Hi,

When a new "off topic" developes within a topic how do we manage to backtrack and make this into a tring in its own right ?

I would like to reply further but will resit that temptation.

Regards

Ken Hume

p.s. So Richard Harris is wrong eh ! Well now there's a first.

Good morning Ken, on page 53, under Urban Details of Richard Harris's book it says "Perhaps the most obvious feature was the use of oversailing uppers storeys (known as jetties), which were extremely common in fifteenth-and sixteenth-century town buildings but only sporadically used in the country side." So I would like to say that Richard is actually right on with the dates you mentioned-1347 just short of the 15th century and 1507 smack in the 16th century. Is R Harris known to be wrong on occasion?

There must be a way to highlight a specific subject within a topic, which might be off, and than send it to the correct topic. If that is what must be done. For future referencing it would be helpful. But for the most part I don't mind a bit of wandering within the topics. I find that getting into a new chat room with a hundred choices and directions is a time consuming thing that comes with a learning curve. I prefer a simple route with only a choice or two to get me to where I want to go. The same for a web site, if I have to jump through a bunch of hoops I am not going there. And keep the fine print to a minimum. Now, this section could be highlighted and sent to a different topic.

The War of Independence was a civil war which was lost by the Mother country. If the politics had been more united we would maybe still be British. United We Stand. Divided we.......

And back on topic. I found the short form to be OK but Dons may of been better and TTRAGS long form better, the short form is just lacking in details. I took a lot of pictures with a tape measure in place to show sizes and placement of mortice and tenons. Some quick sketches and notes. The fellow who is taking this building down is scrapping it and using pieces to make a different shaped structure. Its new location almost borders my land out here in the woods and I can go there for minor details as well. The main frame is 26'x30' and post in the corners(4x7's) only, no interior bents. The tying fixture was a 8" iron dog/staple. There is 8 of these, 4 on each gable bent, 2 at the top plate and 2 at the 2nd floor level, one on each side. In the survey forms I have not noticed any staples mentioned. I see these frequently in a lot of buildings. Mostly at tie beam locations which have failed and the dogs were added to stabilize the building? I question this though and wonder if they could of place them originally. The joint used is weak. Or maybe the barn was moved and they were added than. The ones in the parson's house was original, and used in a slightly different way. Tim

I am committed to the idea that the forums belong to its contributors.

This may not work.

If any member wishes to recommend to the moderator that a posting be moved to off-topic, restarted as a new thread, or even removed altogether, I'll likely take that recommendation, after some consideration.

Tim,

Nice to hear feedback on the TTRAG short form. I also think this is too general a form...

The whole staple/ dog thing is interesting. I'm not quite sure if I know what you mean. I have seen turnbuckles, cables and screw eyes in buildings, but not "staples." Are they like "log dogs" (see link)
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&cat=1,44047&p=45780

But you make a good point about adding a line or two for hardware or other metal reinforcements in a frame survey.

And nothing wrong w/ topic wandering... as long as say 50 percent of communications remain on topic.

Hi Don,

I just checked the reports received yeaterday and lo and behold these include a barn equipped with staples connecting the crossbeam to the main post. These do indeed resemble log dogs and examination of the photo gives the impression that this might well be original kit. The use of iron is quite common in millwork and metal strapping is used to help hold together decaying buildings but this is the first time that I have seen this feature and I would hope that those more familiar with this technique could post some pictures and add a description to the glossary.

Regards

Ken Hume

The Staples or dogs in Lee Valley are a bit wimpy, and I am going to try a that for hewing the next time. I will make my own. I have always put them up on the top.

The ones I see are of 3/4"-1" stock and the ends are hammered to a flat screwdriver tip point, for more bearing surface, not a sharp point. The points are 3" long and the length of staple from end about 12"-18". The ones in the parsons house are 1/2" stock and 8" long.

It is said a fellow came through the area around 1900 and offered to add these dogs to your barn, a stabilization project of sorts, no proof of this though. Pictures? Tim

Interesting, Tim and Ken.

I can see how the dogs would be well suited to hewing.

I'm thinking a section on reinforcing hardware is needed for the barn list (but cannot edit the one here on the forum!!).

Funny how all the "simpson strong-tie" stuff is popular now w/ house carpenters.

And I'm wondering about date ranges: In the US, I'm apt to think frame hardware is a post-civil war thing. Industrial tech having progressed, etc. Like the parson's house dated around 1860s??. Anyone care to comment when this became common here??

Ken, is there a date-range in England for this reinforcing hardware, or is it quite wide spread?

Don --

Been meaning to weigh in for awhile now -

You have used the term bay out of place, framers would know this as the space between bents. You are I believe speaking of aisles (see wiki)

Pegging should maybe read turned & drawn as well as asking specie.

Conversion - under hewn, you site subcatagories of adzed and rough - I guess I don't know what that means - And beyound that it feeds the all too common misconception that the adze was a hewing tool.

The list needs to ask about referencing and convention of same.

Now as to "staples" I've seen them but a handful of times, Once on a barn I helped restore in Rindge NH which dated from the late 18th century - their placement was within a few years of the frame being raised, and was to overcome a design flaw and a rolling plate - I suspect my not seeing them with any frequency locally (I have seen more outside the area on buildings I've visited- most recently on log structures in Virginia, likewise arresting rolling plates) has something / much to do with coming from the heart of common purlin land.

Hi Will:

thanks for the contributions. You are much needed here.

Adzed or rough refers to when the builders/hewers stopped processing the timbers. How far they took things. You know, if you can still see the axe /score marks on the timbers from the scoring axe, or if they're nice and smooth (adzed). As I'm sure you know, not all timber frames, esp. barns, were adzed/smoothed. Yes, technicaly the adz is more of a finishing tool, but it is a good way to describe hewn timbers.... if they've been adzed or not.

And bay/aisle is good to clarify. I'm not too sure on the technicalities. In the list, symmetry is refering to dimentions on either side of center aisle. I will change this to read "aisle symmetry."

The pegging section is purposely left a bit vague because of space issues on paper. The details can be described by the investigator.... What is "drawn" in regards to pegs?

Referencing is something I'm still learning about. Please assist. I'll add this, but what do you mean by "convention" of referencing?

Interesting comment on the staples/ log dogs. And what is a "rolling plate?" Something like shrinkage?

Hi Don,

The barn drawings received this week demonstrate rather nicely a different convention in layout and asembly than was / is employed here in the UK. The "upper face" or reference face of the cross frame (bent) is used to measure, set out or pull dimensions to the next cross frame. Check out the Glossary re the definition for the term "upper face" which I recently modified. The New England barn has all of its reference faces facing the same way except for the last one which of necessity has to face outwards to provide a flat surface to accept sheathing. I rather suspect that this approach stems directly from the adoption of square rule but maybe someone else can help us more with this proposition.

Regarding rolling plates - I do recall a heated Sunday morning debate at a past TFG conference between Jack Sobon and Ed Levin where the very existence of this feature was debated.

Regards

Ken Hume