, for many types of window work (say, strengthening a weak sash joint, or glazing a sash), there may be a few or even several methods included in the Standards. Take your pick. (The significant advantage for all of us practicing tradespeople writing the Standards is that each of us has the chance to include the methods we use, so each of us will be able to say, "I follow the National Window Preservation Standards." Pretty cool, eh?)

>>I think we should only be promoting our industry and not any other item or product, generally or specifically.<<

The purpose of the Standards is not to promote our industry. It is more specific that that. It is to promote best practices that we use to work on windows.

Specific products will never be mentioned in the Standards. However, there will be generic descriptions of materials, tools, equipment, etc. For example, "paint removal with infra-red heat lamp" might be included in a list of paint removal methods, but the SpeedHeater or Silent Paint Remover would never be printed in the Standards. (It is OK to mention specific products here on the Forum for purposes of discussion.)

I think we do have to include something about the various paint and putty removal methods, because some may require certain methods for best work, and some are definitely not appropriate, such as caustic chemical paint removal from sashes, sills, frames and exterior casings.
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com

sschoberg
Posts: 49
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 9:43 pm

Re: Page 12

Postby sschoberg » August 31st, 2011, 8:22 am

John

One of the problems with your explanation is that you've already decided to exclude one process of paint removal and even to (if I'm reading right) putting chemical stripping in a no no category. There are probably some restorers using this method. I know of at least two and they sware by it.
My point is much care needs to be taken to not promote one procedure over another. I know you can accomplish this in your writing. I just don't want specification for a project to read "paint removal must be done by steam cabinet."

As far as whether or not the intention of these standards are promoting the restoration of original windows they will. It depends on how you look on them. Preservation people may very well not see them as promotion but as education. As a contractor I view them in two way---clarification for specification on volume projects and equally so is they will promote or bring added attention to our industry.

Steve S
Schoberg Restorations Inc

johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Page 12

Postby johnleeke » August 31st, 2011, 9:25 am

This discussion is good--highly productive to get where we need to be for the standards.

Chemical paint removal is definitely included as a broad category of paint removal. I use it myself for a few situations with a few early failures and some solid long-term good results. If you know of a couple of window specialists who are using it with success, then perhaps we can draw them into this discussion and the standards project so their methods can be a part of it.

Above I am saying that there is a specific problem with a particular type of chemicals, caustic, or alkaline chemicals, such as caustic soda, particularly when they are used on sash with a "dip strip" method. The chemicals get into all joints, cannot be neutralized, and then after glazing and painting they creep back out and damage the paint at the joint letting in moisture, and then in some extreme cases have begun eating away the lignin component of the wood, with "brown ooze" seeping out. I know of at least three cases where the "brown ooze" was so pervasive and extreme the only solution to the problem was to remove the sash and make new ones.

Solvent chemicals, such as MEK and others, don't have this problem. I have used solvent chemicals with some success, for example, cleaning out sash tracks. I have helped solved some deglazing problems with solvent paint removal and deglazing of sash, in two cases. Both had failure of the paint at every joint of every sash inside and out after two years. The sash were dip stripped, glass removed, cleaned up, then glazed and painted. Quite a bit of solvent was left in the joints, and it came out to damage all the paint right at the joints, which is just where the most protection from the weather is needed. The solution in both cases was to deglaze again (with a different method), completely remove all the paint, re-glaze and re-paint. It's possible that dip stripping sash with solvents could work, if the sash can be left bare wood for a period of several weeks so the solvent can work it's way out of the joints. (Not every project or shop can wait for several weeks.) So, solvent chemicals can be used with some methods, but they cause problems with other methods.

Some uses of some chemicals work well, and some uses of some chemicals don't work well. This is why I think we need to give people some guidance in the use of chemical paint removal methods and materials.

Any one is welcome to join this discussion and help us sort it out.
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com

johnleeke
Posts: 375
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Re: Page 12

Postby johnleeke » August 31st, 2011, 11:19 am

Steve writes:
>>I don't think the collaborative should be telling anyone to use this method or that. I don't think we need to mention any kind of [paint] removal method. <<

This is an important topic.

The collaborative is not telling anyone to use a specific method or material. It is always up to the window specialist, to decide what methods to use. The window specialist can use any methods, whether or not the method is a part of the Standards.

In fact, the collaborative is being very careful to NOT tell anyone what to do. There will be hundreds of methods (well, maybe 100 to 150 to start in this first edition) described to chose from. In case of some window work items, there may be a few or several different methods to choose from. In any case, the window specialist can always decide to use a method that is not specifically described in standards, and still be working within the Standards because the Standards have a class of treatment called "Exception" that provides for the exceptional case, the repair method that is better than anything in the Standards, or the method that is so new it has not be included in the Standards.

What the collaborative is doing is documenting what has been done to windows that has been proven to work well. If the documentation is done well enough, then a window specialist with an appropriate skill and knowledge level can use the same method and materials and expect to get a similar result.

For example: If a certain method and materials is used to weatherize a window, then the air infiltration will be reduced by a certain amount. This air infiltration reduction can be achieve by anyone who uses the same method and materials.

For example: If a weak sash joint needs to be strengthened, there are many ways the work can be done. We all know that some ways are costly and have a long life (replace the whole stile and rail, or replace just the broken tenon), and some ways are cheap and no good (fill the decay pocket with goop (caulking compound) and paint over it). A standard could be written for each of the three (or more) most common and best ways to repair sash joints. I don't think we have to bother writing a standard for the gooper method and then tell people to not use it.

One of the keys here is to get knowledgeable and skilled people on the job. This is certainly one thing we WILL be promoting with the Standards. And, maybe we could even write a standard for that. Even if we don't write a standard for it, we will be showing people doing good work throughout the book, mainly in the photos. We have to do this because our window work is NOT about products, it is about the act of creating effective treatments and repairs, which can only be done by skillful and knowledgeable workers. This is why we have to show methods, it's during the method that the act of creation happens. And creation is something that the replacement window manufacturers cannot do.

To illustrate the Standards we need photos of people doing good work. Send you photos showing hands, tools and windows under repair:

Image

Send your photos showing competent people doing good work:

Image

and even people who enjoy their creative window work:

Image
John
Standards Co-Founder
Standards Editor

http://www.HistoricHomeWorks.com


Return to “Summit Draft Comments”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest