|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury Round One |
This topic is locked
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Ishmael 683 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 17:50
|
||
Well I'll be heading for Dartmoor and after my Dr's visit this aft probably sooner rather than later.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 17:59
|
||
|
"But he had already decided what that right solution was and that wasn't 'tunnelling', his solution that he campaigned fearlessly for (was someone threatening him?) was grouting; rather than re-filling with chalk. " Totally, totally untrue. Our Campaign has always been and always will be what's least damaging for Silbury, as decided by independent structural experts with no interference from anyone else or any other issue. On Saturday for the first time ever, on the basis of acknowledged gaps in his knowledge, a proper expert told the public his opinion. That, subject to his further consideration in the light of as much further research as can be done, is progress. About time too.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:03
|
||
|
I never have understood what is meant by "grouting". That's what I do after fixing bathroom tiles. It just seems a bit temporary - don't we want a permanent solution? Grouting is pumping in a rock paste of some sort. 99.9% of stabilisation is done that way. Prof Chandler said it would be viable here except for a single concern he had - about the introduction of water, albeit temporarily.
|
|||
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:05
|
||
|
Hmm, tricky - Wiltshire - but not near Swindon. Devizes looked nice on Saturday, but I gather it's a bit parochial. The Shetlands, but take your brolly! The Outer Hebrides - ditto Dartmoor - Chagford is a nice village near the moor, and has three pubs in 100yds of each other. The Isles of Scilly: beyond Cornwall (most things are!) but not exactly megalithically blessed, and once the ice-caps go into freefall..... My lady did her nursing training in Roehampton, SW London; at least the aircraft aiming for Heathrow were high enough there - although Concorde (Bless her) sounded like she was parting your hair (I had hair to part then). Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:08
|
||
|
Reread your own vitiolic posts on Heritage Action - you are vehemently against, what you describe (emotively) as 'tunnelling'. At one stage you make claims for a new tunnel - "A new and larger tunnel would be bored into the heart of the mound from the side, involving much disruption to Silbury itself, risk of additional collapse, huge expense and years of further delay." The volumetric figures you talk about are taken out of context, and again used to back up your own personal preferences for grouting.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:14
|
||
|
Slurry grouting - the engineer actually said no-one can predict what might happen if a slurry containing water was introduced into a 4000+ year old dry environment. One of the implications being that slurry might destabilise the structure. Pressure grouting - rejected on the grounds that it was only normally done when you'd already created a sufficiently stable and strong structure. With either method what you could not ensure was that all the voids would be filled.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:18
|
||
|
I can highly recommend the Vale of Pewsey for peace and quiet. ....Except for when the lads are low-flying, and practicing on the Plain;-) .
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:25
|
||
|
Gaps in their knowledge there may be - but you demand something is done!! - and so when proposals are made, that are done in light of current knowledge (afterall how many other 4000+ year old mounds are being re-filled to base your experience on?) - you carry on about gaps in their knowledge.
|
|||
|
Pilgrim 597 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:27
|
||
|
Hi, sbp, >With either method what you could not ensure was that all the voids would be filled.< Agreed, but surely a significant reduction in the size of the voids will lead to a significant reduction in void migration, due to the void volume being lessened; no major falls would be possible, because they would have height to fall from? Peace Pilgrim X
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 28, 2005, 18:28
|
||
|
We referred to it as a new tunnel because First, EH's article in British Archaeology Jan 2005 [Appendix 5] said – "Atkinson's tunnel entrance would be re-opened and "a new tunnel constructed to the centre of the hill" Second, the Risk Assessment [Appendix 6] section 8.1.2 says that – > "Re-entering the 1968 tunnel may require some enlargement or re-profiling of the existing tunnels which would result in new mechanical damage to the sediments within the Hill." > "Necessary enlargement could be minimal but its exact extent is not predictable over the whole length of the tunnels." > "Any enlargement of the tunnels would also extend the zone of degradation of in situ biological materials further into the Hill;" > "The chalk fill may not be sufficiently compacted, with subsequent settlement allowing some new voiding to develop;" > "The disturbance caused by the work may trigger new collapses." Third, the Risk Assessment [Appendix 6] section 8.3 makes a working estimate of the degree of enlargement. It says: "For re-entry into the tunnels the amount of mechanical damage is calculated on the basis of tunnel enlargement by 0.2m around the existing roof and sides, along all of the 1849 and 1968-69 tunnelling." So that's why we called it a new tunnel. Sorry for the inconvenience. We're slaves to what we're told. On Saturday we were told the above was a "wildest dream" scenario and you have now told us it's a worst case one. As i said, we intend to accept the account offered to us by EH on Saturday and will assume that the plan is to go in there without causing damage or enlargement. But I'd rather talk to them from now on as i don't think you've shown you know one tenth of what you pretend to, as has been evident before. Goodbye and happy trolling.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ] | This topic is locked |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
