|
Post by rock on Apr 27, 2021 12:44:55 GMT
Ceiling fans are pretty low consumers of energy and do help keep cooling and even heating costs down. I just hear this from the electric company but you can probably find studies.
Yeah, you should always shut off the breaker supplying power for the fan or other hardwired electrical appliance you're working on. You don't need to kill power for the entire place...unless you only have one breaker.
I find removing the blades first makes it easier to handle the motor section. Once you unfasten the ceiling cover/cup thing and slide it down, you'll see how it's wired in and suspended. From there it's just a matter of disconnecting the wires (put the wire nuts back on the building side of the wires) and removing the fan.
Yeah, looking at youtubes will probably show you the variety of mounting schemes...but they are all pretty straight-forward.
|
|
tommy
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by tommy on Apr 27, 2021 15:18:47 GMT
Unless you want to join the invisible choir, I definitely recommend turning off the power at the fuse panel. Turn on the fan and the light if it has one and then turn off breakers until they go off. It is pretty straight forward after that. An outlet plate from Home Depot or Lowes will cover the hole.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 28, 2021 9:18:28 GMT
Thanks, gentlemen.
|
|
tommy
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by tommy on Apr 28, 2021 13:13:25 GMT
I plan on building two corner "super chunk" base traps. I had planned cutting OC703 or Roxul 60 2x4s in half and cutting those into triangles. The resulting super chunk would be 8' tall and roughly 24" x 24" x 31."
Since it will be thick in some parts and mostly thin, would I be better off with traditional pink stuff attic insulation or the OC or Roxul?
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 29, 2021 5:30:25 GMT
I don't think so. I have fluffy ones of the same dimensions but I'm pretty sure rigid performs better in this application. The downside is cost and weight. That said, these also work pretty well; most probably better than regular panels.
Actually, if you have the wherewithal to dig through Acoustic Analysis For Drunks, I'm pretty sure I have a slide which shows my current room with no absorption vs. with just the 9 (half-sized) super chunks (4.5 full-sized ones). I think it's in the part where I'm just talking about my room but that could be part 1 or part 3; I forget. Suffice it to say, they're worth having.
Making them, on the other hand, wasn't easy. I used metal drywall bead, rivets and tie wire to make them. The main trouble was drilling a somewhat flimsy frame. At some point, I bought a hole punch and that made the work about 100x easier. The tie wire is hard on the hands but you have to separate the fluffy layers. If I was to do it again, I think I'd use a metal mesh instead and attach it some other way.
Remember that you can put FRK on the face of any panel including these. It's easier to remember that than remove the fabric after you've attached it. You may also opt to create a frame to which you can attach a fabric facing. That, in turn, can be affixed to the chunk's frame with velcro, snaps or even magnets. This would make it easily removable in case you want to change or wash the fabric.
|
|
|
Post by rock on Apr 29, 2021 13:13:28 GMT
Regarding Super Chunks, this may be obvious but I'll mention it anyway: If you're not planning on moving soon or ever, you can just stack your rigid in the corner then frame your fabric panel and attach it across the corner. If you feel the need to stabilize the stack (uneven floor, earthquakes, etc.) you can attach a cross member or two (wood, aluminum, wire etc.) across the corner.
Additionally, if you see compression of the lower panels as a problem, cross members can also be attached across the corner centered under the panels to support the load.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 19:37:48 GMT
I plan on building two corner "super chunk" base traps. I had planned cutting OC703 or Roxul 60 2x4s in half and cutting those into triangles. The resulting super chunk would be 8' tall and roughly 24" x 24" x 31." Since it will be thick in some parts and mostly thin, would I be better off with traditional pink stuff attic insulation or the OC or Roxul? 24inch or 31 depth? Don't use rigid on that, rigid is just bass reflector.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 30, 2021 7:50:08 GMT
I plan on building two corner "super chunk" base traps. I had planned cutting OC703 or Roxul 60 2x4s in half and cutting those into triangles. The resulting super chunk would be 8' tall and roughly 24" x 24" x 31." Since it will be thick in some parts and mostly thin, would I be better off with traditional pink stuff attic insulation or the OC or Roxul? 24inch or 31 depth? Don't use rigid on that, rigid is just bass reflector. Is it? How come when I put panels in my room, decay time - even in the bass range - decreases?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 9:13:57 GMT
24inch or 31 depth? Don't use rigid on that, rigid is just bass reflector. Is it? How come when I put panels in my room, decay time - even in the bass range - decreases? Quick look at the most simplest porous calculator, will tell you that. There is of course in rigid panel, the membrane effect, at least when in shallow depths.. How the rigid should be used.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on May 1, 2021 14:14:02 GMT
Ok. Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying. That said, my chunks of identical dimensions measure just 15" from apex to face in depth. The sides are 23" but the fluffy material inside is a bit less. Even then, that length is just a point - the depth immediately decreases.
What I'm saying is that, although rigid might be reflective to some degree above 8", much of the wedge has less depth. In fact, I was thinking about a super chunk design with rigid 'wings' and a fluffy core. That might be the best compromise but I have yet to make it.
I want to add that frictional absorbers are incident dependent. There's going to be some reflection or other non-absorption no matter what. This isn't a rear wall stacked deep with fluffy batts. This is a wedge-shaped object in the corners.
I'd like to see measurements of both chunk types. Actually, I think I have but don't have the link handy. I'll hypothesize, aside from possibly already seeing evidence, that rigid super chunks will perform better than fluffy ones at the size, shape and positioning of chunk we're discussing.
If anyone wants to post that information, I'll be happy to be wrong. Fluffy chunks are lighter and cheaper. Somehow I doubt they're more effective absorbers, though.
One more addition: I'm open to crowdfunding this research. Either I can make the panels and test or someone else can; maybe even with better measuring equipment. A quick internet search reveals many posts of people who don't know sharing their foggy concepts with other people who don't know. Insulation is expensive plus this kind of experiment is bound to produce an unwanted surplus of absorbers. If it weren't for that, I'd do it right now.
|
|