Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
And I'd guessed that you'd guessed, but I dont like to disappoint. :wink:
- Thread starter robgil
- Start date
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
I guessed that.Flyfisher said:
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Penners said:
Penners said:
Hawking? Surely you mean quarks, not quirks? :roll:
Penners said:
According to SWMBO, I like to disappoint.... I can't imagine what she means...
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,201
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Poetic licence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu7Qqmqp3dgFamilyWiggs said:
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
FamilyWiggs said:
Er... that was sort of the joke, FW. It's called a "play on words", you see.
:roll:
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Ah - I struggle with even cracker jokes...
I think they need to get a room.
If i may go back on topic for one or two seconds?
I shall get some photos up of my attempt to repair this wall then guys over the next week or two when i get the courage to endure the cold down stairs, but also ive got some interesting pics from Middi and he has been kind enough to allow me to post them up, but first ive got to go and do the dishes.
If i may go back on topic for one or two seconds?
I shall get some photos up of my attempt to repair this wall then guys over the next week or two when i get the courage to endure the cold down stairs, but also ive got some interesting pics from Middi and he has been kind enough to allow me to post them up, but first ive got to go and do the dishes.
Right then , i hope i dont have to go to this extent to repair my frame but i fear doing the front aspect of the cottage will be challenging (i am really quietly looking forward to it ).
anyhow some of Middi's pics, you might have to right click on the photo and go to 'view image'.
).anyhow some of Middi's pics, you might have to right click on the photo and go to 'view image'.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
I assure you, Middi - if I were to translate that conversation into Italian, you still wouldn't have the slightest idea what I was saying. Such is the quality of my Italian.middi said:
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Those are great! They bring back happy memories of my very first (and most radical) PP repair - a C15th cottage in north Essex. I reckon about 20% of the studs and corner posts in the whole building still reached the sole plate - which was itself simply a squidgy line of oak sludge. I reckon only the cement render was holding the place up. This was in the 1970's.robgil said:
The interesting aspect of the job was that the CO insisted I should use old, reclaimed oak to insert replacement beams. Not exactly "honest", eh?
I think i am in the same boat Penners with the front of this house, wont know until i take a closer look.
Right then , this is where i am at now with my wonky wall.
It looks like the floor levels in the rest of the house might have been lowered to give more head room. The floor in the cross entrance hall was lowered and possibly undermined the wall. There are traces of a flint foundation but its mostly all gone, there are one or two tudor bricks thrown in there but its mostly clay.
This is what i think has happened, you might have to right click on the photo and go to 'view image'.
View attachment 1
and this is how i propose to make good,
What do you think guys? It might be over kill but due to the lowered floor level and me having to remove the concrete floors to lay quarry tiles or floor bricks i dont think i have a choice, unless i just leave all the clay in there then put a lime plaster/mortar over it to seal it , i am afraid though if i lift the concrete floor in the hallway it will de-stabilise the wall even further.
Right then , this is where i am at now with my wonky wall.
It looks like the floor levels in the rest of the house might have been lowered to give more head room. The floor in the cross entrance hall was lowered and possibly undermined the wall. There are traces of a flint foundation but its mostly all gone, there are one or two tudor bricks thrown in there but its mostly clay.
This is what i think has happened, you might have to right click on the photo and go to 'view image'.
View attachment 1
and this is how i propose to make good,
What do you think guys? It might be over kill but due to the lowered floor level and me having to remove the concrete floors to lay quarry tiles or floor bricks i dont think i have a choice, unless i just leave all the clay in there then put a lime plaster/mortar over it to seal it , i am afraid though if i lift the concrete floor in the hallway it will de-stabilise the wall even further.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
If you're going to be rebuilding the brick plinth anyway, I think I would insert a DPC between the top course of bricks and the sole plate. This could help to reduce any future rotting.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
I don't see how moisture could get trapped on top (always assuming that the sole plate is exposed). Surely the timber would tend to dry out, wouldn't it?
Its a bad idea if its external as rain can pool on the dpc. It has its pro's and cons i guess in this situation but to be honest i dont see the need, with a breathable floor either side and it being an internal wall it should stay nice and dry anyway, i doubt any moisture would make it that far up the wall and if it did there would be something seriously wrong as there would be a lot of water down there.
Inserting a dpc under a sole plate is a bad idea ONLY if you are unable to totally guaranty that no water will gain access from exterior walls, ie; if the ext walls are porous therefore breatheable the dpc will act as a barrier to the water seaping onto the dpc and will accumulate above the dpc and directly under the sole plate , result --speeded up plate decay-
There is nothing wrong in inserting dpc or dpm in an old timber building provided it is done in such a manner that YOU are in totall control of the damp and carried out in such a way that other parts of the building structure are not compromised by YOUR interference with breatheability in other areas of the structure. Damp barriers in old buildings, if correctly done, will extend their life, barriers that are inserted " willy nilly" here and there whilst doing odd repairs will only result in accumulating and transfering damp from one section of build to another.
In Rob's case It would be no point in inserting Dpc in an external wall if these are porous. It may be possible to insert a dpc in an INTERNAL wall as this is not affected by external weather but only by any internal moisture, if the floors are of a breatheable nature I dont see much point in inserting a dpc internally either.
As to removing the cement slab Rob, this has been inserted after the building was built therefore I cannot see a problem with you removing it and stabilising the sole plinth wall.
Middi
There is nothing wrong in inserting dpc or dpm in an old timber building provided it is done in such a manner that YOU are in totall control of the damp and carried out in such a way that other parts of the building structure are not compromised by YOUR interference with breatheability in other areas of the structure. Damp barriers in old buildings, if correctly done, will extend their life, barriers that are inserted " willy nilly" here and there whilst doing odd repairs will only result in accumulating and transfering damp from one section of build to another.
In Rob's case It would be no point in inserting Dpc in an external wall if these are porous. It may be possible to insert a dpc in an INTERNAL wall as this is not affected by external weather but only by any internal moisture, if the floors are of a breatheable nature I dont see much point in inserting a dpc internally either.
As to removing the cement slab Rob, this has been inserted after the building was built therefore I cannot see a problem with you removing it and stabilising the sole plinth wall.
Middi
There is room for just two courses of brick under there Middi so its not really a foundation as such, more just something for the plate to rest on so hopefully i wont be putting anything in there that will add too much strength to the frame and it should settle ok over time.
To laborate more on my last post.
If ( as in many examples up and down the country) someone wants to restore and protect an historic timber building, first and foremost one has to evaluate how much of the original external fabric is still apparent. The chances are that very, very few of these are left exept those that have been regularly looked after and regular and immediate repairs have been carried out in the past. One will find no evidence of dpm's or dpc's in these buildings.
Most usual though, is where buildings have succumbed to poor maintainance, bad repairs and removal ( or part removal) of the original exterior fabric. These being replaced gradually over time with mixtures of " modern" and easily available materials at the time, the result of this intervention has resulted , in most cases, with no genuine ext. fabric left, interference with the porous and breatheble nature of the building walls and therefore faster decay.
Where these last mentioned examples of naive" vandalism" has occurred the only option is to save whatever is of historical interest still " genuine" left of of historical importance. Usually quite a lot is left worth saving.
It is in cases like these where one may take the opportunity ( all with CO approval where relevant) to give the buiding a new pair of " boots" a new " hat" and a nice new " coat".
Now, in these cases there is nothing wrong with using ultra modern materials cleverley concealed or added to the structure to stabilise, protect, insulate and conserve whatever is left for future historians. It is not cheap to do this but it definetely works for the building and very comfortable to live in for the owners.
Middi
If ( as in many examples up and down the country) someone wants to restore and protect an historic timber building, first and foremost one has to evaluate how much of the original external fabric is still apparent. The chances are that very, very few of these are left exept those that have been regularly looked after and regular and immediate repairs have been carried out in the past. One will find no evidence of dpm's or dpc's in these buildings.
Most usual though, is where buildings have succumbed to poor maintainance, bad repairs and removal ( or part removal) of the original exterior fabric. These being replaced gradually over time with mixtures of " modern" and easily available materials at the time, the result of this intervention has resulted , in most cases, with no genuine ext. fabric left, interference with the porous and breatheble nature of the building walls and therefore faster decay.
Where these last mentioned examples of naive" vandalism" has occurred the only option is to save whatever is of historical interest still " genuine" left of of historical importance. Usually quite a lot is left worth saving.
It is in cases like these where one may take the opportunity ( all with CO approval where relevant) to give the buiding a new pair of " boots" a new " hat" and a nice new " coat".
Now, in these cases there is nothing wrong with using ultra modern materials cleverley concealed or added to the structure to stabilise, protect, insulate and conserve whatever is left for future historians. It is not cheap to do this but it definetely works for the building and very comfortable to live in for the owners.
Middi