Here is a look at two different bathrooms with the same Schluter Transition. The first photo is the room I'm working on. The tile was installed first with the Schluter profile. I asked the flooring guys to keep a 1/16" - 1/8" away from the profile and left out some shims for them. Prior to them showing up I floated out the floors a little so the floor would not need to be shimmed to the tile edging. Same home different crew. The Marble tile was kept a ways off the schluter profile and grouted. No prep for the floor guys. They used wood shims to bend the hardwood when it was glued down. The millwork guys did a crap job and left a huge gap between the baseboards and the flooring. The tile was in first. Then the wood. Then the baseboard. Not very pretty. Down town at my other job I just installed eight large tiles to the bathroom floor and used a tile edging from Butech for the transition between the new Russian Oak flooring and the Italian Porcelain tile. Butech is a Spanish company owned by Porcelansona. The profile is wider and not made from aluminium but rather chrome plated brass. The tile to wood seam looks best when the change is under the door. Look below in this photo and you see how I undercut the door jamb so both wood and tile could fit under it. This makes it look like the door was set after the tile was done not the other way round. The blue thing is a 1/16" spacer. The Butech profile was first set with some Ardex X32. Just a couple pieces I snapped off from a horse shaped original shim. The profile is 1/2" tall so I will have only 1/8" of thin set under the tile right at this point. I then cut and shaped the tile to keep a tight grout joint at the profile. The gap between the tile edging and wood will see a wood wax later. Need to make a shopping run to Mohawk Finishing here in Vancouver first. The Butech profile's Chrome each and wider profile give it some sparkle. The chrome really picks up the light. Greater care is needed with these profiles since they are chrome plated brass. Schluter makes a nice stainless version but the edges are not fully square. The most durable edge would have to be some custom made flat bar stainless steel but for $85.00 I really like the added sparkle of the Butech edge.

So many issues for a shower. It's really helpful to hear the thinking through others have done. I am revising my plans and spotted the Schulter 21" niche, which is a good size. Two tier. Partition wall is 29" wide. It's prefab so the draining angle should be built in. We don't use pumps as the nozzles dry out and they annoy me. But we both have different products so I agree -- the bigger the better. I also felt teak bench would work and not be fixed. Also not cold, slippery or uncomfortable when wet. I have some Turkish hammam towels which are not terry and really work well to throw over a bench if needed. Warmly Yours also can be used to heat a bench, however. Trying to keep this shower basic and adaptable. The niche placement idea is a big help although it would be on the left vs right and slightly behind. The footrest bar is terrific. Thank you @Avanti! Also needing to figure placement of grab bars. Will post photos of the elevations when I finish.

opaone opined. I think there is a fairly direct relationship between the baffle area, CFM's and noise. More CFMs for a given set of baffles (and constant baffle area) will increase baffle turbulence noise. However, baffle noise (generally a hiss sound) is not dominant unless a silencer is used with a remote blower. Otherwise, blower blade turbulence noise can be expected to dominate at the flow rates needed when cooking with hot pans (grease or oil near the smoke point). The larger the baffles the less the noise for any given CFM. I assume though that likewise the larger the baffle/CFM the less grease is removed? Two things are happening here. First, if the flow velocity near the baffles is not high enough, rising effluent will reflect from baffle surfaces and potentially escape from the hood aperture. Second, if the velocity in the baffles is not high enough, grease particles from the larger end of the particle spectrum will not be collected as well as they should be, causing them to pass into the ducting where they may condense on the duct surfaces. @Kaseki, do you know if there are any guidelines for baffle design/size/CFM for proper residue removal? Certainly those in the business of designing hoods and baffles will have design rules they use. I haven't come across any specific baffle design guidelines, but hood guidelines for use of particular baffles exist for those sources that produce baffles for commercial uses. Below are links to two example baffle (systems) with their pressure characteristics. (Links may need to be copied and inserted into one's browser.) http://productadmin.componenthardware.com/pdfRepository/repositoryFiles/20120906_025437_type%20i_product%20info_11-2011.pdf http://productadmin.componenthardware.com/pdfRepository/repositoryFiles/20120906_025211_type%20ii_product%20info_11-2011.pdf Baffles are going to be relatively simple on residential baffle arrays, and may have been experimentally tested and revised before production to yield decent effectiveness at minimal production cost. Are there trade-offs to that 90 CFM per sq ft aperture? EG, what happens if it's only 75 CFM? My simplifications are intended to avoid the extreme complexity of a problem space that can best be analyzed by computational fluid dynamics (CFD). What we have is a plume extent that has a shape, and associated with that shape is a velocity profile. The velocity changes with height and angle. When this plume enters the flow field close to the baffles, a lot of possible flow effects can happen, depending on the plume momentum and baffle details. There are also the tapered sides of the hood to consider as well as flat surfaces around the baffles. Picking the worst case plume velocity (~1.2 m/s) and demanding it be met by the baffle air velocity at the baffle gaps, and treating the plume shape (relatively bi-variate Gaussian) as a 10-degree constant velocity expanding cone for capture analysis seem to be adequate assumptions to avoid having readers later whine that their hoods were inadequate. 90 ft/min averaged over the aperture is just one of those approximations where the reality is that cooler cooking will require less, hence induction will require less than gas cooking due to lack of entrained hot gas combustion products in the plume, and in some cases will require more, except that the hood typically extends beyond some parts of any given plume thereby aiding containment of some momentum-degraded sideways drifting effluent near the baffles. Further, the overall air flow has some small capture influence beyond the edges of the hood entrance aperture, particularly for the lower velocity portions of the higher angle plume portions, and the overall flow over the cooking surface tends to move air toward the hood which also has some influence farther down for low velocity effluent. So, for many cases 75 CFM/sq.ft. may be adequate. Below is a copy of a table providing recommended updraft velocities for different cooking devices taken from one of the most useful of on-line sources, the Greenheck guide available at: http://www.greenheck.com/media/pdf/otherinfo/KVSApplDesign_catalog.pdf Note that this is for a 4-ft x 9-ft commercial hood probably 7 ft above the floor. Also note that there are various factors involved in using these numbers that may be found in the accompanying text. And of particular interest to me is that "wok" is listed with the "extra-heavy" category. This is probably applicable to Asian restaurant wok burners providing 100k - 200k BTU/hr gas jets. For residential wok cooking, the plume effects from the burner will be much less, but the temperature at the wok surface may be similar -- meaning that some parts of the plume velocities may be similar. So where should a residential wok be located in the table? I have induction for both cooktop and wok hob, and roughly 90 CFM/sq. ft. maximum air flow rate into my Wolf Pro Island hood, mounted at 34-inches over a peninsula, and it does a pretty good capture and containment job. Wall mount instead of island mount, gentle cooking instead of grilling or wokking, induction instead of gas, and other factors such as no cross drafts or an oversized hood may allow lower specific flow rates to be adequate relative to the table or others' experiences. Further, the reality is that for the most affordable MUA schemes, the inherent pressure loss will degrade the hood flow rate beyond that due to just duct and baffle pressure losses. So the renovator's task when contemplating 90 CFM/sq.ft. is to divine the degree to which my conservatism is overkill in the context of the entire ventilation system, kitchen layout, and cooking style, and design accordingly. kas

This is very encouraging. We've waited a long time to remodel our bathroom and it' s totally gutted and we saved up awhile for the remodel . We want it done right. Luckily there was only one tiny place,where there might have been a very small leak ( which we quickly detected and fixed) years ago and no ongoing water damage. With the shower being so old, we held our breath about that. I'.m Impressed that even the shower niche is integrated into the Schluter water-proof system. It's going to take awhile to finish this bathroom because there's necessary time for curing etc. But we see progress every day. Here's the "before" or, more accurately, the " right now" for the shower. Everything will be fixed and there's a lot to fix, This is actually a very large, handicap accessible shower,sized to accommodate a wheelchair. It looks much smaller now that the old tile is down, no idea why.