The houses on my 1990 housing estate where built using calcium silicate
house bricks. These bricks did not have a frog and all sided of the brick
were flat. Over the years all of the houses have suffered from some
cracking of the mortar. Different surveyors called in have suggested a lack
of ties, trees and bushes to close to houses and the wrong type of mortar
mix. It is nothing too serious and a good eye is needed to spot the cracks.



I am now about to have an extension built and have managed to find some of
these bricks but with frogs, as they are the only ones I could find that
match. The instructions that came with the bricks state that the mortar mix
should be either 1:1:6 or 1:2:9 for Cement : Lime : Sand. Do I need to
insist that the builder adds lime as I have read the following post on
another thread here about cement?



Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

In article ,
"informer" writes:
The houses on my 1990 housing estate where built using calcium silicate
house bricks. These bricks did not have a frog and all sided of the brick
were flat. Over the years all of the houses have suffered from some
cracking of the mortar. Different surveyors called in have suggested a lack
of ties, trees and bushes to close to houses and the wrong type of mortar
mix. It is nothing too serious and a good eye is needed to spot the cracks.

I am now about to have an extension built and have managed to find some of
these bricks but with frogs, as they are the only ones I could find that
match. The instructions that came with the bricks state that the mortar mix
should be either 1:1:6 or 1:2:9 for Cement : Lime : Sand. Do I need to
insist that the builder adds lime as I have read the following post on
another thread here about cement?

Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

Mixes with equal quantities of cement and lime work well, e.g. 1:1:6.
Most other ratios of cement to lime don't work.

--
Andrew Gabriel

informer wrote:

The houses on my 1990 housing estate where built using calcium silicate
house bricks. These bricks did not have a frog and all sided of the brick
were flat. Over the years all of the houses have suffered from some
cracking of the mortar. Different surveyors called in have suggested a lack
of ties, trees and bushes to close to houses and the wrong type of mortar
mix. It is nothing too serious and a good eye is needed to spot the cracks.



I am now about to have an extension built and have managed to find some of
these bricks but with frogs, as they are the only ones I could find that
match. The instructions that came with the bricks state that the mortar mix
should be either 1:1:6 or 1:2:9 for Cement : Lime : Sand. Do I need to
insist that the builder adds lime as I have read the following post on
another thread here about cement?



Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

1:1:6 is the one lime:cement mix that works well. 1:2:9 is prone to
premature failure.


NT

informer wrote:
The houses on my 1990 housing estate where built using calcium silicate
house bricks. These bricks did not have a frog and all sided of the brick
were flat. Over the years all of the houses have suffered from some
cracking of the mortar. Different surveyors called in have suggested a lack
of ties, trees and bushes to close to houses and the wrong type of mortar
mix. It is nothing too serious and a good eye is needed to spot the cracks.



I am now about to have an extension built and have managed to find some of
these bricks but with frogs, as they are the only ones I could find that
match. The instructions that came with the bricks state that the mortar mix
should be either 1:1:6 or 1:2:9 for Cement : Lime : Sand. Do I need to
insist that the builder adds lime as I have read the following post on
another thread here about cement?



Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.


Oh? I've done that a lot in a garden wall. Seems to be holding up all
right after a couple of winters..mind you I used ties EVERYWHERE..

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.

informer wrote:
The houses on my 1990 housing estate where built using calcium silicate
house bricks. These bricks did not have a frog and all sided of the brick
were flat. Over the years all of the houses have suffered from some
cracking of the mortar. Different surveyors called in have suggested a lack
of ties, trees and bushes to close to houses and the wrong type of mortar
mix. It is nothing too serious and a good eye is needed to spot the cracks.



I am now about to have an extension built and have managed to find some of
these bricks but with frogs, as they are the only ones I could find that
match. The instructions that came with the bricks state that the mortar mix
should be either 1:1:6 or 1:2:9 for Cement : Lime : Sand. Do I need to
insist that the builder adds lime as I have read the following post on
another thread here about cement?



Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

Calcium silicate bricks have different properties to traditional clay
bricks ( including absorbstion and expansion) and so the manufacturers
guidelines should be followed. The NHBC guidelines (and others) specify
that the mortar should be as per the manufacturers recommendations.

You are taking that post out of context. Lime can be added to the mix
for a number of reasons, and this does not meant the mortar will "fail
prematurely" - whatever that is supposed to mean?

Mortar cracks for a number of reasons too, and this does not necesarily
indicate a problem. A weaker mix (with or without lime) will accomodate
movement more if movement is expected. A strong mix will be less
flexible but perhaps will minimise movement. Its all about horses for
courses.
In either case, it is the pointing to the joint that provides the
weathering properties and longetivity of the mortar, and this is
separate to the strength of the mortar.

You should insist that the builder uses the recommended mortar mix.

dg

informer wrote:
The houses on my 1990 housing estate where built using calcium silicate
house bricks. These bricks did not have a frog and all sided of the brick
were flat. Over the years all of the houses have suffered from some
cracking of the mortar. Different surveyors called in have suggested a lack
of ties, trees and bushes to close to houses and the wrong type of mortar
mix. It is nothing too serious and a good eye is needed to spot the cracks.



I am now about to have an extension built and have managed to find some of
these bricks but with frogs, as they are the only ones I could find that
match. The instructions that came with the bricks state that the mortar mix
should be either 1:1:6 or 1:2:9 for Cement : Lime : Sand. Do I need to
insist that the builder adds lime as I have read the following post on
another thread here about cement?



Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

1.1.6. is a fairly standard mix and should be fine. The lime makes the
cement mix sticky and easier to work with.
The Romans built their coliseum with it so your extension should be ok.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
informer wrote:

Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

Oh? I've done that a lot in a garden wall. Seems to be holding up all
right after a couple of winters..mind you I used ties EVERYWHERE..

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.

Obviously prone to premature failure doesnt mean 100% will fail within
2 years. Google should turn up the research if youre interested.

Lime mortar seems to have coped well enough with millions of houses
with poor foundations so far.


NT

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
informer wrote:

Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

Oh? I've done that a lot in a garden wall. Seems to be holding up all
right after a couple of winters..mind you I used ties EVERYWHERE..

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.

Obviously prone to premature failure doesnt mean 100% will fail within
2 years. Google should turn up the research if youre interested.

Lime mortar seems to have coped well enough with millions of houses
with poor foundations so far.


And *failed* on tens of millions that simply aren't there anymore to
prove my point ;-)

NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
informer wrote:

Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.

Oh? I've done that a lot in a garden wall. Seems to be holding up all
right after a couple of winters..mind you I used ties EVERYWHERE..

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.

Obviously prone to premature failure doesnt mean 100% will fail within
2 years. Google should turn up the research if youre interested.

Lime mortar seems to have coped well enough with millions of houses
with poor foundations so far.


And *failed* on tens of millions that simply aren't there anymore to
prove my point ;-)

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?


NT

In article .com,
writes:

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

I believe the figure is something like 1 in 6 Victorian houses
remain today, but most were demolished for social reasons as part
of various slum clearance programmes, not structural problems.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

I believe the figure is something like 1 in 6 Victorian houses
remain today, but most were demolished for social reasons as part
of various slum clearance programmes, not structural problems.

Quite so. I'm surprised if its as few as 1 in 6, that would add up to a
whole lot of houses then. Also bear in mind with these figures that
what we have left is primarily the middle class housing, the shacks are
all gone, and we wouldnt really call those houses today.


NT

On 14 Aug 2006 03:12:26 -0700 wrote :
Quite so. I'm surprised if its as few as 1 in 6, that would add up to a
whole lot of houses then. Also bear in mind with these figures that
what we have left is primarily the middle class housing, the shacks are
all gone, and we wouldnt really call those houses today.

You're not an estate agent then? Lots of those 'shacks' still survive
round here and sell for £300K ... when you could buy a much more spacious
1930's semi with garden and parking for less.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
informer wrote:

Re adding lime to cement mortars, this doesn't give any of the properties of
a lime mortar. Also most lime/cement mixes are liable to fail prematurely,
so adding a bit of lime to cement mortar or adding a
bit of cement to lime mortar are both not recommended. There has been
research done on this.
Oh? I've done that a lot in a garden wall. Seems to be holding up all
right after a couple of winters..mind you I used ties EVERYWHERE..

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.
Obviously prone to premature failure doesnt mean 100% will fail within
2 years. Google should turn up the research if youre interested.

Lime mortar seems to have coped well enough with millions of houses
with poor foundations so far.


And *failed* on tens of millions that simply aren't there anymore to
prove my point ;-)

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?



Who is talking about repointing?

Show me ONE place apart from your last comment, where any of the
previous refers to pointing.

Its always a sign of someone with an axe to grind when they change the
subject to appear to be more likely to win it.

NT

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:
I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

I believe the figure is something like 1 in 6 Victorian houses
remain today, but most were demolished for social reasons as part
of various slum clearance programmes, not structural problems.


I don't think you can separate crumbling damp leaking housing from
"social reasons".

Building regulations are in essence socially inspired.

wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?
I believe the figure is something like 1 in 6 Victorian houses
remain today, but most were demolished for social reasons as part
of various slum clearance programmes, not structural problems.

Quite so. I'm surprised if its as few as 1 in 6, that would add up to a
whole lot of houses then. Also bear in mind with these figures that
what we have left is primarily the middle class housing, the shacks are
all gone, and we wouldnt really call those houses today.



I would be surprised if its as great as 1 in 20.

Mind you, by that time they had portland cement..prior to that its a lot
less ;-)




NT

Tony Bryer wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 03:12:26 -0700 wrote :
Quite so. I'm surprised if its as few as 1 in 6, that would add up to a
whole lot of houses then. Also bear in mind with these figures that
what we have left is primarily the middle class housing, the shacks are
all gone, and we wouldnt really call those houses today.

You're not an estate agent then? Lots of those 'shacks' still survive
round here and sell for £300K ... when you could buy a much more spacious
1930's semi with garden and parking for less.

You are joking right? You want to see what a Victorian 'shack' is really
like - well basically you can't, because they were all (rightfully IMHO)
condemned years ago..I did stumble across a derelict one once though.
Wasn't really safe to go inside..Think two caravans on top of eahcother
with a crumbling brick chimnney up the middle, and that was about the
size of it, except subtract any insulation, heating apart from a coal
fire and a coal range, water, gas, electricity or sewage facilities, and
thats what it was.

A semi-permanent tent made with a few bricks, crumbly lime mortar and
whatever bits of wood someone could find, plastered over with cowdung,
horse hair and lime, and probably covered in rushes. Needless to say te
lime mortar had failed, and only half the chimney was left..mostly the
inside bit out of the weather..all te wioodwirk was rotten - most of the
upper storey was in the lower - and most of the roof had gone, due to
failure of first the thatch, and subsequently the corrugated iron sheets
that had been nailed over.

If it had been within range of a decent water supply, or a road, the
site alone was probably worth a couople of hundred though, with planning
permission..

There was another one close by, but that was simply a mound of bramble
infested rubble covered in grass and scrub. It just fell down. Good
stuff lime mortar. Always has plenty of 'give' in it. ;-)

Tony Bryer wrote:
On 14 Aug 2006 03:12:26 -0700 wrote :
Quite so. I'm surprised if its as few as 1 in 6, that would add up to a
whole lot of houses then. Also bear in mind with these figures that
what we have left is primarily the middle class housing, the shacks are
all gone, and we wouldnt really call those houses today.

You're not an estate agent then? Lots of those 'shacks' still survive
round here and sell for £300K ... when you could buy a much more spacious
1930's semi with garden and parking for less.

I dont see how a shack would be considered fit for habitation nowadays.
Theyre very rare in Britain because theyre not even legal, and havent
been for a long time. Our fussy government wants stuff like water,
drainage, bath, loo, windows, that sort of thing.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

I believe the figure is something like 1 in 6 Victorian houses
remain today, but most were demolished for social reasons as part
of various slum clearance programmes, not structural problems.

I don't think you can separate crumbling damp leaking housing from
"social reasons".

Building regulations are in essence socially inspired.

Why does a brick house crumble? Because no-one is willing to spend a
small amount to maintain it. Ditto with damp and leaks. Thats social,
and will happen to any unvalued building regardless of its construction
or utility. Most demolished buildings have not crumbled anyway. They
were just in the way of roads, shopping malls, or bigger houses. Or
were poorly maintained and the government them wanted shifted so the
place looked nicer.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
informer wrote:

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.

Obviously prone to premature failure doesnt mean 100% will fail within
2 years. Google should turn up the research if youre interested.

Lime mortar seems to have coped well enough with millions of houses
with poor foundations so far.

And *failed* on tens of millions that simply aren't there anymore to
prove my point ;-)

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

Who is talking about repointing?

Show me ONE place apart from your last comment, where any of the
previous refers to pointing.

Its always a sign of someone with an axe to grind when they change the
subject to appear to be more likely to win it.

huh??

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

I believe the figure is something like 1 in 6 Victorian houses
remain today, but most were demolished for social reasons as part
of various slum clearance programmes, not structural problems.

I don't think you can separate crumbling damp leaking housing from
"social reasons".

Building regulations are in essence socially inspired.

Why does a brick house crumble? Because no-one is willing to spend a
small amount to maintain it.

Because its badly deigned and built.

Ditto with damp and leaks.

Indeed :-)

Thats social,
and will happen to any unvalued building regardless of its construction
or utility. Most demolished buildings have not crumbled anyway.

Indeed. I was not talking of demolished buildings, just the ones that
fell down all by themselves.

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
informer wrote:

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.

Obviously prone to premature failure doesnt mean 100% will fail within
2 years. Google should turn up the research if youre interested.

Lime mortar seems to have coped well enough with millions of houses
with poor foundations so far.

And *failed* on tens of millions that simply aren't there anymore to
prove my point ;-)

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

Who is talking about repointing?

Show me ONE place apart from your last comment, where any of the
previous refers to pointing.

Its always a sign of someone with an axe to grind when they change the
subject to appear to be more likely to win it.

huh??

I see logic is not your strongest point.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

I don't think you can separate crumbling damp leaking housing from
"social reasons".

There is a clear distinction. There is no reference to any
of the slums crumbling or falling down. The houses became
amenity poor as expectations rose, and attracted a class
of people who couldn't afford better. These two factors
created a slum.

If we're talking about houses falling down, lime or cement
mortar is pretty irrelevant. Improvements in house foundations
is be a much more important factor.

--
Andrew Gabriel

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Why does a brick house crumble? Because no-one is willing to spend a
small amount to maintain it.

Because its badly deigned and built.

I once had to clear a 1930s terraced house belonging to a friend's
uncle. Uninhabited for five years [1] it was in a dreadful state - a
hole in the roof had allowed water to penetrate, bringing ceilings down
and plaster off. There were cracks in the masonry where mortar had
crumbled.

The other houses in the row, all the same age and style were fine.

[1] He'd gone off with a woman forty years his junior and abandoned his house.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Guy King wrote:

[1] He'd gone off with a woman forty years his junior and abandoned his house.

Good for him

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Good stuff lime mortar. Always has plenty of 'give' in it. ;-)

Trying to make sense of all this, it seems to me that:

Carbonated lime mortar i.e. chalk and sand is no use to anyone and that
only the uncarbonated stuff on the interior is likely to be of any
value. On a 9" wall the whole lot is likely to be carbonated, and no
more flexible than cement. If it has been found to be still self healing
in larger structures then presumably no carbon dioxide has reached it,
therefore it really is airtight, and all talk of breathing is nonsense.
Pussy Cat doesn't have any answers but I wish he'd just say so and stop
telling people their houses are going to fall down if they don't follow
the word of the lord.

The message
from Stuart Noble contains these words:

[1] He'd gone off with a woman forty years his junior and abandoned
his house.

Good for him

I suppose so - though it probably killed him in the end he probably died
happy.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Stuart Noble wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Good stuff lime mortar. Always has plenty of 'give' in it. ;-)

Trying to make sense of all this, it seems to me that:

Carbonated lime mortar i.e. chalk and sand is no use to anyone and that
only the uncarbonated stuff on the interior is likely to be of any
value. On a 9" wall the whole lot is likely to be carbonated, and no
more flexible than cement. If it has been found to be still self healing
in larger structures then presumably no carbon dioxide has reached it,
therefore it really is airtight, and all talk of breathing is nonsense.
Pussy Cat doesn't have any answers but I wish he'd just say so and stop
telling people their houses are going to fall down if they don't follow
the word of the lord.

Lol. Doesnt souind like youve followed anything


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

I believe the figure is something like 1 in 6 Victorian houses
remain today, but most were demolished for social reasons as part
of various slum clearance programmes, not structural problems.

I don't think you can separate crumbling damp leaking housing from
"social reasons".

Building regulations are in essence socially inspired.

Part P socially inspired? No.

Why does a brick house crumble? Because no-one is willing to spend a
small amount to maintain it.

Because its badly deigned and built.

Ditto with damp and leaks.

Indeed :-)

Thats social,
and will happen to any unvalued building regardless of its construction
or utility. Most demolished buildings have not crumbled anyway.

Indeed. I was not talking of demolished buildings, just the ones that
fell down all by themselves.

Its a pretty small percentage that come under that heading, and poor
design and use of lime are obviously 2 entirely different issues. I
cant help but think youre muddying the water here.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
informer wrote:

Nothing will cope with poor foundations however.

Obviously prone to premature failure doesnt mean 100% will fail within
2 years. Google should turn up the research if youre interested.

Lime mortar seems to have coped well enough with millions of houses
with poor foundations so far.

And *failed* on tens of millions that simply aren't there anymore to
prove my point ;-)

I find it hard to believe that millions of houses have been demolished
because someone couldnt be arsed to repoint them. Can you support what
you say somehow?

Who is talking about repointing?

Show me ONE place apart from your last comment, where any of the
previous refers to pointing.

Its always a sign of someone with an axe to grind when they change the
subject to appear to be more likely to win it.

huh??

I see logic is not your strongest point.

There is me thinking the same of you, at least on this subject. I
assume you noticed from my comment that I thought youd strayed miles
off track. And since I know why Im saying what I am, I can confirm you
are indeed way off course.


NT

wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Good stuff lime mortar. Always has plenty of 'give' in it. ;-)
Trying to make sense of all this, it seems to me that:

Carbonated lime mortar i.e. chalk and sand is no use to anyone and that
only the uncarbonated stuff on the interior is likely to be of any
value. On a 9" wall the whole lot is likely to be carbonated, and no
more flexible than cement. If it has been found to be still self healing
in larger structures then presumably no carbon dioxide has reached it,
therefore it really is airtight, and all talk of breathing is nonsense.
Pussy Cat doesn't have any answers but I wish he'd just say so and stop
telling people their houses are going to fall down if they don't follow
the word of the lord.

Lol. Doesnt souind like youve followed anything


NT


Your use of "LOL" reminds me of another halfwit on here, who also hides
behind a silly name.
Would you for once explain yourself? What haven't I followed? Something
of yours perhaps? Details if you please then maybe we can all learn
something.

Stuart Noble wrote:
wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Good stuff lime mortar. Always has plenty of 'give' in it. ;-)

Trying to make sense of all this, it seems to me that:

Carbonated lime mortar i.e. chalk and sand is no use to anyone and that
only the uncarbonated stuff on the interior is likely to be of any
value. On a 9" wall the whole lot is likely to be carbonated, and no
more flexible than cement. If it has been found to be still self healing
in larger structures then presumably no carbon dioxide has reached it,
therefore it really is airtight, and all talk of breathing is nonsense.
Pussy Cat doesn't have any answers but I wish he'd just say so and stop
telling people their houses are going to fall down if they don't follow
the word of the lord.

Lol. Doesnt souind like youve followed anything

Would you for once explain yourself? What haven't I followed? Something
of yours perhaps? Details if you please then maybe we can all learn
something.

Alright, just for a moment I'll answer your question seriously. Not a
single point in the large paragraph above you wrote is correct. In my
humble/arrogant opinion. And no, I'm not going to get into it again,
thank you.


NT

wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Good stuff lime mortar. Always has plenty of 'give' in it. ;-)

Trying to make sense of all this, it seems to me that:

Carbonated lime mortar i.e. chalk and sand is no use to anyone and that
only the uncarbonated stuff on the interior is likely to be of any
value. On a 9" wall the whole lot is likely to be carbonated, and no
more flexible than cement. If it has been found to be still self healing
in larger structures then presumably no carbon dioxide has reached it,
therefore it really is airtight, and all talk of breathing is nonsense.
Pussy Cat doesn't have any answers but I wish he'd just say so and stop
telling people their houses are going to fall down if they don't follow
the word of the lord.

Lol. Doesnt souind like youve followed anything

Would you for once explain yourself? What haven't I followed? Something
of yours perhaps? Details if you please then maybe we can all learn
something.

Alright, just for a moment I'll answer your question seriously.

Not a
single point in the large paragraph above you wrote is correct.

That isn't *answering* anything

In my
humble/arrogant opinion. And no, I'm not going to get into it again,

What do you mean "again"? You've never got into it