# underfloor heating causes black mold on skirting boards



## flooringissues (5 Oct 2016)

Hi,

I am moving into a new house soon, and it will have underfloor heating throughout ground floor.
System is water based, pipes embedded in concrete screed.

The builder has told us we can not put down wooden flooring of any type.
The wood acts an insulator and will cause black mold to form on the skirting boards.

He advised us that tile is best, but can even use carpet or vinyl.

I have no experience of UFH systems, but it seems strange to me that carpet is ok to use and wood is not. Especially since both choices have very similar tog values.

Has anyone experience of putting down wooden floors and then having problems with mold forming?


----------



## JohnJay (5 Oct 2016)

I know someone who has UFH on the ground floor of a house built about 6 years now. He has engineered oak floors everywhere except the bathrooms and has solid oak skirting everywhere. No issues with the floors or mould that I am aware of. 

There are lots of articles on google about UFH and wooden floors, for example this one from a large manufacturer of wooden flooring. [broken link removed]


----------



## flooringissues (5 Oct 2016)

That is interesting JohnJay, as builder told us since its a new houes, a3 rating, it's super warm
and that will cause black mold to form quicker than seen in older houses.

I have found a lot of material online about it... but i don't know who to trust.
I go on to one website and it states you can't use hardwood, the next says you can.
Often the websites are sellers or have some interest in pushing their agenda/viewpoint,
so I am not sure I can take them at their word!

Go to a carpet retailer website, and they say carpet is great
go to wood one, and they say wood is fine.

One independent (seemingly) said that wood could be used but had to be very cautious to prevent moisture
damage. i.e. let the subfloor and wood acclimatise over a few weeks. 

So just interested in any real world experience people have had with it.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2016)

Well unfortunately I can call myself something of an expert on black mould, though not in connection with underfloor heating.

"Astonish" mould remover, in a green bottle, wipe off after 5 mins. Once a year, about late January, does it for me

Its really not a big deal.


----------



## flooringissues (5 Oct 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Well unfortunately I can call myself something of an expert on black mould, though not in connection with underfloor heating.
> 
> "Astonish" mould remover, in a green bottle, wipe off after 5 mins. Once a year, about late January, does it for me
> 
> Its really not a big deal.



You have underfloor heating with wood floors? how do you find the heat up times? any noticeable difference with tiled room?


----------



## Leo (6 Oct 2016)

flooringissues said:


> That is interesting JohnJay, as builder told us since its a new houes, a3 rating, it's super warm and that will cause black mold to form quicker than seen in older houses.



Mold grows in spots where condensation forms. Condensation forms as a result of warm moisture laden air coming in contact with a colder surface. If your house is super warm, you won't have too many cold surfaces! If your ventilation is up to scratch, you should be able to keep humidity under control. I'd be worried about a builder giving you that kind of information now. 



flooringissues said:


> I have found a lot of material online about it... but i don't know who to trust.
> I go on to one website and it states you can't use hardwood, the next says you can.



You can certainly use hardwood flooring with underfloor heating. It will act as an insulator as others have said, so it will cost you extra to run. You need to ensure your underfloor heating system can be set to run hotter in the rooms with underfloor heating to compensate. One example calculation from Junckers states that the underfloor heating needs to run at 37.5 degrees in order to achieve a surface temperature of 27 at the floor. See their technical guidance doc [broken link removed].

What is very important is the quality of the product used, and the skills and knowledge of those laying it. With the underfloor heating, there will be significantly more movement in your floor, so all joints will need to accommodate this movement, and you need to be happy that there will be small gaps between boards as they contract. 

Engineered hardwood flooring will be a lot more stable.



flooringissues said:


> One independent (seemingly) said that wood could be used but had to be very cautious to prevent moisture damage. i.e. let the subfloor and wood acclimatise over a few weeks.



Again, any product suitable for use will have guidelines such as the Junckers one above that will state what levels the relative humidity of the building and the flooring need to be at before installation. If the shop can't give you a copy of those, go elsewhere.

You will need to leave the new floors, and the rest of the build to dry completely, again ensuring the RH values are at or below the manufacturers guidelines, this can take weeks or longer in a new house. Then the flooring will need to acclimatise for a time in the room in which it is to be laid. After installation, you will not be able to use the underfloor heating for 2+ weeks, and then it will need to be introduced gradually over a week or so before hitting full temperatures. If the prep isn't done right, you'll end up with a mess that will only be suitable for a skip. So perhaps consider a temporary floor if you can't comfortably hit the humidity levels now and go without heating as required.


----------



## Chris2014 (2 Nov 2016)

Not sure if its any use but i seen a test before where someone stuck down a large square of see through plastic to the ground for a few days and seen if water formed underneath it. This was to test if the room would be suitable for wooden floors.

Apparently it takes 60 days for the moisture to leave the concrete ground so should only be done after that.


----------



## Leo (2 Nov 2016)

Chris2014 said:


> Not sure if its any use but i seen a test before where someone stuck down a large square of see through plastic to the ground for a few days and seen if water formed underneath it. This was to test if the room would be suitable for wooden floors.



That's a handy DIY job, but any decent installer will have a meter that will accurately measure the moisture content.


----------



## dub_nerd (2 Nov 2016)

That builder is talking nonsense. I've had engineered wood floors on top of underfloor heating for more than a decade and have never seen a hint of any mould. Where does he think the moisture to promote mould is supposed to come from?

I agree that you want your floor to acclimatise gradually after installation. However, I totally disagree with a couple of statements made up thread to the effect that "wood is an insulator so your system will be more expensive to run" and "you'll have to set the temperature higher to compensate". Where does one imagine the supposed additional energy goes (assuming one believes in the conservation of energy, the most basic of physical principles)?

What actually happens is that you get a steeper temperature gradient through an insulator. You can easily feel this with UFH wherever you have, say, a mat on the floor. Move the mat and you will feel that the temperature underneath is considerably higher. It's the same water at the same temperature as the rest of the room that is producing that. Remember, it's your thermostat that sets the temperature in the room, so the temperature gradient through your floor covering _has_ to compensate to produce the same room temperature. The temperature gradient just sets the rate of energy release to compensate for the floor covering -- it can't possibly take more energy to heat the same room to the same temperature (unless either the floor covering itself has significant thermal mass, which it doesn't, or your subfloor insulation is deficient).

The warm-up time for wood compared to, say, tiles, _is_ a little longer in order to establish the temperature gradient... but the warm-up time for UFH is abysmal anyway and you should not be using it in the first place if you expect to regularly need instant heat starting from cold.


----------



## Leo (2 Nov 2016)

dub_nerd said:


> However, I totally disagree with a couple of statements made up thread to the effect that "wood is an insulator so your system will be more expensive to run" and "you'll have to set the temperature higher to compensate". Where does one imagine the supposed additional energy goes (assuming one believes in the conservation of energy, the most basic of physical principles)?



Did you go through the Junckers calculations? It's certainly not in their interest to make those claims. The temperature mentioned relates to the temperature of the water in the heating system, not the stat temperatures.


----------



## dub_nerd (2 Nov 2016)

Leo said:


> Did you go through the Junckers calculations? It's certainly not in their interest to make those claims. The temperature mentioned relates to the temperature of the water in the heating system, not the stat temperatures.


Yes, I took a look. All it tells me is that you will get a higher temperature gradient through a more insulating material. That's what I'd expect. Their example uses a fixed energy flux of 70 W/m². That's the _definition_ of your energy usage. The fact that you need a higher temperature gradient to achieve it has no bearing on the energy usage. All it means is that the water flowing through the pipes will lose less energy for a given temperature than a less insulating material -- that's the definition of insulation and is _why_ you need the higher gradient. 70 W/m² is the same energy output regardless.


----------



## Leo (2 Nov 2016)

But you'll also get a higher portion of losses trough the system unless insullation levels are increased, so it will cost more to run, and it will be less responsive, but the latter generally isn't an issue if the house as a whole has a high standard of insulation. There'll be further complications if there are differing flooring materials, especially within a single zone.


----------



## Toledo (2 Nov 2016)

Solution: get a dehumidifier or open the vents in each room to create circulation. Clean the black mould off the skirtings then spray with mould killer. Black mould on skirtings is common in areas upheated especially if the area is not well circulated with air.


----------



## dub_nerd (2 Nov 2016)

Leo said:


> But you'll also get a higher portion of losses trough the system unless insullation levels are increased, so it will cost more to run, and it will be less responsive, but the latter generally isn't an issue if the house as a whole has a high standard of insulation. There'll be further complications if there are differing flooring materials, especially within a single zone.


This is the bit I don't understand. How do you figure that? Those Junckers calculations aim for a given temperature _at the floor surface_. Assuming adequate underfloor insulation (without which UFH wouldn't work at all) the heat losses in your room (through walls, windows etc., being measured in W/m²/K) only depend on that surface temperature. Differing floor materials in different zones make no difference. The thermostatic controls simply ensure that a zone with a more conductive floor material cuts out quicker, giving the same floor surface temperature and same energy flux. As I've said, I've been using UFH for more than a decade, with a mixture of wood and tiled floors, and the temperature stability in all zones is to within a very impressive couple of tenths of a degree.


----------



## Leo (2 Nov 2016)

No insulation is 100% effective, with thermally efficient floor coverings, you will only have small losses via through the sub-floor insulation as the heat generated passes easily through the floor into the room. The higher the insulation value of the floor covering, the higher the percentage of heat energy will be lost through the sub-floor insulation into the ground.

To deliver a set amount of heat energy into the room, the slab will have to be heated to a higher temperature. Initially, this will result in a higher energy use to get it up to temperature, how much more energy this will consume over time will depend on the rate at which this built-up heat energy is being lost at and how often and for how long the heating is running.

If you have very deep/ effective insulation under the floor and very careful attention was given to eliminating thermal bridges during the construction, then losses will be minimised, but you will still have losses.


----------



## dub_nerd (2 Nov 2016)

Leo said:


> No insulation is 100% effective, with thermally efficient floor coverings, you will only have small losses via through the sub-floor insulation as the heat generated passes easily through the floor into the room. The higher the insulation value of the floor covering, the higher the percentage of heat energy will be lost through the sub-floor insulation into the ground.
> 
> To deliver a set amount of heat energy into the room, the slab will have to be heated to a higher temperature. Initially, this will result in a higher energy use to get it up to temperature, how much more energy this will consume over time will depend on the rate at which this built-up heat energy is being lost at and how often and for how long the heating is running.
> 
> If you have very deep/ effective insulation under the floor and very careful attention was given to eliminating thermal bridges during the construction, then losses will be minimised, but you will still have losses.


Note that additional energy to get the floor to temperature is not "wasted" as this will all come out through the floor surface (including during the matching longer cool-down times), minus any additional sub-floor losses.  The rest is undoubtedly true, but it is worth calculating a realistic magnitude of the losses. The Junckers examples linked earlier gave a temperature difference (ΔT) of 4 degrees to overcome the thermal resistance of 14mm boards (similar to what I have) at a normal 50 W/m² output. That rises to 9 degrees with 22mm boards at 70 W/m². As you say, real world effectiveness of underfloor insulation depends on factors like thermal bridging but these can be taken into account (assuming a quality installation) by considering the ratio of floor area to perimeter length. Here are tables for various ratios and thicknesses of Kingspan TF70 insulation: http://www.kingspaninsulation.ie/getattachment/5fdd04b2-e58e-4622-97bb-5861799ab02a/Therma-TF70.aspx and for "Kore Floor": [broken link removed]

Insulation values of 0.2 W/m²K are easily achievable and 0.1 W/m²K is possible. Taking the Junckers figures ranging from ΔT=4K at 50 W/m² to ΔT=9K at 70 W/m², this gives losses ranging from 0.8% to 2.6% compared to a floor covering with _zero_ thermal resistance. Since even porcelain tiles don't have zero resistance, I'd expect the actual differences in running costs to be less than 1% in the real world. That's negligible, especially compared to the real cost factors such as making sure that heating times are synched to your actual needs and not heating zones unnecessarily.


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2016)

The additional energy used to get the slab up to temperature is wasted unless the cool-down time is so long as to maintain the temperature above what it naturally falls back to before the heating is switched on again. 

As you say, a quality installation (of both sub-floor insulation and of all piping runs) minimises losses, but it still stands that it will cost more over time and be less reactive, and anyone considering such flooring should be aware of that.


----------



## dub_nerd (3 Nov 2016)

Leo said:


> The additional energy used to get the slab up to temperature is wasted unless the cool-down time is so long as to maintain the temperature above what it naturally falls back to before the heating is switched on again.


Apart from subfloor losses (which are negligible) that _has_ to happen. Where would the energy go otherwise?


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2016)

It's lost through the insulation, it's impossible to achieve zero losses.


----------



## dub_nerd (3 Nov 2016)

But we established that the losses through the subfloor insulation are negligible.


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2016)

Even the PassivHaus folks admit that they're not!


----------



## dub_nerd (3 Nov 2016)

Yes but they're concerned with _total_ losses. We're only talking about _incremental_ losses caused by having a slightly higher insulation value on top of the slab (hence the *Δ*T's in the calcs). As you said yourself: "The higher the insulation value of the floor covering, the higher the percentage of heat energy will be lost through the sub-floor insulation into the ground." You're correct, but the incremental losses are negligible for wood floors, on the order of 1%.


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2016)

They'll be a little higher as the delta you need to consider for losses via the sub floor insulation is the difference between soil temperature and UFH, which will be about 30 degrees for 5 months of the year.


----------



## dub_nerd (3 Nov 2016)

No! 
We're trying to work out the difference in efficiency between having wooden flooring and something more conductive. We don't care what the total losses are (_those_ will depend on the ground temperature, but we don't care about that). We only care about the _additional_ losses due to raising the temperature for wooden flooring. If you want the whole picture including the soil temperature, then assume that the temperature difference between the UFH and the soil is ΔT₀, and the increased temperature for wood compared to some alternative is ΔT₁, temperatures in Kelvin. The subfloor insulation has a thermal conductivity of _x_ W/m²K. The difference between the _total_ losses for wood and the alternative in W/m² is:







So _only_ the elevation in temperature for wood matters to our calculation (as ΔT₀ cancels out), and the _additional_ losses work out to 1% of the total energy budget.


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2016)

No, what I said was:




Leo said:


> ...with thermally efficient floor coverings, you will only have small losses via through the sub-floor insulation as the heat generated passes easily through the floor into the room. The higher the insulation value of the floor covering, the higher the percentage of heat energy will be lost through the sub-floor insulation into the ground.



It's also not just as simple as basing the calculations on the rate of loss, you have to factor in the effect over the additional time the system needs to be in operation to bring the slab up to the higher temperature.


----------



## dub_nerd (3 Nov 2016)

Yes it really is that simple. At the higher slab temperature, heat will continue to be pushed through the floor for longer after switch-off, so the cool down time is longer. All that happens is that you shift the heating period slightly. (And this is even ignoring the fact that UFH is designed for mostly continuous operation, without large changes in temperature).

In the mean time, the _only_ difference is whatever additional energy goes out through the subfloor, which we already calculated at 1%.

We can bring the figures from Junckers and Kingspan to bear again. According to them, for a 30 K difference between slab and soil, about 90% of the energy you put into your floor comes out the top, and 10% goes out the bottom. (These are the absolute values, not the incremental values I was talking about earlier). Let's just suppose you had to run the heating for an incredible 10% longer to get the slab up to a higher temperature. You would have an additional 1% of losses (10% of 10%). So you have put in 10% more energy, and lost 1% through the subfloor. Where does the additional 9% go? Up through the floor surface! When does it happen? Well our entire calculation is based on a constant energy flux through the floor surface, so the only way it can happen is by extending the cool-down period!


----------



## Leo (3 Nov 2016)

Well, you calculated it! I'm saying I don't agree the calculation takes all factors fully into account.

To get the same heat output through the floor for the length of time you want it, the heat of the slab is going to have to be increased to compensate. I don't see how your calculations factor in the additional losses from the slab to the sub-floor temperature as a result of the a higher differential for a longer time. The calculations need to be over an extended period of time rather than on losses in an instant of time. The thermal resistance of the glue isn't factored in anywhere either, assuming the floor is glued to the slab. Membranes such as Elastilion will have a higher thermal resistance. Elastilions test results show their product just falling within the German guidelines for maximum thermal resistance when testing with a laminated floor panel to a combined thickness of 11.65mm (0.14 (MsqK)/W versus the max of .015). 

There's a reason manufactures recommend UFH pipes are laid more densely where wooden floors are specified.

Another point not considered for the OP is whether the rest of the insulation and air-tightness detail is sufficient that the reduced effective 70W/square metre will meet the heat requirements for the room.


----------



## dub_nerd (4 Nov 2016)

Leo said:


> Well, you calculated it! I'm saying I don't agree the calculation takes all factors fully into account.


I'm more than happy to consider _your_ calculations. 



Leo said:


> To get the same heat output through the floor for the length of time you want it, the heat of the slab is going to have to be increased to compensate. I don't see how your calculations factor in the additional losses from the slab to the sub-floor temperature as a result of the a higher differential for a longer time. The calculations need to be over an extended period of time rather than on losses in an instant of time.


This is a red herring. In the limit, if you heated up once from cold and left the system running forever, any additional time required would average out to zero. If you want to factor in additional heat up time, then you'll have to say how often you're proposing to switch the system on and off from cold. Then you'll also have to factor in a contribution to additional cool-down time. To be honest that's a waste of time in a broad brushstroke calculation. (If you want to propose your own numbers I can easily factor them into the calculation, but in the mean time I'm sticking to my own experience of running one of these systems for a decade, which is that additional heat-up and cool-down time are roughly equal).

We can take an alternative  approach to the calculation, and still get the same results. British standards mandate a maximum total loss through a floor, including all perimeters/cold bridging at 0.25 W/m²K (you can read them [broken link removed]). That's a ten percent loss for a 100W/m²K system running at 40 K above ground temperature. The Kingspan numbers I gave are between 0.1 and 0.2 W/m²K (you'd _expect_ them to be better than the absolute limit specified in the regulations). The increased temperature for wood flooring is between 4 and 9 degrees in all the literature I have looked at (again feel free to provide your own numbers). That is between one tenth and one quarter of the temperature difference between UFH and ground, and since U-values are linear in temperature, means an additional 10% to 25%  losses. Since the maximum losses are already 10%, that gives an additional 1% to 2.5% losses for wood, and the better end of the Kingspan range is only 40% of that (0.1 vs. 0.25 W/m²K), equating to 0.4% to 1% losses. It seems to me you would need some extraordinary parameters to hike that up to something non-negligible but, as I said, feel free to provide your own numbers.



Leo said:


> The thermal resistance of the glue isn't factored in anywhere either, assuming the floor is glued to the slab. Membranes such as Elastilion will have a higher thermal resistance. Elastilions test results show their product just falling within the German guidelines for maximum thermal resistance when testing with a laminated floor panel to a combined thickness of 11.65mm (0.14 (MsqK)/W versus the max of .015).


The figures I gave for the wooden flooring _include_ a soundproofing and moisture barrier layer for a floating installation as well as the boards themselves, which happens to be the sort of system I'm running. Having seen the sheeting go down during construction and being suprised at its thickness I very much doubt it is less insulating than a layer of glue in a fixed installation. You can check the U-values in the link I provided.



Leo said:


> There's a reason manufactures recommend UFH pipes are laid more densely where wooden floors are specified.


None of the ones I checked do.



Leo said:


> Another point not considered for the OP is whether the rest of the insulation and air-tightness detail is sufficient that the reduced effective 70W/square metre will meet the heat requirements for the room.


Not relevant to the efficiency calculation though.


----------



## Leo (4 Nov 2016)

dub_nerd said:


> This is a red herring. In the limit, if you heated up once from cold and left the system running forever, any additional time required would average out to zero. If you want to factor in additional heat up time, then you'll have to say how often you're proposing to switch the system on and off from cold. Then you'll also have to factor in a contribution to additional cool-down time.



I don't think anyone suggested the system would be run forever, though in constantly occupied spaces, this is the most efficient means of operation   provided the system is tuned to prevent the boiler short cycling. In that case you are correct in that you can really ignore that, given it's a one off event whose significance reduces to zero over time. But that's not what I was talking about, and it's not how must people I know run their heating. So you have to factor in increased losses while running at the higher temp, and during the prolonged warm-up time. The prolonged cool-down time would offset those losses to a degree that is dependent on the rate of cooling and any increase in the residual temperature the next time the heating comes on. Again, the more often the heating is used, the more efficient it will be.




dub_nerd said:


> The increased temperature for wood flooring is between 4 and 9 degrees in all the literature I have looked at (again feel free to provide your own numbers).



I provided a link to the Junkers specs which calculates the temp difference as 10.5 degrees for a 14mm clip system. 14mm is their thinnest product, all their others will exceed the max thermal resistance advised by the German guidelines.




dub_nerd said:


> ... and the better end of the Kingspan range is only 40% of that (0.1 vs. 0.25 W/m²K)



If you're exceeding PassivHaus standards, then perhaps you could skip the heating altogether 




dub_nerd said:


> Not relevant to the efficiency calculation though.



Very true, but could be a significant issue if not factored in to the design specs. I pointed it out as the OP's builder has told them they can't use wooden flooring of any type. So perhaps he has cut corners and not installed a system that can deliver the space heat requirements if wooden flooring is used?


----------



## dub_nerd (4 Nov 2016)

Leo said:


> dub_nerd said:
> 
> 
> > ... and the better end of the Kingspan range is only 40% of that (0.1 vs. 0.25 W/m²K), equating to 0.4% to 1% losses.
> ...


You're totally determined to miss the point, so I'll only say it one more time: that is the _incremental_ losses for wooden floors (in response to your original statement that "it will cost you *extra* to run"), not the total losses. It does not exceed PassivHaus standards.



Leo said:


> I provided a link to the Junkers specs which calculates the temp difference as 10.5 degrees for a 14mm clip system. 14mm is their thinnest product, all their others will exceed the max thermal resistance advised by the German guidelines.


No you didn't. Your own quote is: "One example calculation from Junckers states that the underfloor heating needs to run at 37.5 degrees in order to achieve a surface temperature of 27 at the floor." You are assuming that without the wooden surface a water temperature of 27 degrees would produce a floor surface temperature of 27 degrees. With no temperature gradient that would defy the basic laws of physics. You _always_ have to run the water hotter than the floor temp. Your reference is nothing to do with the _incremental_ temperature for wood.



Leo said:


> ...you have to factor in increased losses while running at the higher temp...


Yep, I did that.



Leo said:


> ...and during the prolonged warm-up time


And you've steadfastly not even tried to put a sensible figure on that. Remember even if you got zero additional cool-down time (which is completely alien to my own experience) the additional losses would be 10% (the fraction of heat lost through the subfloor) of the extra percentage of heat-up time. So if you want to claim significant additional losses, say even 5%, you would need 50% additional warm-up time. For instance, you'd need 12 hours extra on a 24 hour warm-up. You'd be a lot better burning your wooden floor for heat at that rate.

My actual real-world experience with a mixture of wooden floors and porcelain tiled floors is that the rooms with wood floors reach a comfortable temperature slightly after the tiled ones, and after switch-off they return to an uncomfortable temperature by about the same amount of time after the tiled ones... which is exactly what the calculations broadly suggest.


----------



## Leo (4 Nov 2016)

dub_nerd said:


> You're totally determined to miss the point, so I'll only say it one more time: that is the _incremental_ losses for wooden floors (in response to your original statement that "it will cost you *extra* to run"), not the total losses.



I've only ever been talking about incremental losses.



dub_nerd said:


> It does not exceed PassivHaus standards.



The PassivHaus standard for floors is 0.15 W/m²K, so the 0.1 you've been referring to from the Kingspan documentation does exceed that.




dub_nerd said:


> No you didn't. Your own quote is: "One example calculation from Junckers states that the underfloor heating needs to run at 37.5 degrees in order to achieve a surface temperature of 27 at the floor." You are assuming that without the wooden surface a water temperature of 27 degrees would produce a floor surface temperature of 27 degrees. With no temperature gradient that would defy the basic laws of physics. You _always_ have to run the water hotter than the floor temp. Your reference is nothing to do with the _incremental_ temperature for wood.



Perhaps I wasn't clear here, but the temperatures referred to are the surface temperature of the concrete to deliver 70 W/m² of heat into the room. 




dub_nerd said:


> And you've steadfastly not even tried to put a sensible figure on that.



Because there's just too many variables. 



dub_nerd said:


> My actual real-world experience with a mixture of wooden floors and porcelain tiled floors is that the rooms with wood floors reach a comfortable temperature slightly after the tiled ones



Which is as you'd expect unless the rooms are fully thermally isolated.


We're never going to agree, and we've lost to OP a long time ago I fear. Have a good weekend.


----------

