Py-
Wow, I thought this thread was dying out, but apparently there is still some
gas in the tank. So OK, I'm going to put aside all the Bernard/French stuff
because I know Ken Uracius has studied all of that and will have a lot to say.
I did want to comment on the educational question of engineers in the US,
though, as I have done a little research on that subject.
First, West Point was not the only US engineering school - Rennselaer
Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY, up the Hudson from West Point, opened in
1825. True, most of the faculty were foreign-trained in engineering. Stephen
van Rennselaer is described as a patrician, with connections to the
construction of the Erie Canal (the other civilian "engineering school",
before RPI). During the War of 1812 he commanded the frontier in Western New
York State, and within his command was an officer by the name of Joseph G.
Totten. After the war Totten ran day-to-day fort construction activities at
Fort Adams and experimented extensively with limes and cements at both Fort
Adams and West Point. In 1838 he became Chief Engineer of the Army Corps of
Engineers, where everything he built was specified as natural cement, in
accordance with the results of his research. RPI engineers went on to build
the canals, ports, railroad systems, water systems, dams, sewer systems and
bridges of the 19th century, and natural cement was a common thread in all of
those specifications.
Second, we do have a record from the US Military Academy in the form of the
Civil Engineering textbooks published in a number of editions during the 19th
Century (I have 6 of them). They certainly speak of lime and hydraulic lime at
length, but generally the latter is referenced in the theoretical sense. When
it comes to the seacoast fortifications, they clearly state that Rosendale
cement was used in their construction. In some editions it is also stated that
hydraulic lime is not produced in the United States, though it was clearly
well-known. This further supports the writings of Gillmore, Cummings and Baker.
As for the accuracy of what is in books of the time, we have to distinguish
between technical books, which are based on clearly presented facts and data
that were subject to challenge, and the sort of faith-based quasi-historical
writing that ][en refers to.
For those of us who have been pursuing this thread of history, however, we do
not have to rely strictly on the writings of the time. Cummings lists several
hundred buildings and structures built with natural cement, at the end of his
book, and the vast majority of these are still standing. Of those buildings
listed, a number have had recent analytical work performed on original
mortars, and we have yet to see one that Cummings reported incorrectly.
A plug: Cummings book, "American Cements" is in reprint and belongs in every
serious conservator's library. It can be ordered at www.americancements.com
Mike E
> ....The Academy at. West Point was the one and only local USA institution
for the training of Engineers and here they relied on the Foreign expertise
of the British, French or the Krauts;
> > ... I would look to West Point or maybe Avery Hall at Columbia for
documentation,
> All the natural cement I have ever found has held up remarkably well; the
weak, sandy mixes of the American South are lime.... hydraulic or otherwise
Py
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- 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
------- End of Original Message -------
--
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>
|
