You did an amazing job - I think most pool builders could learn a thing or two from what you have accomplished here. As someone who has plumbed hundreds of pools with similar configurations I just want to provide you with a little bit of insight into your underground plumbing chase. While it is clear that you took a ton of care to have a clean raceway to run the lines it, you made a few key errors that anyone looking to reproduce your results should avoid. In the areas where you have needed to raise one pipe over another you used double 45's to create a saddle. While this is the right choice from a system efficiency and friction loss standpoint, having underground 45's like that can be a problem. You will not be able to sufficiently compact under the saddle and as a result the top pipe will sink over time as the ground settles. Even a tiny movement of the pipe with rigid lines can cause a failure - and the 45 saddle is a weak point for a failure. As much as having back to back 90 fittings is bad, they are able to take the compression of ground movement better than an unsupported 45. Again, amazing job...just want to lend some experience. One more thing worth mentioning is that when you have a pipe penetration through the shell it can be a good idea to 90 down immediately. If the rigid pipe comes straight out, again it has to endure the force of the ground settling around it. By turning the pipe down with a 90 you do increase the friction losses in he system but relieve this leverage point which is a known failure point in swimming pool design. I hope this info is helpful!

Sounds like a pretty typical inspection report for a home built in 1930. Seems to me that this wanna be buyer doesn't have a clue about old homes and thinks they are being cute by posting this report. For a price in the ballpark of 150,000-165,000, I'd think this is a very fine house!

Regarding earlier posts, I can't do 42" or even 39" cabinets really. I have 58.5" to work with. I don't think 1.5" of crown would look very good. I'm open to other opinions but I think 4.5" would fit the house much better and look much better proportion. I want to go as tall as possible, but I think 36" would look best in this case. 1) It sounds like most are against L-shape if not doing cabinets on other side of vent hood. I do have a preference there too but wife doesn't so it is helpful to hear others' thoughts so we cna make a decision. Neither of us feels super strongly, but there seems to be a consensus here. 2-3) We wouldn't do a light rail. I think ours are called full overlay, but I thought even with full overlay there is often a little bit of cabinet showing at the bottom of the uppers? But now that you question it, you may be right. I was looking at this example: Which is not full overlay, so that may have been where I was wrong. If we DID do lighting and there wasn't space under the cabinet, I wouldn't add a light rail, but would add space under the cabinet and a flush light rail and extend the doors past the flush light rail so it would look full overlay and you would open the doors but the shelf wouldn't start until a little higher up. I've seen this quite a bit here and it looks good. So for us the questions are still 1) L-shape? and 2) under-cab lighting? We also would like to do white subway tile instead of our 4" backsplash but that's another expense we may save for later (or never). This post was edited by adam211 on Wed, Sep 3, 14 at 12:40

The reason why most recessed lighting do not go beyond 45 - 60 degrees is due to the use of BR or PAR lamps (Led BR/ PAR lamps included) in an attempt to get more light out of the can. LED lamps such as the Cree CR/ LR series, Sylvania RT, Glimpse (& other flush mounts) tend to have more light spillage since they do not rely on a focussing reflector (such as a parabolic reflector). Since LED emitters can be extremely intense and are more directional than either incandescent or fluorescents, they are hidden behind a translucent shade which also serves as a diffuser. For accurate calculations, you will need to use the photometric data for the lamp (which depends on the vendor) in a lighting application. If you want a quick way to estimate, use the lumens per area method to calculate the max number. This assumes a diffuse distribution. eg - 20 lumens per sq ft * 100 = 2000. Assuming nominal output of 500 lumens you get 2000/500 = 4 lamps Then based on the configuration of the room (use, layout, other lighting sources) , the lights can be placed where they would be most needed.