BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Yes, we set off an A-bomb but we are really sorry about it.
Date:
Sat, 2 Dec 2006 20:32:03 EST
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1021 bytes) , text/html (1994 bytes)
 
In a message dated 12/2/2006 7:21:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

So, is glazed brick as it is presently made any "better" than the  infamous 
glazed brick of the 1960s?  
 



New glazed brick may be better, but as a man who looks  wise in retrospect 
once said, trust but verify. 
 
One has to check the manufacturer's test reports to find out  whether the 
brick (any brick, but glazed in particular) has a coefficient of  saturation not 
greater than .75, and an initial rate of absorption between 10-20  gm/min/30 
sq. in. 
 
Brick with test results which aren't within those ranges are  unlikely to be 
durable in the NY climate, primarily because the brick soak up  too much 
water, and in the winter the water freezes and there goes the glazed  face.  That's 
typically what happened with 60's glazed brick, as I  remember.   
 
Ralph 

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>




ATOM RSS1 RSS2