Traditional Vs modern

[cbr6fs]

Yes but "reinforced concrete" isn't really "masonry" is it. Bear in mind we don't get many earthquakes here in Florida. Rather I'm taking much of my info on that from california building codes that prohibit new masonry construcion if it isn't reinforced with resin impregnated materials. And they're requiring older "granfathered" buildings to slowly be brought into compliance.

No arguements that steel framed or reinforced buildings are superior (although modern steel reinforced concrete bridges also collapse in California) And also did you find any videos testing ordinary single story homes (multi stories aren't really the norm over here although they're not really "uncommon" either)

Also have to ask a question about the videos; Do any of those buildings have proper hurricane clips in the joints? Or Earthquake clips? Also did you find any tests of ordinary single story homes? Multi storied homes aren't really the norm over here (although I suppose they're not exactly rare)

They were just the 2 vids that were at the top of a search list.

Timber framed buildings do have their advantages, but these are more to do with cost and speed of erection rather than structural integrity.

 

[santaman2000]

They were just the 2 vids that were at the top of a search list.

Timber framed buildings do have their advantages, but these are more to do with cost and speed of erection rather than structural integrity.

Generally I'd agree with you. But cost for masonry is only about 8%-15% more so it's not really a great factor. And apparently the building codes disagree with both of us; I suppose that's cause modern brick doesn't actually carry any of the structural load anyway, as that's done by the timber frame under the brick. As to speed, brick only adds about another week to the construction.

Some real world examples:

www.timberengineeringeurope.com/art_ei.html

www.timberengineeringeurope.com/art_be.html

No.They're not the same link oddly.

 

[PDA1]

Waht I find really distressing is that the kit I started with many moons ago was regarded as state of the art then. Now people call it "Traditional".

 

[PDA1]

Is a down filled sleeping bag traditional or modern?

If in nylon cover - modern / If in cotton cover - traditional. if in Linen cover - even more traditional

 

[santaman2000]

If in nylon cover - modern / If in cotton cover - traditional. if in Linen cover - even more traditional

I think the point of the question was whether or not the idea of a sleeping bag itself (vs a blanket) is considerred modern or traditional; even though said bag may be entirely made of traditional materials.

 

[PDA1]

The first "Alpine sleeping bags" were made in the 1860s. A Norwegian company produced (down) sleeping bags commercially in the 1890s. Interestly, the first Alpine bags had artificial fillings, not down (they used Kapok - now that takes me back a bit). Down quilts, using linen covering date back to much earlier than 1850 or so.
So, how old is "Traditional"? The earliest cooking vessels were bags made of animal skins, much predating synthetics such as ceramic pots or cast iron.