Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:17:06 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
<001601c869ad$cd376f00$8db24518@your8545fb4e07> |
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Cuyler,
Your explanation makes perfect sense.
I like the rubber band too.
I like it when you get carried away.
][<en
Cuyler Page wrote:
>> They must have felt there was some force in that area that required a
> tensile treatment. What were they trying to hold together?
>
>
> Sorry, I got carried away.
>
> In distant historic times, when drawing that detail for brick veneer
> walls, I assumed the designers thought they had to work against the
> thin veneer bulging or bowing, not stretching. There were always two
> rods spaced well apart, not placed in the centre of the brick, as
> though to work against flex.
>
> The detail was just like what we did all the time with concrete
> block. The recent grad guys I worked for at the beginning of life
> here had little experience with brick until later when giant brick
> became fashionable.
>
> On the other hand, I love your rubber band image for Ken's windowed wall.
>
>
> cp in mbc
> (mbc = modern brick crap)
> --
> 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>
>
>
--
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>
|
|
|