On 08/01/2024 07:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 22:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of gravel
>>>>> and tar on top
>>>>
>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>
>>> You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>
>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>
>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>
> Many years ago it seemed to be referred to as asphalt. I can remember
> seeing tankers with the name "Trinidad Lake Asphalt" on the side. The
> company still exists, but I don't remember seeing the name for maybe 50
> years. According to the Wiki on it, the UK switched to coal tar in the
> early 70s.
>
I assume you meant switched away from coal tar..

IIRC asphalt is a mixture of tar and ballast...although that apparently
is strictly 'asphalt concrete'

Anyway its a side issue. The point is that many minor roads are not made
with massive substrates.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2024 23:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
>>>>>>>> gravel and tar on top
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>>>   You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>>
>>>> Didnt realise you were making a distinction and I don't believe that
>>>> the
>>>> Turnip was doing that.
>>>
>>> Warwickshire CC describe bitumen emulsion as a sticky tar-like substance
>>>
>>> https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/surfacedressing
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>>
>> The following is instructive:
>> https://www.hanson.my/en/asphalt-vs-bitumen-vs-tar
>>
>> Basically it seems that bitumen is derived from oil distillation, tar
>> comes from coal distillation, and asphalt is when sand, grit or gravel
>> are mixed with either of the above.
>>
>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>> it ever does?
>>
> Well I have never heard that distinction made.

It's a common mistake. Don't beat yourself up to much.

<snipped irrelevant diversionary waffle>

> Tar is a generic word.

Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman. However,
when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical newsgroup it's best to be
accurate.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2024 23:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
>>>>>>>> gravel and tar on top
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>>>   You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>>
>>>> Didnt realise you were making a distinction and I don't believe that
>>>> the
>>>> Turnip was doing that.
>>>
>>> Warwickshire CC describe bitumen emulsion as a sticky tar-like substance
>>>
>>> https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/surfacedressing
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>>
>> The following is instructive:
>> https://www.hanson.my/en/asphalt-vs-bitumen-vs-tar
>>
>> Basically it seems that bitumen is derived from oil distillation, tar
>> comes from coal distillation, and asphalt is when sand, grit or gravel
>> are mixed with either of the above.
>>
>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>> it ever does?
>>
> Well I have never heard that distinction made.
>
> To me 'Tar' is a generic cover all term for extremely thick hydrocarbons.
> There is no such place as the Athabasca Bitumen sands. They are called
> the Athabasca *Tar* sands.  And they are made of bitumen, or tar.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands
>
> If you want coal derived hydrocarbons that is *coal tar*.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar
>
> The reason it's called *coal* tar is to distinguish it from *oil* tar...
>
> Tar is a generic word.

There are, however, differences between coal tar and bitumen that affect
their suitability for road surfacing. Coal tar has a higher melting
point, but bitumen and bitumen based asphalt give better grip for rubber
tyres.

--
Colin Bignell

On 08/01/2024 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 19:17, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of gravel
>>> and tar on top
>>
>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>
>
> What do you think that fucking black shit is, then?
>
>

A reason to visit your GP :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2024 23:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
>>>>>>>>> gravel and tar on top
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>>>>   You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didnt realise you were making a distinction and I don't believe
>>>>> that the
>>>>> Turnip was doing that.
>>>>
>>>> Warwickshire CC describe bitumen emulsion as a sticky tar-like
>>>> substance
>>>>
>>>> https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/surfacedressing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>>>
>>> The following is instructive:
>>> https://www.hanson.my/en/asphalt-vs-bitumen-vs-tar
>>>
>>> Basically it seems that bitumen is derived from oil distillation, tar
>>> comes from coal distillation, and asphalt is when sand, grit or gravel
>>> are mixed with either of the above.
>>>
>>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>>> it ever does?
>>>
>> Well I have never heard that distinction made.
>
> It's a common mistake.  Don't beat yourself up to much.
>
> <snipped irrelevant diversionary waffle>
>
>> Tar is a generic word.
>
> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman.  However,
> when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
> gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical newsgroup it's best to be
> accurate.
>
It *is* accurate. Tar is not 'coal tar'

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

On 08/01/2024 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2024 23:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
>>>>>>>>>> gravel and tar on top
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>>>>>   You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>>>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>>>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didnt realise you were making a distinction and I don't believe
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> Turnip was doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warwickshire CC describe bitumen emulsion as a sticky tar-like
>>>>> substance
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/surfacedressing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> The following is instructive:
>>>> https://www.hanson.my/en/asphalt-vs-bitumen-vs-tar
>>>>
>>>> Basically it seems that bitumen is derived from oil distillation, tar
>>>> comes from coal distillation, and asphalt is when sand, grit or gravel
>>>> are mixed with either of the above.
>>>>
>>>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>>>> it ever does?
>>>>
>>> Well I have never heard that distinction made.
>>
>> It's a common mistake.  Don't beat yourself up to much.
>>
>> <snipped irrelevant diversionary waffle>
>>
>>> Tar is a generic word.
>>
>> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman.  However,
>> when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two
>> of gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical newsgroup it's best to
>> be accurate.
>>
> It *is* accurate.  Tar is not 'coal tar'

You see, when I queried the common but incorrect use of 'tar' in the
context of road construction, what most people (even Speed, sort of,
grudgingly) would say something along the lines of, "I didn't know that,
interesting."

But a TurNiP can never admit error. Either, like a true Black Knight,
he must argue to the bitter end, losing limb after limb, or quietly
slink off, never to mention the subject again.

This correspondence is now closed.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 08/01/2024 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2024 23:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
>>>>>>>>>> gravel and tar on top
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>>>>>   You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>>>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>>>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didnt realise you were making a distinction and I don't believe
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> Turnip was doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warwickshire CC describe bitumen emulsion as a sticky tar-like
>>>>> substance
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/surfacedressing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> The following is instructive:
>>>> https://www.hanson.my/en/asphalt-vs-bitumen-vs-tar
>>>>
>>>> Basically it seems that bitumen is derived from oil distillation, tar
>>>> comes from coal distillation, and asphalt is when sand, grit or gravel
>>>> are mixed with either of the above.
>>>>
>>>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>>>> it ever does?
>>>>
>>> Well I have never heard that distinction made.
>>
>> It's a common mistake.  Don't beat yourself up to much.
>>
>> <snipped irrelevant diversionary waffle>
>>
>>> Tar is a generic word.
>>
>> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman.  However,
>> when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two
>> of gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical newsgroup it's best to
>> be accurate.
>>
> It *is* accurate.  Tar is not 'coal tar'

Coal tar is a tar. Tar includes a wider group of similar products.
>

On 08/01/2024 13:12, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Colin Bignell
>>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 23:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
>>>>>>>>>>> gravel and tar on top
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>>>>>>   You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>>>>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>>>>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didnt realise you were making a distinction and I don't believe
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> Turnip was doing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warwickshire CC describe bitumen emulsion as a sticky tar-like
>>>>>> substance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/surfacedressing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is instructive:
>>>>> https://www.hanson.my/en/asphalt-vs-bitumen-vs-tar
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically it seems that bitumen is derived from oil distillation, tar
>>>>> comes from coal distillation, and asphalt is when sand, grit or gravel
>>>>> are mixed with either of the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>>>>> it ever does?
>>>>>
>>>> Well I have never heard that distinction made.
>>>
>>> It's a common mistake.  Don't beat yourself up to much.
>>>
>>> <snipped irrelevant diversionary waffle>
>>>
>>>> Tar is a generic word.
>>>
>>> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman.
>>> However, when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a
>>> inch or two of gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical newsgroup
>>> it's best to be accurate.
>>>
>> It *is* accurate.  Tar is not 'coal tar'
>
> You see, when I queried the common but incorrect use of 'tar' in the
> context of road construction, what most people (even Speed, sort of,
> grudgingly) would say something along the lines of, "I didn't know that,
> interesting."
>
> But a TurNiP can never admit error.  Either, like a true Black Knight,
> he must argue to the bitter end, losing limb after limb, or quietly
> slink off, never to mention the subject again.
>
> This correspondence is now closed.
>

No, it isn't. I have provided clear evidence that 'tar;' is used
generically to apply to any heavy non volatile hydrocarbon.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 08/01/2024 12:39, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> There are, however, differences between coal tar and bitumen that affect
> their suitability for road surfacing. Coal tar has a higher melting
> point, but bitumen and bitumen based asphalt give better grip for rubber
> tyres.
>
I am sure there are various differences.

It is however not germane to the issue of how a minor urban or rural UK
road is typically constructed.

Many of these are not 'new builds' at all - they are layer upon layer of
history..

Back in the 1950s there were many untarred roads. Essentially simply
some sort of crushed stone base with sometimes a gravel top.

These got a tar and gravel topping applied at some stage, and that is
essentially all they are.

Good enough for horses and carts, and light motor vehicles.

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

In article <unh05k$1ie23$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 12:39, Colin Bignell wrote:
> > On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> >
> > There are, however, differences between coal tar and bitumen that affect
> > their suitability for road surfacing. Coal tar has a higher melting
> > point, but bitumen and bitumen based asphalt give better grip for rubber
> > tyres.
> >
> I am sure there are various differences.

> It is however not germane to the issue of how a minor urban or rural UK
> road is typically constructed.

> Many of these are not 'new builds' at all - they are layer upon layer of
> history..

> Back in the 1950s there were many untarred roads. Essentially simply
> some sort of crushed stone base with sometimes a gravel top.

> These got a tar and gravel topping applied at some stage, and that is
> essentially all they are.

> Good enough for horses and carts, and light motor vehicles.

but not for the sort of vehicles that turn up at building sites ;-(

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
> Nowhere in these calculations was it necessary to invoke some "fourth
> power" rule. Contact patch sizes were obtained from cycling and motoring
> web sites.

Wikipedia has this:

The fourth power law (also known as the fourth power rule)
states that the greater the axle load of a vehicle, the
stress on the road caused by the motor vehicle increases
in proportion to the fourth power of the axle load. This
law was discovered in the course of a series of scientific
experiments in the United States in the late 1950s and
was decisive for the development of standard construction
methods in road construction.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

#Paul

On 08/01/2024 15:30, #Paul wrote:
> Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
>> Nowhere in these calculations was it necessary to invoke some "fourth
>> power" rule. Contact patch sizes were obtained from cycling and motoring
>> web sites.
>
> Wikipedia has this:
>
> The fourth power law (also known as the fourth power rule)
> states that the greater the axle load of a vehicle, the
> stress on the road caused by the motor vehicle increases
> in proportion to the fourth power of the axle load. This
> law was discovered in the course of a series of scientific
> experiments in the United States in the late 1950s and
> was decisive for the development of standard construction
> methods in road construction.[1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>
> #Paul
>

Yes. Contact pressure has nothing to do with road deformation.

As usual people are introducing red herrings to distract from the real issue

--
WOKE is an acronym... Without Originality, Knowledge or Education.

On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:12:01 +1100, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2024 08:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 00:00:42 +0000, Colin Bignell
>>>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 23:50, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>>>>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of
>>>>>>>>>>> gravel and tar on top
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>>>>>> You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>>>>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>>>>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didnt realise you were making a distinction and I don't believe
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> Turnip was doing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warwickshire CC describe bitumen emulsion as a sticky tar-like
>>>>>> substance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/surfacedressing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional
>>>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is instructive:
>>>>> https://www.hanson.my/en/asphalt-vs-bitumen-vs-tar
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically it seems that bitumen is derived from oil distillation, tar
>>>>> comes from coal distillation, and asphalt is when sand, grit or
>>>>> gravel
>>>>> are mixed with either of the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> What will they do for road surfacing when 'net-zero' comes along, if
>>>>> it ever does?
>>>>>
>>>> Well I have never heard that distinction made.
>>>
>>> It's a common mistake. Don't beat yourself up to much.
>>>
>>> <snipped irrelevant diversionary waffle>
>>>
>>>> Tar is a generic word.
>>>
>>> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman. However,
>>> when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two
>>> of gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical newsgroup it's best to
>>> be accurate.
>>>
>> It *is* accurate. Tar is not 'coal tar'
>
> You see, when I queried the common but incorrect use of 'tar' in the
> context of road construction, what most people (even Speed, sort of,
> grudgingly) would say something along the lines of, "I didn't know that,
> interesting."

I didnt say that. I actually said that the turnip was
not making a distinction between tar and bitumen
and he has now said that very explicity.

> But a TurNiP can never admit error.

He was not making an error, just not making a distinction
between tar and bitumen. Even our road engineers do that
too, calling it a tar seal when in fact bitumen is used.

> This correspondence is now closed.

Nope.

On 08/01/2024 16:40, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:12:01 +1100, Clive Arthur
> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>>> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman.
>>>> However, when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a
>>>> inch or two of gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical newsgroup
>>>> it's best to be accurate.
>>>>
>>> It *is* accurate.  Tar is not 'coal tar'
>>
>> You see, when I queried the common but incorrect use of 'tar' in the
>> context of road construction, what most people (even Speed, sort of,
>> grudgingly) would say something along the lines of, "I didn't know
>> that, interesting."
>
> I didnt say that. I actually said that the turnip was
> not making a distinction between tar and bitumen
> and he has now said that very explicity.
>
>> But a TurNiP can never admit error.
>
> He was not making an error, just not making a distinction
> between tar and bitumen. Even our road engineers do that
> too, calling it a tar seal when in fact bitumen is used.

OK. So what is "pitch"?

--
Max Demian

On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 03:40:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bod addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
MID: <gfbb94Fb4a4U1@mid.individual.net>

On 08/01/2024 11:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 07:57, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 22:38, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> On 07/01/2024 22:05, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 06:17:30 +1100, Clive Arthur
>>>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of gravel
>>>>>> and tar on top
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>>>
>>>> You'd be wrong. I have watched it being used for the
>>>> final work on the roads in the new estates close to my
>>>> house and when current roads are retarred after decades.
>>>
>>> Are you able to distinguish tar from bitumen?
>>>
>>> Certainly here (UK), tar is only used in exceptional circumstances.
>>
>> Many years ago it seemed to be referred to as asphalt. I can remember
>> seeing tankers with the name "Trinidad Lake Asphalt" on the side. The
>> company still exists, but I don't remember seeing the name for maybe 50
>> years. According to the Wiki on it, the UK switched to coal tar in the
>> early 70s.
>>
> I assume you meant switched away from coal tar...

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Asphalt_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago>:
"In the early 1970s, when the UK market switched to coal tar, asphalt
became a much less popular product and the Government of Trinidad and
Tobago took ownership of the asphalt extraction business in 1978."

On the other hand, from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen>:
"However, since the 1970s, when natural gas succeeded town gas, bitumen
has completely overtaken the use of coal tar in these applications."

I assume the latter, as you proposed, is in fact correct.

> IIRC asphalt is a mixture of tar and ballast...although that apparently
> is strictly 'asphalt concrete'

The terminology seems to be quite confused, but this seems useful:
<https://www.cemex.co.uk/asphalt-material-types>

> Anyway its a side issue. The point is that many minor roads are not made
> with massive substrates.

No doubt about that! The geniuses round here, while repairing potholes,
managed to remove the drainage ditches at the side of one road. So
although the potholes are no longer a problem, the road floods easily in
heavy rain.

--

Jeff

On 08 Jan 2024 at 17:25:38 GMT, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On the other hand, from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen>:
> "However, since the 1970s, when natural gas succeeded town gas, bitumen
> has completely overtaken the use of coal tar in these applications."
>
> I assume the latter, as you proposed, is in fact correct.

Well it would have to have done, given that coal tar was a by-product of gas
production until natural gas started to be used. In fact quite a lot of
chemical feedstock came from such gas production.

--
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

On 08/01/2024 17:04, Max Demian wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 16:40, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:12:01 +1100, Clive Arthur
>> <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2024 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2024 12:34, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>>> On 08/01/2024 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>>> Of course it /can/ be, as are many words used by the layman.
>>>>> However, when pontificating ("MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a
>>>>> inch or two of gravel and tar on top") in a semi-technical
>>>>> newsgroup it's best to be accurate.
>>>>>
>>>> It *is* accurate.  Tar is not 'coal tar'
>>>
>>> You see, when I queried the common but incorrect use of 'tar' in the
>>> context of road construction, what most people (even Speed, sort of,
>>> grudgingly) would say something along the lines of, "I didn't know
>>> that, interesting."
>>
>> I didnt say that. I actually said that the turnip was
>> not making a distinction between tar and bitumen
>> and he has now said that very explicity.
>>
>>> But a TurNiP can never admit error.
>>
>> He was not making an error, just not making a distinction
>> between tar and bitumen. Even our road engineers do that
>> too, calling it a tar seal when in fact bitumen is used.
>
> OK. So what is "pitch"?
>

It's the frequency of a tone.:-) And a place where sports are played.

"Pitch is a viscoelastic polymer which can be natural or manufactured,
derived from petroleum, coal tar, or plants. Pitch produced from
petroleum may be called bitumen or asphalt, while plant-derived pitch, a
resin, is known as rosin in its solid form. Tar is sometimes used
interchangeably with pitch, but generally refers to a more liquid
substance derived from coal production, including coal tar, or from
plants, as in pine tar.

In short the whole thing is a minefield with both pitch and tar being
generic terms, whereas asphalt and bitumen are specifically petroleum
products

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

On 08/01/2024 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 08 Jan 2024 at 17:25:38 GMT, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen>:
>> "However, since the 1970s, when natural gas succeeded town gas, bitumen
>> has completely overtaken the use of coal tar in these applications."
>>
>> I assume the latter, as you proposed, is in fact correct.
>
> Well it would have to have done, given that coal tar was a by-product of gas
> production until natural gas started to be used. In fact quite a lot of
> chemical feedstock came from such gas production.
>

Indeed it did. Phenolic resin as per 'bakelite' and other early plastics..

Paracetamol still comes from coal apparently.

The world tends to use what is cheap and available.
Coal fly-ash is great for making building blocks, if a little radioactive...

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 08 Jan 2024 at 18:18:50 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 08/01/2024 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 08 Jan 2024 at 17:25:38 GMT, "Jeff Layman" <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen>:
>>> "However, since the 1970s, when natural gas succeeded town gas, bitumen
>>> has completely overtaken the use of coal tar in these applications."
>>>
>>> I assume the latter, as you proposed, is in fact correct.
>>
>> Well it would have to have done, given that coal tar was a by-product of gas
>> production until natural gas started to be used. In fact quite a lot of
>> chemical feedstock came from such gas production.
>>
>
> Indeed it did. Phenolic resin as per 'bakelite' and other early plastics..
>
> Paracetamol still comes from coal apparently.

Chemical feedstock I expect, for a variety of industries including dyes and
medicines.

> The world tends to use what is cheap and available.
> Coal fly-ash is great for making building blocks, if a little radioactive...

Most people don't know that.

--
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill. "Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.

On 06/01/2024 15:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 12:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 10:58:22 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/01/2024 09:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>
>>> It seems to be well established that damage to roads is roughly
>>> proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle.
>>
>> That's one factor. The force of acceleration is another. It creates a
>> shear force surely ?
>
> That will only affect the wearing layer. Potholes are formed by faults
> deeper in the road structure.
>
Or below the road structure, like sinkholes caused by leaking pipes
or underground springs bubbling into life after exceptionally heavy
rain.

drive west along the M4 from London and for the first 40 miles or so
you will come across repairs that are already sagging where a fault
seems to be occurring well below the road structure

On 06/01/2024 22:00, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 20:37, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 07:19:44 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/01/2024 17:45, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 02:18:04 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/01/2024 12:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 10:58:22 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/01/2024 09:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to be well established that damage to roads is roughly
>>>>>>> proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle.
>>>>>>  That's one factor. The force of acceleration is another. It
>>>>>> creates a
>>>>>> shear force surely ?
>>>>>
>>>>> That will only affect the wearing layer. Potholes are formed by
>>>>> faults deeper in the road structure.
>>
>>>>  Nope, they are caused by the top surface of the road cracking
>>>> and letting water into the substructure of the road. Once bits of
>>>> the top surface break off to form a hole, that fills with water an
>>>> the sub structure gravel gets pumped out by tires going into
>>>> the hole and pumping it out with the water.
>>
>>> The top layer on British roads is simply there to take wear.
>>
>> That is just plain wrong. Its actually there to stop water getting
>> into the underlying packed gravel which is much deeper.
>
> You must build roads differently in Oz. The wearing layer is only
> 20-40mm thick and really is there simply to make it easier to resurface
> the road.
>
>>
>>> The much thicker layer below that is also waterproof, either asphalt
>>> or concrete,
>>
>> Have fun spelling out how you get a pothole in that.
>
> You don't, unless a heavy vehicle damages it.
>
>>
>>> and the compacted MOT* is below that.
>>
>>> * A mix of different materials to Ministry Of Transport specifications.
>
In New Zealand a lot of back roads are simply graded compacted earth
that is then tar-sealed with aggregate chips spread on top.

On 07/01/2024 19:17, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of gravel
>> and tar on top
>
> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>

Yes it is. A rat run through my village last year wrecked the
roads that were suddenly being used by A road traffic.

In December the route was scalped and resurfaced all through
that wet period. They only abandoned work on one day of heavy
rain but after scalping the top 2 inches off, what was exposed
was given a spray of hot bitumen to glue any loose stuff then
a new 2 to 3 inch top coat of hot tarmac was laid.

On 08/01/2024 11:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 19:17, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 07/01/2024 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Standard is MOT type 1, blinded with sand and a inch or two of gravel
>>> and tar on top
>>
>> Don't think tar is used much nowadays.
>>
>
> What do you think that fucking black shit is, then?
>
>
Malaena Stool. You need to see your GP PDQ

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 19:41:15 +0000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>On 06/01/2024 22:00, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 06/01/2024 20:37, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 07:19:44 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/01/2024 17:45, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 02:18:04 +1100, Colin Bignell
>>>>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/01/2024 12:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 10:58:22 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/01/2024 09:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems to be well established that damage to roads is roughly
>>>>>>>> proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle.
>>>>>>>  That's one factor. The force of acceleration is another. It
>>>>>>> creates a
>>>>>>> shear force surely ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That will only affect the wearing layer. Potholes are formed by
>>>>>> faults deeper in the road structure.
>>>
>>>>>  Nope, they are caused by the top surface of the road cracking
>>>>> and letting water into the substructure of the road. Once bits of
>>>>> the top surface break off to form a hole, that fills with water an
>>>>> the sub structure gravel gets pumped out by tires going into
>>>>> the hole and pumping it out with the water.
>>>
>>>> The top layer on British roads is simply there to take wear.
>>>
>>> That is just plain wrong. Its actually there to stop water getting
>>> into the underlying packed gravel which is much deeper.
>>
>> You must build roads differently in Oz. The wearing layer is only
>> 20-40mm thick and really is there simply to make it easier to resurface
>> the road.
>>
>>>
>>>> The much thicker layer below that is also waterproof, either asphalt
>>>> or concrete,
>>>
>>> Have fun spelling out how you get a pothole in that.
>>
>> You don't, unless a heavy vehicle damages it.
>>
>>>
>>>> and the compacted MOT* is below that.
>>>
>>>> * A mix of different materials to Ministry Of Transport specifications.
>>
>In New Zealand a lot of back roads are simply graded compacted earth
>that is then tar-sealed with aggregate chips spread on top.

That's what they used to do when I lived in WA except they left out
the sealing bit.
--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?