RE: SB: RE: RE: did I miss something???

["David Wagner" <dwagner@sa.kevric.com>]

Rick, you have a very good point, and I can add the ease with which a
structure can be reconfigured generally contributes to its longevity.
I read an anecdote about a stonemason who, every year, knocks down and
rebuilds something in his stone home.  Wow!  I admire this gentleman's
love of stonemasonry, but I think most people would rather work with
something easier to change to meet their needs.  Indeed, I believe a
structure difficult to reconfigure will likely be knocked down and
most of the materials wasted well before it reaches the end of its
service life, and the investment in more durable materials is thereby
wasted.

I didn't mean to alarm anybody with prophesies of doom and decay.  We
know, properly built, a strawbale structure made with limited
resources can last a long time.  What I am trying to understand is how
to most efficiently (in life-cycle resource-use terms) build a
structure within the specific parameters of my individual situation.
To continue Rob Tom's excellent analogy, why should I waste time,
resources, and money on big toothpicks and angelneers to hold up the
bread if it can stand up for itself with a little support from the
meat?  (IMHO, some angelneers are maybe not so smart, or perhaps too
scared, and instead of understanding and working with the sandwich,
limit themselves to working with toothpicks around the sandwich.)

The most important thing we have learned about construction in the
last century is how to make composites to take advantage of the best
properties of individual materials by combining them into a whole new
material.  Without the meat to hold it together, the bread crumples
and folds; without the bread, well, you could just call me Patty.

If the sandwich is not quite strong enough in one way or another, why
build a whole separate toothpick structure to relieve the sandwich of
all load and waste its inherent strength entirely?  It makes far more
sense (at least to me) to integrate just enough toothpicks to
reinforce your sandwich where it's needed.  Does this make any sense?

Respectfully
-David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick & Katy Blanchard [mailto:urbaneagle@cybermesa.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 12:35 PM
> To: strawbale@crest.org
> Subject: Re: SB: RE: RE: did I miss something???
>
>
> David,
>
> >the gradual
> >decay of organic materials which, under ideal conditions can take
> >centuries, but eventually turns everything once living to dust.  I
am
> >thinking of the wrappings of mummies, and parchment so brittle it
> >crumbles if touched; these are usually still in existence
> only because
> >they have been protected from shock and vibration.
>
> Or heat, rain, wild humidity swings, acts of humans and any number
of
> other stuff. If you want to see what will last for the next eon,
> build of stone or fired clay - that's all that's left of other
> civilizations, a few walls and pot shards. But why are you expecting
> your house needs to survive so long? A bit of what we talk about on
> this list is a house that degrades back into natural materials with
a
> lower overall impact on the earth. It is designed to "biodegrade"
> after a century or two. Then your friends in the future can build
> something that suits them on your site.
>
> -Rick-
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to:
>    <strawbale-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>
> or for the digest to:
>    <strawbale-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>
>
> Please send any list administration questions to
> strawbale-owner@crest.org
>
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to:
   <strawbale-unsubscribe@crest.org>

or for the digest to:
   <strawbale-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

Please send any list administration questions to
strawbale-owner@crest.org