Possumblog

Alrighty, then.

If you are laying a laminate floor, how should you orient the block pattern? Along the length of a rectangular room or toward the door to the room?

Wood flooring patterning is really a matter of personal choice, mine being that if the room is rectangular, and the flooring is made up of narrow strips of planking, it usually looks better if the lengths run parallel to the long axis of the room, rather than across it. If the room is more nearly square, it can look better if the lengths run perpendicular to a doorway, in that it leads your eye into the room.

Many home stores now have computer programs that will allow you to better visualize the variety of orientations that could be installed in your room.

We will start this week on the "de-carpeting" of the Gore household.

We are starting with the back bedroom, which is rectangular, but in the next few years hope to do the two others, in the same product, and they are more nearly square.

I'd think it's given that the orientation should be the same in all three, as they open off the same hall within a ten foot distance.

In that case, I would suggest running the lengths of plank down the hallway, and allowing that pattern to flow into the rooms. Otherwise, you will have a perpendicular transition at every threshold, which can look particularly busy if you have several doors near each other. The other alternative is to use a wide threshold piece at each doorway of a different, contrasting wood. A wide walnut or cherry board stained dark can be an interesting way to transition to different orientation of planks.

I'm a big fan of thresholds. If you ever need to sand or refinish you have a natural stopping place and you don't have to redo all the flooring.

Here is what we're talking about.

The hall, yea, the rest of the house, except for the porch, is in the parquet.

Yes, there must be thresholds.

And the match is much better when you view the plank inside the rooms.

Apropos of very little: The Norolk Virginan-Pilot/Ledger-Star once ran an article on flooring where 'parquet' was spelled 'parkay' throughout.

OOOOohhhh--Dr. Possum 'assumed,' and we all know what that does.

I thought you were taking up the carpet and putting new laminate down over subflooring, not realizing there was parquet already down.

Therefore, the best solution is to do whatever is the least expensive way of getting it done. In a corollary of Occam's Razor that I call "Occam's Circular Saw," when doing house projects of this sort, the easiest solution is best.

¿Por que?

No, no, no.

We are putting the laminate over the subflooring in the bedrooms.

The parquet lives on in the rest of the house.

And I like, rilly, rilly need to mop.

Not to make this a race to the bottom, but I bet I need to mop more than you do, Janis.

Ahhh--the picture becomes less cloudy. Ish.

SO, best I can tell, the laminate will go in the three bedrooms, which all empty onto a common hallway, which itself then runs smack dab into a point where there is a parkway. IN THAT CASE, I would still run the new laminate in the hallway so that it runs lengthwise, and from there on into each room in the same orientation. THEN at the point where the hallway meets the other flooring, put up a margarine of a different material to provide a full stop.

And by golly, if there is going to be a race for the bottom, what better place than here?!

No, no. The hallway will remain in the parquet.

But, I do believe we have answered the question. My instinct was to run the planks parallel to the hallway.

So, thank you, Dr. Possum.

Now, let me go spend some money on something other than Honda repairs. (Which would, in fact, have done a second bedroom.)

Here is the hallway. The parquet stays. Only the bedrooms will change.

Welcome to my home. Bathroom's the first door on the right.

Ahem. Here is the hallway.

I FINALLY think I understand. Gee, it's hard being a doctor.

Anyway, I now understand it's only in the bedrooms where you are installing your new flooring. I still think parallel to the hallway works.

Have you ever considered carpet? ::dodges flying hammer::

Carpet is the more elegant solution, but it is so hard to keep and never really clean.

And Jordana, I am not 8 months preggers. There are no excuses for my lassitude.

But, you ARE a lass.

Did someone say Parkay? The flavor says "butter!"?!? More like treated plasticizer.

Not to change the subject or nuttin' (beating a dead floor), but what is your opinion Dr. Possum(mechanic) of the split cycle engine?

The general idea of a split-cycle engine has been around for a century, but none have ever matched the efficiency of traditional engines. Scuderi believed he could solve the problem by pumping highly pressurized air from the compression cylinder into the combustion chamber, and then allowing the fuel and air to ignite when the head of the piston was already moving away from the top of the combustion cylinder.

Fascinating. It supposedly will double gas mileage and belches out only a fraction of the pollution. Yes, belch.

It's an interesting idea, but it seems the theory--introducing ultra high pressure air into the powered cylinder to atomize the fuel more completely so that it burns more completely--could be implemented with a bit less reliance on additional drivetrain complexity.

One thing that had me baffled was the thing that said they also had a Diesel model. I'm not sure how that could be, since Diesels use the high temperature caused by compression to ignite the fuel, and the highest compression takes place when the piston is at TDC. The way this engine is described, though, combustion takes place several degrees ATDC. I'm not clear how this would occur in a Diesel engine.

I read a short blurb on Motor Trend, and they seem impressed by the fact that the DoD gave the company 1.2 million bucks to do further research. Big whoop. The Pentagon craps a mil every second, and spreads it on all sorts of research stuff that might be dubious science.

The proof is in building a real model and installing it in a vehicle. They can talk all they want but without proof of concept, it's all just talk. Or a way to excite investors. Or maybe get some automaker to license or buy out their research.

In any case, there are lots of different theoretically superior ways to make a piston go up and down, but the plain old 2- or 4-stroke cycle is the one that continues to be most workable from a cost/benefit standpoint.

Oh, and I forgot about something I stumbled on a few months ago--the odd little Twingle engine. Two pistons, one combustion chamber are just a couple of the similarities, although one difference is that Puch actually made quite a few of them and they actually worked. After a fashion.

I would think the split cycle could be made a bit less complex by having the cylinders aligned with the crankshaft, rather than perpendicular to it.

The timing of compressing air, mixing with fuel and injecting based on the cylinder position seems to have an effect on fuel efficiency. The company that can take advantage of that would have a big market advantage.

Yes, the DoD does tend to crap alot of our tax dollars around, but sometimes seeds have to be spread out a long ways in order to find fertile soil. For the researchers to have the computer models done and show positive results and Southwest Research Institute making the prototypes indicate that this is more than a Wankel (or is it Wankle?).

Actually, not even a Wankel at this point, in that the rotary has been up and running in cars for 40 years. (Beginning with the NSU Ro 80.) And, in fact, it's not even up there with the Miller-cycle engine Mazda installed with a few years back, which uses a variation of the compression timing.

It shows a lot of promise, so there's nothing wrong with seeing what it can do. If we can see what it will do. Right now, I would put it just slightly behind the Orbital engine--which is licensed to Ford, although they haven't been able to get it to work well in an automotive environment. (I.e., it's a conspiracy)

I'm feeling somewhat faint. A string of Ask Dr. P that actually provides useful, thought-provoking, and rational answers.

I think I'd better go lie down.

Well, sometimes we do have accidental releases of useful information. We are in the process of cleaning up the spill right now.

I watched the installation instructions for the floor on DVD this afternoon.

They suggest installing parallel to the major source of light in the room, and running the length of a rectangular room.

Of course, in my case, these conflict.

Surely they mean "and/or"--you don't usually see long rectangular rooms with a window (major source of light) at one end--it's more likely that they'd have one or two on the long wall. So don't listen to them if it gives you trouble. Listen to Dr. Possum, who will let you do whatever you want to do, as long as you speak kindly of him to your friends.