Butt glazing refers to glass that does not have a structural support at the vertical edges and the narrow joint between panes is filled with clear sealant to keep out the weather. This kind of glazing system usually uses thick single-pane laminated or tempered glass for strength and for a narrow sightline since that is the point of butt glazing. Butt glazing of double-pane glass exposes to view the interior seal in each pane of glass. When the seal is exposed to the weather in a corner joint a small mullion (tube or angle) is usually used and sealant is added between the mullion and the glass. This is technically "structural glazing" although the mullion may not be offering much support so it could be considered a form of butt glazing. Most residential window manufacturers have made a glass corner window at one time but I don't know of any that still make them except as a custom order. The Marvin Custom Shop will make anything.

Congratulations! It looks like a fantastic property :) When buying a new home, especially a first home, it is best to move in first before making changes. It is amazing how much living in the space for a while (six to 12 months) gives you a different approach to what you want to change. Try it, at least for a few months. BTW, love the live edge table. Be aware that scale is important. It is easy to buy furniture of any type that is too large so make sure to keep your dimensions with you so you don't make a purchase that is too large for the space.

No worries Anne, your post title was asking about interpretation of terms, and that's what we are after. I apologize because my initial response was way too cryptic and didn't really give you the information that you needed to help make a decision. And I am going to get technical and long-winded...sorry for that, but I think it's important here to do so....so here goes The China quote is 11.52mm glass plus 12mm pvb plus 6mm glass. This isn't really possible (I will try to explain why as this gets longer), but - 7/16 seems to be 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16 - is correct and makes perfect sense. However I am going to suggest that the 7/16" laminated glass as you wrote it isn't what you were actually quoted. Also not sure if you have a preference for using metric or english since T&C uses both, but I will be using both somewhat interchangeably because that's how it's done in glass/window industry (weird I know!). But I believe that it will help to clear up some confusion (hopefully), or maybe make it worse (I hope not!). First quote: 11.52mm Clear + 12A + 6mm Clear Laminated This looks like a quote for an IG unit, not like a quote for a single monolithic laminated lite. First, no one makes 11.52 glass thickness or 12mm pvb and while on first glance as written, it does appear that the 6mm is laminated and 11.52 is clear glass, that makes no sense (see previous comment), so I am assuming the 11.52 as laminated and 6mm as monolithic float. As I mentioned earlier, your statement that 7/16 seems to be 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16, is correct and in fact that is an excellent make-up for an impact lite. Since 7/16" converts to 11.11mm, which is thinner than the 11.52mm from the quote, why doesn't 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16 equal 11.52? In North America glass is floated (manufactured) using metric for glass thickness. The metric thicknesses are commonly replaced by their english equivalents in general usage, often by the window companies who use the glass, 3mm as 1/8", 4mm as 5/32", 5mm as 3/16", 6mm as 1/4"...so on. And while 3/16" is commonly referred to as fractional equivalent of 5mm, 3/16" is actually 4.76mm and not 5mm. Typical glass thicknesses used in residential applications in North America include 2.3mm, 3.0mm, 3.9mm, 4.7mm 5.7mm, and window companies (and glass folks) in North America often do refer to 3/16' and 4.7 as 5mm in general usage, while in other parts of the world, including China, glass is manufactured as 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, and 6mm. Since 4.7mm doesn't actually measure 5mm it's not allowed to be exported to either Europe or China as 5mm. So should "7/16 seems to be 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16" be calculated as 5mm / .090pvb / 5mm or as 4.7mm / .090 pvb / 4.7mm? That will depend on where the glass came from and what was originally specified. Metric equivalent of .090" pvb is 2.28mm, no variation, so using all metric means 5.0 + 2.28 + 5.0mm = 12.28mm while 4.7 + 2.28 + 4.7 = 11.68mm, both are close but slightly thicker than 11.52mm, so which one is this the actual make-up? Here's the rub, in China 5mm is 5mm (actual 5mm is also made in USA and that glass can be exported as 5mm), not 4.7, so if glass is 5mm + 5mm total, then 11.52 allows for only 1.52mm interlayer thickness not 2.28mm (.090) and it happens that 1.52mm is equivalent to .060". (See quote 2). I am suggesting that the first quote was actually for 5mm / .060" pvb / 5mm not .090 pvb. This make-up is not suitable for your application. It will not pass impact cycle requirements of either MDCA (large missile) or ASTM 1996 (missile level C, D or E). Second quote: 5mm Low E +1.52pvb+5mm+1.52pvb+5mm half tempered glass, clear This make-up is not standard and honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. There is no reason that i can think of for the middle lite in the laminated package, i fact they probably would have been much better off simply bonding the two .060" interlayers together as a single sheet of .120" and going with that. Unless for some reason they wanted to make the overall unit 5mm thicker by adding a third sheet of glass in the middle of their laminated sandwich, I would consider that the middle lite isn't necessary or particularly desirable for any reason i can think of. Also and my personal opinion is that a 5mm / .120" pvb / 5mm would be stronger than the make-up in the quote (and .090" pvb is usually (not always) adequate), so I can only assume that they are guessing at what should work...and the first quote would not. Also and please remember (and i can't over emphasize this enough)...the glass is only part of the equation. Keeping the glass secure in the hole in your wall is vital and you need to be dealing with someone who actually knows how to make this work. And all this is why I said that I wouldn't use either quote. I hope it's helpful.

>>>"But they are phasing out the coil electric stoves plus they ruined the burners by making it a law that manufacturers had to add a safety feature where there is a big button in the middle of the coil that if you lift the pot off the burner it shuts off. LOL OMGosh, does anyone even test these ideas before they require a whole industry to use these poor design decisions?"<<< A couple of clarifications/additions. Lest anybody mis-interpret what Prairiemoon said about, "phasing out the coil electric stoves" --- that is not a law or government regulation and I didn't read her post as saying otherwise. But, to be clear, the phasing-out is the result of marketing decisions and diminished demand for new coil burner appliances. Not surprising that demand would diminish when coil burners are often perceived as bottom tier products and are now being manufactured accordingly with factories making them ever-more cheaply. The mandate for the "big button in the middle of the coil" is a requirement created by UL and not a government regulation or law. UL was known for a century and something as Underwriters Laboratories. It has been calling itself "UL" since converting from a non-profit entity to a for profit corporation about a decade ago. It was originally created to serve property insurance companies --- hence the name "Underwriters" Labs Since 2018, UL has been requiring (as a condition for UL certification) that current coil burner appliances have a sensor system to limit cooking pot temps. IIRC, the limit is to 450°F. When the sensor/button registers the bottom of the pan going above 450°, it temporarily suspends burner power until the pan bottom's temp drops back below the limit. For as long as I can remember, radiant-electric (glass-top) ranges have been using sensors under the glass to more or less do the same thing but without actually touching the pot. The UL requirement has, AFAIK, simply mandated similar overheat-limitation systems for post-2018 coil- burners. FWIW, this is not just a "new tech" annoyance that nobody has tested before. GE calls its current coil-burner sensor system "Sensi-Temp" which was the name it used when temperature limiting was offered it as a "feature" on some some of the coil-burner-ranges it made in the 1960s and 1970s. (Maybe into the 1980s, too?). I remember replacing the Sensi-temp sensor for a friend who had inherited a vintage 1975 GE 40-nch-wide 4 burner GE coil burner range. My recollection is that only one burner on that stove had the Sensi-Temp feature. So, now it has become a safety mandate for all burners rather than a feature on one burner. :-) Anyway, I've seen plenty of complaints about system malfunctions, but never, until now, run across anything about the sensors shutting off a coil burner when a pan is removed. Now, maybe there is a new requirement for "shuts-off-completely- whenever-the-pan-is-removed" coil burner and my quick internet search just didn't turn it up. If somebody has better information, can you point me to it? FWIW, all that turned up on "shuts-off-completely- whenever-the-pan-is-removed" behavior was about inexpensive portable induction cooktops rather than coil burners. There, the behavior is a function of the cheap control electronics. Better quality induction appliances give you anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes (depending on brand and model) in which to replace the pan without having to restart the burner. Haven't found anything about that applying to coil burners.