In article <JTGPM.119901$1B%c.31944@fx09.iad>, Sam Plusnet
<not@home.com> on Sat, 23 Sep 2023 at 20:20:08 awoke Nicholas from his
slumbers and wrote
>On 22/09/2023 20:21, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <6FlPM.26198$TwR4.19038@fx46.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
>> on Fri, 22 Sep 2023 at 20:10:57 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and
>> wrote
>>> On 21/09/2023 21:57, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>>> In article <jE1PM.68783$djA2.57508@fx14.ams1>, Sam Plusnet
>>>> <not@home.com> on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 at 21:24:46 awoke Nicholas from his
>>>> slumbers and wrote
>>>>> On 21/09/2023 07:37, RustyHinge wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/09/2023 02:11, Tone wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/09/2023 22:12, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <XnsB085DB74FF6D0Factura3476@135.181.20.170>, Peter
>>>>>>>> <myshed@prune.org.uk>  on Wed, 20 Sep 2023 at 20:34:24 awoke Nicholas
>>>>>>>> from his slumbers and wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:CfIOM.46774$kx57.25256@fx08.ams1:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You'd have to detach the spire from the rest of the cathedral to do
>>>>>>>>>> any of these methods.  I think people would notice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Make a replacement out of papier mache - then they wouldn't notice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until it rains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fit an umbrella over the top. Problem solved. Alright, it might twist
>>>>>>> a bit, but that wouldn't be a first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I goove they forgot to return it to that Chesterfield - leaving
>>>>>> something to aspire to.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This thread (or this bit of it) started with someone extolling the
>>>>> quality of old buildings.
>>>>> Now I come to ponder on it, several places are know almost entirely
>>>>> because of some dodgy building jbex.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chesterfield - dodgy spire
>>>>
>>>> AIUI the spire was built perfectly properly, its problems came from
>>>> mounting heavy bells at some date after construction and poor
>>>> maintenance which allowed some of the timbers to rot.
>>>>
>>>>> Pisa - nobody would have ever heard of the place if it didn't have that
>>>>> bliddy tower.
>>>>
>>>> That is due to inadequate foundations
>>>>>
>>>>> There is/was that pub which was all over the gnus.
>>>>
>>>> That farm house was a perfectly good building with adequate foundations
>>>> until a coal owner authorised a mining company to remove coal from
>>>> underneath it. The subsequent subsidence caused the problems.
>>>>
>>>> Even modern buildings designed to withstand subsidence can become a
>>>> liability. Barnes Hall's buildings at Keele University were built on
>>>> specially reinforced concrete rafts to withstand the expected mining of
>>>> coal underneath the University. Despite these precautions I understand
>>>> some of the buildings had to be demolished (This is my understanding, I
>>>> came down in 1970).
>>>
>>> Tell me about it.
>>> My first secondary (eh?) school was built where mining subsidence was
>>> know to occur.
>>> Thus it was built, in sections, on a number of concrete rafts. Each of
>>> those rafts decided to subside in their own unique way and bits of floor
>>> would slope up or down in a decidedly unconventional and inconvenient
>>> way (the door to the Headmaster's office straddled two rafts, and he was
>>> forced to adopt an 'Open Door' policy - since no door could be made to
>>> fit). Much or all of it was demolished not too long after I left the area.
>>>
>> Was that in Wardley?
>
>Creswell - in Derbyshire.
Different schools but similar.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 20/09/2023 21:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 20/09/2023 16:34, Tim+ wrote:
>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> You know the density of the stone, so it's a simple matter of immersing
>>> the spire in a container of water and measuring the displacement, from
>>> which the weight of the stone may be calculated.
>>>
>>
>> Better to float it in a vat of mercury and weigh the displaced
>> liquid.  No
>> issues with variable density of stone (and other materials) then. ;-)
>
> You'd have to detach the spire from the rest of the cathedral to do any
> of these methods.  I think people would notice.

Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
the spire.

On 04-Oct-23 1:29, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 20/09/2023 21:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 20/09/2023 16:34, Tim+ wrote:
>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You know the density of the stone, so it's a simple matter of immersing
>>>> the spire in a container of water and measuring the displacement, from
>>>> which the weight of the stone may be calculated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Better to float it in a vat of mercury and weigh the displaced
>>> liquid.  No
>>> issues with variable density of stone (and other materials) then. ;-)
>>
>> You'd have to detach the spire from the rest of the cathedral to do
>> any of these methods.  I think people would notice.
>
> Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
> obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
> removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
> the spire.

Of course!
It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 04/10/2023 23:52, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
>> obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
>> removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
>> the spire.
>
> Of course!
> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that.

It wouldnay be the first time a church has got its priorities upside down.

Tone

In article <N0mTM.6698$MJ59.4798@fx10.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
on Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 23:52:28 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and
wrote
>On 04-Oct-23 1:29, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 20/09/2023 21:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 20/09/2023 16:34, Tim+ wrote:
>>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You know the density of the stone, so it's a simple matter of immersing
>>>>> the spire in a container of water and measuring the displacement, from
>>>>> which the weight of the stone may be calculated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Better to float it in a vat of mercury and weigh the displaced
>>>> liquid.  No
>>>> issues with variable density of stone (and other materials) then. ;-)
>>>
>>> You'd have to detach the spire from the rest of the cathedral to do
>>> any of these methods.  I think people would notice.
>>
>> Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
>> obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
>> removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
>> the spire.
>
>Of course!
>It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that.
>
It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that, the footings for the
convenient pool would be pretty substantial.

--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 05-Oct-23 9:40, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <N0mTM.6698$MJ59.4798@fx10.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
> on Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 23:52:28 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and
> wrote
>> On 04-Oct-23 1:29, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 20/09/2023 21:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 20/09/2023 16:34, Tim+ wrote:
>>>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know the density of the stone, so it's a simple matter of immersing
>>>>>> the spire in a container of water and measuring the displacement, from
>>>>>> which the weight of the stone may be calculated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Better to float it in a vat of mercury and weigh the displaced
>>>>> liquid.  No
>>>>> issues with variable density of stone (and other materials) then. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to detach the spire from the rest of the cathedral to do
>>>> any of these methods.  I think people would notice.
>>>
>>> Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
>>> obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
>>> removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
>>> the spire.
>>
>> Of course!
>> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that.
>>
> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that, the footings for the
> convenient pool would be pretty substantial.

Not so.
The footings would be a footling matter.

--
Sam Plusnet

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 05-Oct-23 9:40, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <N0mTM.6698$MJ59.4798@fx10.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
>> on Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 23:52:28 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and
>> wrote
>>> On 04-Oct-23 1:29, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>> On 20/09/2023 21:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> On 20/09/2023 16:34, Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know the density of the stone, so it's a simple matter of immersing
>>>>>>> the spire in a container of water and measuring the displacement, from
>>>>>>> which the weight of the stone may be calculated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better to float it in a vat of mercury and weigh the displaced
>>>>>> liquid.  No
>>>>>> issues with variable density of stone (and other materials) then. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to detach the spire from the rest of the cathedral to do
>>>>> any of these methods.  I think people would notice.
>>>>
>>>> Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
>>>> obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
>>>> removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
>>>> the spire.
>>>
>>> Of course!
>>> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that.
>>>
>> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that, the footings for the
>> convenient pool would be pretty substantial.
>
> Not so.
> The footings would be a footling matter.
>

Dunno why folk have to complicate things so much. Simply weigh an object
outside the church. Weigh it again under the spire. It’s weight reduction
will be proportional to the mass of the spire. Sure it can all be worked
out on a fag packet…

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Tim+ said:
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>> On 05-Oct-23 9:40, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> In article <N0mTM.6698$MJ59.4798@fx10.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
>>>> On 04-Oct-23 1:29, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
>>>>> obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
>>>>> removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
>>>>> the spire.
>>>>
>>>> Of course!
>>>> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that.
>>>>
>>> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that, the footings for the
>>> convenient pool would be pretty substantial.
>>
>> Not so.
>> The footings would be a footling matter.
>>
>
> Dunno why folk have to complicate things so much. Simply weigh an object
> outside the church. Weigh it again under the spire. It’s weight reduction
> will be proportional to the mass of the spire. Sure it can all be worked
> out on a fag packet…

As good an excuse as any, for a book that wants recommending ...

"Reality is not what it seems", by Carlo Rovelli.

"Loop Quantum Gravity" for beginners (starting from Democritus). Among
other things, explains why the above proposition might make sense, for
large-enough values of "fag packet". Written so nicely & explained so
clearly that I almost thought I understood it. Until I tried to tell
myself what it was that I'd understood, anyway. Umm ... gravity comes in
very small lumps that don't exist, except in relation to other such
lumps, which of course also don't exist, on top of which they're
unpredictable, but they average out into what we call "space" and
"time". And the author doesn't really know whether that's right or not,
but it looks interesting ...

It's a long time since I had acid that good.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Tim+ wrote:

> Dunno why folk have to complicate things so much. Simply weigh an object
> outside the church. Weigh it again under the spire. It’s weight
> reduction will be proportional to the mass of the spire.

Just be sure to use a massless weighing scale.

On 06-Oct-23 11:36, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
> Tim+ wrote:
>
>> Dunno why folk have to complicate things so much. Simply weigh an
>> object outside the church. Weigh it again under the spire. It’s weight
>> reduction will be proportional to the mass of the spire.
>
> Just be sure to use a massless weighing scale.

Can't. The spherical cow is standing on it.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 05/10/2023 21:57, Tim+ wrote:
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>> On 05-Oct-23 9:40, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> In article <N0mTM.6698$MJ59.4798@fx10.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
>>> on Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 23:52:28 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and
>>> wrote
>>>> On 04-Oct-23 1:29, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>>> On 20/09/2023 21:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/09/2023 16:34, Tim+ wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know the density of the stone, so it's a simple matter of immersing
>>>>>>>> the spire in a container of water and measuring the displacement, from
>>>>>>>> which the weight of the stone may be calculated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Better to float it in a vat of mercury and weigh the displaced
>>>>>>> liquid.  No
>>>>>>> issues with variable density of stone (and other materials) then. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd have to detach the spire from the rest of the cathedral to do
>>>>>> any of these methods.  I think people would notice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either build a suitable pool around the spire (a rectangular one would
>>>>> obviate any issues with pi) or invert the entire cathedral without
>>>>> removing the spire and immerse it in a convenient pool to the depth of
>>>>> the spire.
>>>>
>>>> Of course!
>>>> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that.
>>>>
>>> It's pretty obvious when you lay it out like that, the footings for the
>>> convenient pool would be pretty substantial.
>>
>> Not so.
>> The footings would be a footling matter.
>>
>
> Dunno why folk have to complicate things so much. Simply weigh an object
> outside the church. Weigh it again under the spire. It’s weight reduction
> will be proportional to the mass of the spire. Sure it can all be worked
> out on a fag packet…

But you'd need to weigh it at the centre of gravity of the spire, and
you'd have to remove the spire and hang it up by at least two different
suspension points to establish that.