What type of insulation, to your eyes?

[david shapiro]

The yellow looks like fiberglas; what's your guess about the gray and the white?http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35227&stc=1http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35227&stc=1http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35227&stc=1

[Jerry Peck]

David, no photo is showing?

[david shapiro]

Sorry, Jerry. Getting a cryptic http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35228&stc=1error code when I select "paste inline."

[Jerry Peck]

Aha!

"cryptic http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35228&stc=1error code"

I got that a few times when trying to upload photos from my phone. I finally figured out that "what it was not telling me" was 'hey, you,yeah, you, didn't you read where it said 1200x1200 max size'?

I figured that out when I got back to my computer and finally looked at the size of the photo, then I reduced its size (but I messed up and accidently still had something like 1202 or something for one size, and received that "cryptic http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35228&stc=1error code" again).

After further checking I caught the "over" 1200 size error, fixed it to 1200, and the photos posted properly.

Check to see if that is your problem - maximum photo size is 1200x1200, and it does not want 1201 either.

[david shapiro]

Aha!

"cryptic http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35228&stc=1error code"

I got that a few times when trying to upload photos from my phone. I finally figured out that "what it was not telling me" was 'hey, you,yeah, you, didn't you read where it said 1200x1200 max size'?

I figured that out when I got back to my computer and finally looked at the size of the photo, then I reduced its size (but I messed up and accidently still had something like 1202 or something for one size, and received that "cryptic http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35228&stc=1error code" again).

After further checking I caught the "over" 1200 size error, fixed it to 1200, and the photos posted properly.

Check to see if that is your problem - maximum photo size is 1200x1200, and it does not want 1201 either.


Could be! I didn't think it would upload if it were too large, but apparently it uploaded and simply refused to attach. I've taken a selection; if it's too small now for clarity, I can take another shot at trimming the original.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35229&stc=1

[Jerry Peck]

Instead of taking a section, can you just resize the entire image to max 1200 x whatever?

[david shapiro]

Instead of taking a section, can you just resize the entire image to max 1200 x whatever?

Here's a different shot of the same attic areahttp://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35230&stc=1, trimmed less and resized.

Nope, new error message, despite the resize. Ain't worth further bother.

[Gunnar Alquist]

David,

All I see is white, no grey.

Like Jerry said (wrote?), there is a size limit for pics and the error message is not specific. The website used to say what size was acceptable, but I don't see sizing anymore. From past experimentation, I have found that 668 kb is too large, but 224 kb is fine. I don't know the exact size limits, but 1200x1600 is too large and 800x600 works.

The white substance in the fuzzy image that I see looks like fiberglass. How old is the house? In past experience, I have been told that some of the loose-fill grey might be rock wool. I did a quick search for rock wool as well as rockwool and I did not find loose-fill, just semi-rigid batt, but some sources do indicate that it is available as a loose-fill.

So basically, I don't know.

[Jerry Peck]

David, here is a free online resizer: https://www.adobe.com/express/feature/image/resize

It is from Adobe, so if Adobe is trusted for the other things they do, their image resizer should also be safe.

I use on of my image programs which can convert, resize, rename, edit, etc.

I just tried the online Adobe free resizing and it is easy ... but it wants ... insists ... that you set up an account to download your resized photo. The only drawback I have with some of those, and this one did it, is that some want your birthday (so they can document that 'you said' you are over 18 or whatever age they have set, so ... I put in January 1900 ... and it was accepted.

When uploading the photo, for "Resize", select "Custom"; it shows the size of the photo you uploaded, which in my test was 4000 x 3000, type 1200 where the largest number is, click off to the white space and the other side is automatically set to the same ratio (in my test, the 4000 x 3000 became 1200 x 900); click download (that is where you will get the set up/open your account message).

Worked quite easy and well - and your full size photo (not cropped) fits the required 1200 maximum size.

And now I also have a free account to resize photos online with Adobe. :cool:

[david shapiro]

Shoot, Gunnar, I'll try one more time with the better picture. It wa resized to 1200 by 837. 157 bytes.

Nope, it won't attach. Does this image, ahead of the title, under Attachments, mean it was interdicted, and if so, anything about why? Any why, given that obviously I'm logged in, I'm seeing that message about "Important: you need to register to view images"?

Could there be something verboten in the title, "attic free live bx in insulation.jpg"?

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/attach/jpg.gif

[Jerry Peck]

Could there be something verboten in the title, "attic free live bx in insulation.jpg"?

Possibly.

Rename your file to attic_free_live_bx_in_insulation.jpg

If that doesn't work, shorten the name.

Curious why it is not uploading.

If that doesn't work, email the file to me and I'll try to figure out why it isn't uploading or showing.

[david shapiro]

Possibly.

Rename your file to attic_free_live_bx_in_insulation.jpg

If that doesn't work, shorten the name.

Curious why it is not uploading.

If that doesn't work, email the file to me and I'll try to figure out why it isn't uploading or showing.

I think I got it. File sizes seem to be measured variously. When I tried to upload it, it was marked as 157 bytes. When I tried attaching it to email, it read as 330 kB, well over the limit, despite being 1200 px by 840 or whatever. http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/attachment.php?attachmentid=35233&stc=1

[Gunnar Alquist]

David,

Ok, now what was your question again? :confused:

The grey looks like what I have been told was "mineral wool" and sometimes "rock wool" (although "Rockwool" appears to be a brand name. Apparently, it can be made from a variety of substances, including slag, rock, glass, etc. The yellow looks like fiberglass (wasn't CertainTeed fiberglass colored yellow?) and the white also looks like fiberglass.

The frustrating thing about internet searches is that when I look for stuff like that, I often get "OMG, Asbestos" sites that show pics of cellulose, fiberglass, mineral wool, vermiculite, and asbestos without any specific labels. Not helpful.

Be aware, I am a general home inspector and not an insulation or asbestos professional and I cannot say for sure. Obviously, the best bet would be to send a sample in for testing.

Really interesting image shape, by the way. How did you do that?

[david shapiro]

Really interesting image shape, by the way. How did you do that?

Freehand cr*p. Used Gimp.

It seems odd to me, but not all that unusual, to find multiple flavors of insulation in the same area.

My concern isn't what one should tell a HO about hazards but what precautions are judicious for an inspector to take.

I'm even less of an expert on insulation types than most of you, but it doesn't have the flaky look, it is not particles, so my gut call is lung irritant, wear a decent mask, maybe coveralls, rather than supplied-air respirator and tyvek or a discardable outer layer.

[Jerry Peck]

Rockwool (aka 'mineral wool') is very expensive ... v-e-r-y e-x-p-e-n-s-i-v-e ... compared to fiberglass and is typically used for fireblocking purposes.

That said, "fiberglass" insulation is "technically" a "mineral wool" insulation, so be carefull when a specification calls out for "mineral wool" when it most likely means "rock wool".

While the gray stuff sort of has the color of rockwool insulation, that gray stuff looks more like dirty white fiberglass insulation (although it is difficult to tell from the focus around the edges of the photo cropping where it mostly is).

I have only seen rock wool, in batts, used fire fireblocking or in walls for fireblocking.

Loose fill rock wool? That indeed may be a different animal than what I've seen.

[Gunnar Alquist]

It seems odd to me, but not all that unusual, to find multiple flavors of insulation in the same area.

Agreed. I see multiple types as well. Seems acceptable to add insulation as needed rather than remove what is already there, unless there is a problem with the current insulation.


My concern isn't what one should tell a HO about hazards but what precautions are judicious for an inspector to take.

I'm even less of an expert on insulation types than most of you, but it doesn't have the flaky look, it is not particles, so my gut call is lung irritant, wear a decent mask, maybe coveralls, rather than supplied-air respirator and tyvek or a discardable outer layer.

If buried in insulation, I don't get in an attic. If I can see the framing where I am walking, I do. Personally, I don't wear any specific clothing because I don't plan on rolling around in it.

There are some nifty masks out there that are low-profile and easy to keep nearby. Not intending on selling you anything specific, but I just began using these for woodworking and keep one for attics as well. Although, I am unsure as to what an "F1 filter" is. I use a double-filter half mask with P-100 filters for foundation crawlspaces though. The documentation indicates it is similar to an N-95. RZ Mask (https://rzmask.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA1sucBhDgARIsAFoytUsy0mvVu4lFLzeSOrC 9BfG4WiAS1cFd6aKH6NvGLefKbyhy8UjZTWMaAhcgEALw_wcB)

(Added with edit)
I finally found a little more information on the RZ Mask filters. Turns out they are not NIOSH rated, so the F1 designation is most likely their attempt at making the filter seem rated. They do claim that theirs will filter to 0.1 micron, which is comparable to an N95 (0.1-0.3 micron).

Is the testing legitimate? I dunno.