|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2015 14:34:06 GMT
I has to ask, ,if you threw a penny off the Empire state. Why?. Because I want to know how old the empire state is, alongside the history of tempered glass..... This is an example to illustrate how long Glass has been "Safety" in tall buildings, and its a common building for myths to be born of things falling off from, as its a PTD building from the old boards. See where I am going with this?. So if I was walking along side a historical building, say an old church, or even a large Cathedral, and a bit of the lead on a stained glass window that has been there since Liz [one] had a spot of bother with the Armada, if that lead decided today was the day to be a bit loose, and a chunk of stained glass fell out..... I dont think I am going to be getting that close to the walls of old buildings in high winds any more. This brings maybe a separate myth... Hard hats. I work in Hard Hat area's at times, some of them building sites. If Sid the Stupid drops his number 4 claw hammer out his tool belt at 100ft up, is my hard hat saving me for anything?... Heck, lets try a whole BRICK from that height. I have an even better one, because this DOES happen quite often, a loose slate. If you are a slate short of a full roof, and one starts to slide, thats is a guided missile from the start. And they aint "safety"... The last time I looked, a few pounds of welsh slate with a hurry on, at a slight angle off a roof, is going to give you more than a haircut?... Loose slates in high winds are a common problem, and something we all know to be wary of in storms in UK. Is this the same elsewhere in the world?... How high does the building have to be for that to be a fatal shot?. hard hats fall into the same category as stee toes. if the slate has your name on it, it won't be enough, but it will help with a lot of more common things. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Aug 13, 2015 22:13:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 14, 2015 3:41:56 GMT
If I'd been able to clear my schedule for two weeks, I would have rolled on that one. turns out my county's task force was the last task force demobilized, so it would have been the full two weeks. I suggested that they might mumble at the forestry department volunteer departments would have an easier time mobilizing if we could mobilize a 48 hour fast response crew, and replace them with a casual response crew in two days. (they always seem to call us up at 2:00 in the morning, despite the fact they declare it a conflagration emergency around 10:00 the evening before.) |
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Aug 15, 2015 6:09:29 GMT
Usually about 11" before you hit it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 15, 2015 6:16:53 GMT
Usually about 11" before you hit it. I'm not catching the context... |
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Aug 15, 2015 6:27:14 GMT
the signs are too close to the metal plates.
Edit - I see my post came several after the original one. No wonder it doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 15, 2015 8:06:23 GMT
the signs are too close to the metal plates. Edit - I see my post came several after the original one. No wonder it doesn't make sense. ah, the metal on the road requiring warning signs. now I'm back on track. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 15, 2015 11:21:51 GMT
Usually about 11" before you hit it. That's what SHE said!  Seriously, I clicked the new post thingy in the upper right corner of the site and when I got here, that sentence was the first thing I saw and I just broke down laughing! |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 15, 2015 11:43:47 GMT
Up until fairly recently (meaning 100-150 years) creating large flat sheets of glass for windows was very difficult if not impossible. The technology available only allowed you to make small flat sheets, with a lot of 'cheap' panes of glass actually being made by blowing glass and just flattening it out; This is why in the UK you will sometimes notice older houses with windows that have circular bulges in some of their panes.
The inability to create large glass sheets meant that windows had to be created using smaller panes, and smaller windows. If you wanted to have a bigger window, such as in a church, you had to create it using smaller panes and you connected them together using lead.
Short answer is that the glass in an old stained glass window is comprised of small, thin, panes of glass. As such even if it falls out and hits you it is unlikely to have enough mass (or a sharp enough edge) to kill. As buildings that old would be considered protected any repairs or replacement glass would have to be as close to the original as possible. It is also often the case that such old buildings have added a second layer of glass to the outside. This helps to protect the original glass, as well as keeping the building warmer.
So nothing to really worry about. In fact you are probably in less danger than you would be walking past an office building, since such historical windows are going to be checked and repaired much more often than office buildings are.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 9:52:30 GMT
Those are known as bullseye panes, and may have been from the bottom of the glass bubble when cut.
However, not all are original, as it became a "popular" fashion statement to have them in, so some people took out perfectly good panes to be fashionable with these things.... yes they took pains to replace panes....
If you know what to look for, you can spot the rather regular pattern on the replacements, because they were moulded, and they all used the same mould....
As for the small bits falling, no, not a problem, its the part where the hole suddenly gets a whole lot bigger and the whole lot falls out...
You know the phrase "If it wasnt for bad luck he would have none at all"?..
it was written about me.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 14:15:05 GMT
Those are known as bullseye panes, and may have been from the bottom of the glass bubble when cut. However, not all are original, as it became a "popular" fashion statement to have them in, so some people took out perfectly good panes to be fashionable with these things.... yes they took pains to replace panes.... If you know what to look for, you can spot the rather regular pattern on the replacements, because they were moulded, and they all used the same mould.... As for the small bits falling, no, not a problem, its the part where the hole suddenly gets a whole lot bigger and the whole lot falls out... You know the phrase "If it wasnt for bad luck he would have none at all"?.. it was written about me. I don't know if you had it there, but here we had an urban myth that glass flowed over time - because windowpanes in old houses were thicker at the bottom than at the top. then someone had the bright idea of talking to an old glazier and he said, "of course they are, we installed them that way" because yes, hand blown glass windows are not only not uniformly flat, they are also not uniformly thick. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 15:03:24 GMT
Those are known as bullseye panes, and may have been from the bottom of the glass bubble when cut. However, not all are original, as it became a "popular" fashion statement to have them in, so some people took out perfectly good panes to be fashionable with these things.... yes they took pains to replace panes.... If you know what to look for, you can spot the rather regular pattern on the replacements, because they were moulded, and they all used the same mould.... As for the small bits falling, no, not a problem, its the part where the hole suddenly gets a whole lot bigger and the whole lot falls out... You know the phrase "If it wasnt for bad luck he would have none at all"?.. it was written about me. I don't know if you had it there, but here we had an urban myth that glass flowed over time - because windowpanes in old houses were thicker at the bottom than at the top. then someone had the bright idea of talking to an old glazier and he said, "of course they are, we installed them that way" because yes, hand blown glass windows are not only not uniformly flat, they are also not uniformly thick. Yes we had that "mith", and yes the put the ticker end at the bottom, because that seamed the right way. It was only when they invented "Float glass" that big windows were more uniform. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 15:17:27 GMT
I don't know if you had it there, but here we had an urban myth that glass flowed over time - because windowpanes in old houses were thicker at the bottom than at the top. then someone had the bright idea of talking to an old glazier and he said, "of course they are, we installed them that way" because yes, hand blown glass windows are not only not uniformly flat, they are also not uniformly thick. Yes we had that "mith", and yes the put the ticker end at the bottom, because that seamed the right way. It was only when they invented "Float glass" that big windows were more uniform. it all goes along with the modern trend that as soon as you figure out a new better way of doing things, we completely forget how we used to do it. (and by that I am not meaning in the way modern drivers don't know how to double clutch an unsynchronised transmission I am meaning in the way people think the pyramids must have been built by space aliens, because we would have used trucks and cranes to move those blocks. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 15:35:35 GMT
Yes we had that "mith", and yes the put the ticker end at the bottom, because that seamed the right way. It was only when they invented "Float glass" that big windows were more uniform. it all goes along with the modern trend that as soon as you figure out a new better way of doing things, we completely forget how we used to do it. (and by that I am not meaning in the way modern drivers don't know how to double clutch an unsynchronised transmission I am meaning in the way people think the pyramids must have been built by space aliens, because we would have used trucks and cranes to move those blocks. And this is where I get fascinated by Archaeology that recreates the situation. Take away the impossible, as in modern equipment, and if you had to solve that problem, how would YOU do it?... And then there are people ho have spent YEARS rebuilding a castle, "The old way". They go to modern quarters at night to get a hot meal and a comfortable bed, but, during the day, the stone masons may only use chisels made by the blacksmith on site, who has about a 75% chance of getting steel in his period correct forge. But by doing that, they now know how medieval castles were built. Yes they use "Old ways", but, they also use modern safety, you may be dangling over a 100ft drop on top of a wall, but you are4 secured by a modern climbing harness.... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 15:59:08 GMT
it all goes along with the modern trend that as soon as you figure out a new better way of doing things, we completely forget how we used to do it. (and by that I am not meaning in the way modern drivers don't know how to double clutch an unsynchronised transmission I am meaning in the way people think the pyramids must have been built by space aliens, because we would have used trucks and cranes to move those blocks. And this is where I get fascinated by Archaeology that recreates the situation. Take away the impossible, as in modern equipment, and if you had to solve that problem, how would YOU do it?... And then there are people ho have spent YEARS rebuilding a castle, "The old way". They go to modern quarters at night to get a hot meal and a comfortable bed, but, during the day, the stone masons may only use chisels made by the blacksmith on site, who has about a 75% chance of getting steel in his period correct forge. But by doing that, they now know how medieval castles were built. Yes they use "Old ways", but, they also use modern safety, you may be dangling over a 100ft drop on top of a wall, but you are4 secured by a modern climbing harness.... how people solved problems without modern technology is always interesting to me. - as long as it is an accurate study and not wild eyed ideas. "we've studies accounts of materials and construction and determined the ark of the covenant could have been a giant capacitor" is interesting to me. "the ark of the covenant was built by space aliens because there is no God" is irritatingly unscientific. edit: "we think they built the ark and discovered its properties and built a mythological explanation" is acceptable to me. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 16, 2015 17:24:58 GMT
And this is where I get fascinated by Archaeology that recreates the situation. Take away the impossible, as in modern equipment, and if you had to solve that problem, how would YOU do it?... And then there are people ho have spent YEARS rebuilding a castle, "The old way". They go to modern quarters at night to get a hot meal and a comfortable bed, but, during the day, the stone masons may only use chisels made by the blacksmith on site, who has about a 75% chance of getting steel in his period correct forge. But by doing that, they now know how medieval castles were built. Yes they use "Old ways", but, they also use modern safety, you may be dangling over a 100ft drop on top of a wall, but you are4 secured by a modern climbing harness.... how people solved problems without modern technology is always interesting to me. - as long as it is an accurate study and not wild eyed ideas. "we've studies accounts of materials and construction and determined the ark of the covenant could have been a giant capacitor" is interesting to me. "the ark of the covenant was built by space aliens because there is no God" is irritatingly unscientific. edit: "we think they built the ark and discovered its properties and built a mythological explanation" is acceptable to me. As far as the ark goes, you could do one better. Determine if it actually existed to begin with, which still hasn't been proven. Discussing what it was, where it came from and what it could do are all moot points as long as you don't know with any certainty that it's not just a work of fiction. That's like discussing the properties of different alien races when you have yet to prove any even exist. |
|
