Hello Everyone, @orgmacdonald : I am glad your problem was solved, as I suspected it was caused by the basic sites on the hydroton which have now been neutralized. This is a very common problem with this type of expanded clays which is increased when they are stored for long periods. For the past two weeks I did measurements of basic sites and surface area of a similar product to confirm this, as I suspected basic sites increase with storage time as a consequence of oxygen presence (storage in an enriched oxygen atmosphere increases basic site regeneration rate). The fizz, as the rep mentioned, should a consequence of the decomposition of the surfactant you used which degrades as he mentioned not a product of carbonate reaction as this would have been observed earlier - upon acid addition - as james mentioned. @lucas : I do not wish to make a part of the argument currently being carried out (side-tracking this topic) but I do think I must encourage you - without any offense intended - to look at how you are negatively contributing to this forum. Calling names and initiating such pointless arguments does not benefit anyone and in fact removes any possible intellectual benefit people may take from discussion that may be carried out here. Instead of putting the blame on others you should review the discussions you have participated in and how this has affected their quality and their point. Provocation and personal discussions do not belong in technical forums, especially when helping others deal with problems. So - for the sake of discussion - I invite you to become less offensive and more geared towards listening and helping. I do not mean to offend or lecture you in anyway but I encourage you to participate in a more productive manner :o) I will however refrain from commenting any further as this is just an opinion I want to give, not something I want to make this topic about. Best Regards, Daniel

Our capacity to understand the long history of life on earth is limited by our relatively short life span, and very short recorded history. If by the "period of modern human history" you mean the last 10,000 years or so, then the list of what would be considered "native" to North America is much longer than it is now, and would include organisms like the Proboscidea and Camelidae. Ten thousand years of history for one primate species is minuscule compared to 3.5 billion years of life on this planet, and is still an arbitrary and meaningless demarcation. Most floras have been written in the past 100 years, are generally incomplete, and only tell us the species occuring in an area at that time. Still useful information, but is more akin to a photograph, and gives the false impression that the flora of that region is somehow static and unchanging, when in reality it is constantly changing and dynamic.

Once more I must agree with Christopher. Land prices, construction prices, laws, regulations, permits, etc. vary widely state to state, and sometimes even county to county, or city to city. Similarly, stick built, modular, and manufactured homes all vary considerably in price, quality, and finance-ableness. Does anyone remember the movie "The Money Pit"? If I remember correctly, it starred Tom Hanks and Shelly Long. The comedy revolved around the trope of a naive couple who think they're getting a killer deal on a beautiful home--a stick built home. But once they move in, the house starts falling apart and they have to sink more and more money into it. It's funny because it's true--most of us, if we haven't experienced it ourselves, know someone who has. In the last stick built home I bought, in 1995, I think it was, we had multiple problems after moving in. I was cleaning a bathroom one day and my son started pounding on the door yelling, "Mom, it's raining in my bedroom!" Turned out there was a length of pipe completely missing! None of the roller drawers worked correctly. The sprinklers in the front yard watered the sidewalk rather than the grass (the contractor put in the front yard as part of the purchase price). And about ten more things. We had to sue the contractor to make him fix it all. That, along with holding back $2,000 in escrow, was the only way to get him to make things right, and that's the only reason we didn't end up with a "money pit." My point is, no one can state categorically that one type of home is always better than another. There are examples of very shoddy homes in all three types of houses, and there are examples of beautifully built houses in each. People buy manufactured homes for many reasons. I see in this thread that some people only see it as a stepping stone to a "real house" as one poster called it. Many people who are retiring sell their stick builts and buy a manufactured home for several reasons: they can pay cash for the MH and have money left over to travel or to live on. A smaller home needs less maintenance. If they put it in a 55+ park, the park may take care of the lawn. And some seniors enjoy the social activities of such a park. Where I live, in eastern Washington state, MHs indeed have been going UP in value. This is because wages are low, and unemployment is high. Many people can't afford a stick built, thus demand has risen dramatically for MHs, even used ones in a park. And when demand rises, prices do too. I bought my MH because of my somewhat unique situation. I bought a junker, an old 1979 SW for $2,000 cash. Over the next three years or so I'm going to sink around $30,000 into it and refurbish it from top to bottom. I have an academic grant whereby I get several thousand dollars three times a year. So I'll do a major project three times a year and pay for it with cash. I'll continue to live within my means on my fairly meagar income. My house will be beautiful and strong and will last at least fifty more years. I don't care about getting my money out of it, because I'm going to live in it for the rest of my life and then leave it to my daughter. I liked the advice from bus_driver. The OP actually DID ask for his advice, not in the original post, but in a follow-up. He laid out his monthly budget, then asked, "How am I supposed to save money on this budget?" Therefore, it was entirely appropriate for him to respond to the question that was directed to him. He, and a couple of other respondents were correct in stating that he (along with a substantial number of Americans) need to increase income and decrease expenses. I've never had a car loan. I drive a 1999 Ford Windstar minivan. I will drive it until it drops. Then I'll buy another car for cash. And drive it until it drops. I currently live in a house on my university's campus with eight other women. My rent is $365 per month. And I don't buy stuff. I buy food, gas, toiletries, and medication, and things necessary for my work. I rarely buy clothes--I haven't bought new clothes in the last 15 months. And when I do buy clothes, 90% of it is from thrift shops. I have to buy special shoes due to my disability, but I wear them for a very long time. I go out to eat maybe three or four times a year, and I never, ever buy fast food. I don't have cable TV (or a TV). My daughter and I go to a movie on Christmas. But if you think my life is squalid and empty, you're wrong. My university has tons of lectures, concerts, dance performances, athletic events, etc., that I can get free tickets to. In the last couple of years, I've seen Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Dahli Lama, Jane Goodall, President of Liberia, Mrs. Greenleaf Sirloff, and David Brooks, among others. I've been to champion basketball games, and musical performances, plays, etc., that would knock your socks off. And I recently returned from a year in Zambia, where the experience of another culture was life-changing. Universities all over charge the public nominal fees for outstanding events and performances. And many cities have science centres, museums of history, and other events that are free or low cost. When Neil DeGrasse Tyson had his mini-series a couple of years ago, our local science centre hosted a viewing each week, followed by a short lecture and Q&A session with scientists who are experts in whatever the theme of the show was--and it was free. Check out your local high schools for plays and musicals; okay, they may not be up to Broadway standards, but they are still a lot of fun for a fraction of the cost. And don't overlook your public library! Besides being able to check out everything from the latest bestsellers to very technical stuff, you can check out movies, use the Internet for free, and print stuff out for free (at my library I can print out 75 pages a week free!). They also often have free events of all kinds. My point is, you can save a lot of money but still have a lot of fun and interesting things to do. I recently read that 75% of American families eat out at least three times a week. That's fine if you have no debt and the income to do that and still save money. But that is not the case for most people. And the worst part of it is that most of them put it on a credit card! I don't believe in credit cards. If you only make the minimum payment every month, you could end up paying $500 for that $70 dinner! i have tons of great friends and we get together all the time. We just don't do it at restaurants. I can cook at least 25 meals for my friends for the cost of taking them out once. And we go out, but to the types of events listed above. And back to the OP's original question. Mobile/manufactured homes are a little tougher to finance, especially older ones, for all the reasons other posters have delineated. But the OP's problem isn't that MHs are somewhat difficult to finance. His problem is no one will finance him for anything other than a vehicle because of his current (or current at the time of his OP) financial situation. A poor credit rating and his debt to income ratio, and not having anything to put down on it, are the triple whammy. I would advise him, and anyone in his situation, to take a second job if possible, trade in the truck and buy something for cash, and get his credit rating up over time. I don't live in SoCal, so I don't know if his rent is reasonable, but if he could find something even $100 a month cheaper, that's still safe, I'd advise him to do that too. Anyway, these are things that have worked for me. Each person's situation is unique, and I recognise that some things that work for me may not work for you. And you may have some money saving ideas I haven't thought of. I would not presume to tell anyone how they should spend their money. I have no moral judgement on that--spend it however you want, as long as you adequately provide for your children. I'm only saying, in response to the OP, if your goal is to buy your own house, then this is the advice I would give you, or anyone else who asked. You are perfectly free to take it or leave it with no offence whatsoever taken on my part. And, of course, many buyers of MHs are far more well off financially than I am, although everyone has to live within her or his means. And everyone should have a savings account, in my personal opinion. But not all MH owners or want to be owners have the limited resources I have, and more power to them! I'm definitely not trying to perpetuate the myth, and it is a myth, that all MH owners live in poverty. That is certainly not the case! In fact, I would dare say the majority of MH owners are in the middle to upper middle class, and some are in the upper class.

All I can say is wow! I found the right discussion, or should I say debate, on concrete vs fiberglass. It looks like I may be a few years behind, but perhaps people are still willing to bring this conversation back..? As a background, I came here looking for a good discussion on which type of pool to look for in buying a new home in northern KY, or maybe which type of pool to avoid. I just moved here from FL and the last two homes I’ve lived in had traditional concrete pools. In fact in FL, it really wasn’t much of a discussion to have. It was very rare that I saw a pool that was anything other than concrete. I’ve seen many high quality pools in the time I was in FL and for some reason I can’t find many homes that seem to compare here in KY. Just so everyone knows, Im not trying to defend what I am biased towards given my history of purchases, which would be concrete, I simply am trying to reignite the debate to perhaps better understand the reasons why someone would lean towards buying a home with a pool of any specific construction? Or perhaps the answer would be, the pool construction type would Not influence the purchaser either way? Keep in mind, this topic is for buying a home with an existing pool, not to build a new pool, which I completely understand would change many opinions just on the purchase cost alone. There are a few topics I would like to comment on, given I have owned and maintained pools and hot tubs for close to 15 years now. For one, it seems that a handful of folks believe the chemistry is drastically different for pool types where fiberglass is said to be “impervious” to pool chemicals. I Strongly believe this is false and the folks who have debated otherwise have not convinced me with what seem to be opinions, not facts. Sure, concrete as a material is not 100% impervious because it absorbs, which is partly why it needs to be surfaced/sealed. I can also see how surface texture could influence things a bit. You could maybe even argue that concrete’s heat coefficient could influence surface temperature and in turn cause further issues, but at the end of the day, chemistry is chemistry. If you use a pool daily, the pH levels change, and acid levels needs to be modified. This is caused by chemicals that come from humans, not surf ace materials people. Humans sweat, are often dirty and/or wear lotions, and this causes alkalinity levels to rise. It has nothing to do with surface materials. For textured surfaces, algae is captured and it shows, for slippery surfaces, it goes somewhere else. As for high maintenance and cleaning for concrete pools, I don’t buy this one either. I’ve had times where for months if my previous concrete pool was not used and weather was OK, I had literally no maintenance. I’ve had other times when it was being used often, that I had to test levels and add chemicals daily. In parallel to the concrete pools I’ve had, I have also had concrete spas and fiberglass spas. The material had almost no influence on chemical treatment, only it seemed cleaning was a bit different given texture and openings. Sure the concrete was rougher and when algae formed, it was more difficult to clean. As for the fiberglass spas I’ve had, the algae seemed to find its way further into jets, which caused me to have to scrub even more to clean them. So at the end of the day, it was about the same. The bottom line for me has been, when I find a pool that was made by a good quality concrete installer, the pool not only feels of higher quality, but it looks of higher quality and appears to settle well with the space around it. I’ve seen about 15 homes now with fiberglass pools, and not only do most of them appear to be of lessor quality, but most of them seem to have issues with the materials that were built up around them. For example, in some cases where decking was constructed around the pool, the material has aged and/or is warping. In other cases I’ve seen folks pour concrete around the fiberglass pool (which just feels like a mistake), and in one case I saw differential settlement that caused the surface water to drain between the two which will eventually result in disaster (hence I didn’t buy that house). Is this perhaps just a coincidence of what I’ve seen, or can someone convince me that fiberglass can be better, and I should look for a house with a fiberglass pool..? For now, I feel that I would not only stick with concrete, but would further avoid fiberglass all together.