From:
Norman Watts <Norman_Watts@zzzzzzz>
Date:
Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:46:10 -0500
Subject:
standing block stability
John, laying the stone on its side, thats kind of a cool idea. I'll
have to think that one through. I guess the first disadvantage that
occurs to me is difficulty viewing the object from various angles as
it lies on the ground. You'd also spend all your time working down
low, unless it was up on a support, in which case turning the thing
becomes a problem again.
Wendy, I'd rather not plant the stone deeply because the idea is to
utilize the full length of the material. Also, although I called the
underground material bedrock its not really all that solid either. My
house has a dug cellar (rather than a basement) and when you go down
there you can see that the ridge that we are on is the upper edge of
a slanted, broken layer of shale. You can hammer nails into it.
n
- Follow-ups
- message 00204: standing block stability - John Halter (01 Feb 2006)
- message 00203: standing block stability - John Halter (01 Feb 2006)
- References
- message 00164: standing block stability - Norman Watts (26 Jan 2006)
- message 00166: standing block stability - Simon (26 Jan 2006)
- message 00168: standing block stability - Norman Watts (27 Jan 2006)
- message 00180: standing block stability - John Twilley (28 Jan 2006)
- message 00182: standing block stability - Norman Watts (30 Jan 2006)
- message 00183: standing block stability - John Halter (30 Jan 2006)
- Previous by Thread: message 00183: standing block stability - John Halter (30 Jan 2006)
- Next by Thread: message 00203: standing block stability - John Halter (01 Feb 2006)
- Previous by Date: message 00185: Attachments and photos (WAS humanoids) - Stone List Admin (31 Jan 2006)
- Next by Date: message 00187: Building on clay - charles.hazard@zzzzzzzzzz (31 Jan 2006)
