Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

rick_chasey

Or world renowned nightclubs

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

Thankfully, as @kingstongraham will be aware, Kingston give helpful advice on the regulations.

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/environmental-health/nuisances/5

Reporting Noises From Chickens

The Law

If you own a cockerel, you must ensure that the crowing does not cause a statutory noise nuisance. In considering whether a statutory nuisance exists, Environmental Health Officers consider a number of factors including:-

The nature of the area – cockerels have been part of the English countryside for generations and to some extent part of country life and its charm. This is not to say that nuisance cannot be caused in the country, but an odd cockerel crowing in an isolated rural location is less likely to be considered a nuisance when compared to cockerels kept in more built-up residential environments such as towns and villages.

Time of day – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing at unsocial hours, e.g. at night, early morning or late evening.

Duration – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing for long periods. This is more likely when there is more than one cockerel in the vicinity because the birds compete with each other.

pangolin

A bloke commenting on a local news piece about a shop closing in Bristol centre.

He blamed it on the CAZ and on traffic congestion.

Interesting.

Another guy said it was the council's folt (sic).

pinno

I could hear the cockerel 200yds down the road during lockdown. The general peace at the time was fantastic.

briantrumpet

If people's little fingers are always just the right size to be inserted into the ear to try to remove earwax, does that imply that we've evolved to be able to do that? Or is it just a complete coincidence?? 🤔

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

Thankfully, as @kingstongraham will be aware, Kingston give helpful advice on the regulations.

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/environmental-health/nuisances/5

Reporting Noises From Chickens

The Law

If you own a cockerel, you must ensure that the crowing does not cause a statutory noise nuisance. In considering whether a statutory nuisance exists, Environmental Health Officers consider a number of factors including:-

The nature of the area – cockerels have been part of the English countryside for generations and to some extent part of country life and its charm. This is not to say that nuisance cannot be caused in the country, but an odd cockerel crowing in an isolated rural location is less likely to be considered a nuisance when compared to cockerels kept in more built-up residential environments such as towns and villages.

Time of day – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing at unsocial hours, e.g. at night, early morning or late evening.

Duration – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing for long periods. This is more likely when there is more than one cockerel in the vicinity because the birds compete with each other.

Does Kingston council also have any advice for public using coastal waters? Or the legality of cattle grids?

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

Thankfully, as @kingstongraham will be aware, Kingston give helpful advice on the regulations.

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/environmental-health/nuisances/5

Reporting Noises From Chickens

The Law

If you own a cockerel, you must ensure that the crowing does not cause a statutory noise nuisance. In considering whether a statutory nuisance exists, Environmental Health Officers consider a number of factors including:-

The nature of the area – cockerels have been part of the English countryside for generations and to some extent part of country life and its charm. This is not to say that nuisance cannot be caused in the country, but an odd cockerel crowing in an isolated rural location is less likely to be considered a nuisance when compared to cockerels kept in more built-up residential environments such as towns and villages.

Time of day – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing at unsocial hours, e.g. at night, early morning or late evening.

Duration – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing for long periods. This is more likely when there is more than one cockerel in the vicinity because the birds compete with each other.

Does Kingston council also have any advice for public using coastal waters? Or the legality of cattle grids?

I do hope so.

Actually, since @kingstongraham hasn't reported in, perhaps he's been eaten by illegally-kept Kingston jellyfish already, or disappeared into a substandard cattle grid in the High Street.

pinno

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

Thankfully, as @kingstongraham will be aware, Kingston give helpful advice on the regulations.

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/environmental-health/nuisances/5

Reporting Noises From Chickens

The Law

If you own a cockerel, you must ensure that the crowing does not cause a statutory noise nuisance. In considering whether a statutory nuisance exists, Environmental Health Officers consider a number of factors including:-

The nature of the area – cockerels have been part of the English countryside for generations and to some extent part of country life and its charm. This is not to say that nuisance cannot be caused in the country, but an odd cockerel crowing in an isolated rural location is less likely to be considered a nuisance when compared to cockerels kept in more built-up residential environments such as towns and villages.

Time of day – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing at unsocial hours, e.g. at night, early morning or late evening.

Duration – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing for long periods. This is more likely when there is more than one cockerel in the vicinity because the birds compete with each other.

Does Kingston council also have any advice for public using coastal waters? Or the legality of cattle grids?

I do hope so.

Actually, since @kingstongraham hasn't reported in, perhaps he's been eaten by illegally-kept Kingston jellyfish already, or disappeared into a substandard cattle grid in the High Street.

Or pecked to death?

briantrumpet

pinno said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

Thankfully, as @kingstongraham will be aware, Kingston give helpful advice on the regulations.

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/environmental-health/nuisances/5

Reporting Noises From Chickens

The Law

If you own a cockerel, you must ensure that the crowing does not cause a statutory noise nuisance. In considering whether a statutory nuisance exists, Environmental Health Officers consider a number of factors including:-

The nature of the area – cockerels have been part of the English countryside for generations and to some extent part of country life and its charm. This is not to say that nuisance cannot be caused in the country, but an odd cockerel crowing in an isolated rural location is less likely to be considered a nuisance when compared to cockerels kept in more built-up residential environments such as towns and villages.

Time of day – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing at unsocial hours, e.g. at night, early morning or late evening.

Duration – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing for long periods. This is more likely when there is more than one cockerel in the vicinity because the birds compete with each other.

Does Kingston council also have any advice for public using coastal waters? Or the legality of cattle grids?

I do hope so.

Actually, since @kingstongraham hasn't reported in, perhaps he's been eaten by illegally-kept Kingston jellyfish already, or disappeared into a substandard cattle grid in the High Street.

Or pecked to death?

The local police will be looking out for a big pecker if so.

pinno

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

Thankfully, as @kingstongraham will be aware, Kingston give helpful advice on the regulations.

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/environmental-health/nuisances/5

Reporting Noises From Chickens

The Law

If you own a cockerel, you must ensure that the crowing does not cause a statutory noise nuisance. In considering whether a statutory nuisance exists, Environmental Health Officers consider a number of factors including:-

The nature of the area – cockerels have been part of the English countryside for generations and to some extent part of country life and its charm. This is not to say that nuisance cannot be caused in the country, but an odd cockerel crowing in an isolated rural location is less likely to be considered a nuisance when compared to cockerels kept in more built-up residential environments such as towns and villages.

Time of day – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing at unsocial hours, e.g. at night, early morning or late evening.

Duration – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing for long periods. This is more likely when there is more than one cockerel in the vicinity because the birds compete with each other.

Does Kingston council also have any advice for public using coastal waters? Or the legality of cattle grids?

I do hope so.

Actually, since @kingstongraham hasn't reported in, perhaps he's been eaten by illegally-kept Kingston jellyfish already, or disappeared into a substandard cattle grid in the High Street.

Or pecked to death?

The local police will be looking out for a big pecker if so.

Maybe the Cockerel and the Jelly fish conspired a deadly cattle grid incident.

veronese68

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

Not trivial on site but... muppet on radio news whining 'nobody told us about high tides'. FFS. Buy / live near an eroding coastline if you choose, but be adult about it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67529551

Reminds me of a sign shared somewhere that was on the fence round a racecourse.
I can't remember the exact wording but it was along the lines of -

You chose to buy a house in an estate developed next door to a racecourse.
Take your noise complaints and f*** off!

Sadly all too often noise complaints like that have won the day, like people who buy houses next to church towers with bells and farms with cockerels.

There is actually legislation around ownership of cockerels.

Thankfully, as @kingstongraham will be aware, Kingston give helpful advice on the regulations.

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/environmental-health/nuisances/5

Reporting Noises From Chickens

The Law

If you own a cockerel, you must ensure that the crowing does not cause a statutory noise nuisance. In considering whether a statutory nuisance exists, Environmental Health Officers consider a number of factors including:-

The nature of the area – cockerels have been part of the English countryside for generations and to some extent part of country life and its charm. This is not to say that nuisance cannot be caused in the country, but an odd cockerel crowing in an isolated rural location is less likely to be considered a nuisance when compared to cockerels kept in more built-up residential environments such as towns and villages.

Time of day – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing at unsocial hours, e.g. at night, early morning or late evening.

Duration – it is more likely that the law will consider nuisance is being caused if a cockerel is crowing for long periods. This is more likely when there is more than one cockerel in the vicinity because the birds compete with each other.

There are a few people keeping chickens around here, they often think it's cute and their kids will like it. Then a fox gets in and the kids aren't so happy. Not heard any cocks crowing though so the council regulations must work.
I did see a chap walking a large and magnificent cockerel by the tow path in Molesey a couple of years back, really should have taken a picture. Not quite in Kingston

kingstongraham

I saw a man with his cock out in Ham lands but that was a different sort of nuisance entirely.

briantrumpet

I can't remember if I posted about the roof in Woodbury Salterton that, when they started to remove the thatch, had the entire history of its thatching going back to the 1th century...

Anyway, they removed most of it, but left some of the original timbers and the lowest layers of thatch (blackened by the smoke that would have escaped by a smoke hole, being before the days of chimneys), and are now building a brand new roof that will enclose the old bits within the new roof.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

I can't remember if I posted about the roof in Woodbury Salterton that, when they started to remove the thatch, had the entire history of its thatching going back to the 1th century...

Anyway, they removed most of it, but left some of the original timbers and the lowest layers of thatch (blackened by the smoke that would have escaped by a smoke hole, being before the days of chimneys), and are now building a brand new roof that will enclose the old bits within the new roof.

Am slightly conflicted about this. On the one hand it's remarkable that original thatch has survived along with substantial parts of the roof structure. But building an entirely new roof a couple of feet above the old one is a pretty extravagant thing to do and in almost any other era, the usable timbers would have been saved and the rest replaced and brought up to date. I'm not sure how I feel about turning bits of people's homes into museum exhibits.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

I can't remember if I posted about the roof in Woodbury Salterton that, when they started to remove the thatch, had the entire history of its thatching going back to the 1th century...

Anyway, they removed most of it, but left some of the original timbers and the lowest layers of thatch (blackened by the smoke that would have escaped by a smoke hole, being before the days of chimneys), and are now building a brand new roof that will enclose the old bits within the new roof.

Am slightly conflicted about this. On the one hand it's remarkable that original thatch has survived along with substantial parts of the roof structure. But building an entirely new roof a couple of feet above the old one is a pretty extravagant thing to do and in almost any other era, the usable timbers would have been saved and the rest replaced and brought up to date. I'm not sure how I feel about turning bits of people's homes into museum exhibits.

Thankfully not a routine thing to do, but I suspect that this was rare enough in its completeness to make the owners think that partial preservation was warranted. From a practical POV it's a nightmare, I'm sure.

I asked the thatchers who removed the old thatch, and apparently they didn't find a smoke hole.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

I can't remember if I posted about the roof in Woodbury Salterton that, when they started to remove the thatch, had the entire history of its thatching going back to the 1th century...

Anyway, they removed most of it, but left some of the original timbers and the lowest layers of thatch (blackened by the smoke that would have escaped by a smoke hole, being before the days of chimneys), and are now building a brand new roof that will enclose the old bits within the new roof.

Am slightly conflicted about this. On the one hand it's remarkable that original thatch has survived along with substantial parts of the roof structure. But building an entirely new roof a couple of feet above the old one is a pretty extravagant thing to do and in almost any other era, the usable timbers would have been saved and the rest replaced and brought up to date. I'm not sure how I feel about turning bits of people's homes into museum exhibits.

Thankfully not a routine thing to do, but I suspect that this was rare enough in its completeness to make the owners think that partial preservation was warranted. From a practical POV it's a nightmare, I'm sure.

I asked the thatchers who removed the old thatch, and apparently they didn't find a smoke hole.

I do wonder about theories about domestic fires before chimney. I mean you'd barely be able to breathe if there was an open fire and no roof opening, nor would the fire burn properly without a draft.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

I can't remember if I posted about the roof in Woodbury Salterton that, when they started to remove the thatch, had the entire history of its thatching going back to the 1th century...

Anyway, they removed most of it, but left some of the original timbers and the lowest layers of thatch (blackened by the smoke that would have escaped by a smoke hole, being before the days of chimneys), and are now building a brand new roof that will enclose the old bits within the new roof.

Am slightly conflicted about this. On the one hand it's remarkable that original thatch has survived along with substantial parts of the roof structure. But building an entirely new roof a couple of feet above the old one is a pretty extravagant thing to do and in almost any other era, the usable timbers would have been saved and the rest replaced and brought up to date. I'm not sure how I feel about turning bits of people's homes into museum exhibits.

Thankfully not a routine thing to do, but I suspect that this was rare enough in its completeness to make the owners think that partial preservation was warranted. From a practical POV it's a nightmare, I'm sure.

I asked the thatchers who removed the old thatch, and apparently they didn't find a smoke hole.

I do wonder about theories about domestic fires before chimney. I mean you'd barely be able to breathe if there was an open fire and no roof opening, nor would the fire burn properly without a draft.

Chimneys only really took off in England after glazed windows became a thing, so I suspect that there were plenty of draughts to waft the smoke around, if they weren't posh enough to have a smoke hole.

I've got a friend who occasionally gives me a little history lesson when I post photos on Facebook... I posted one of the fantastic chimneys in Otterton (which I think you'll know well), and he proceeded to tell me the history of the chimney in England, then another of my friends (a trombonist) then told me that when he'd worked as a thatcher that they'd uncovered an original smoke hole in a house in Whimple.

I wish my friend would publish a book of his architectural archaeological reconstructions for Exeter, on a series of walking trails - he brings the history of old buildings alive as he strips back the layers and explains how houses have developed over the centuries. And his drawings are superb.




https://www.tree-ring.co.uk/RichardParker.htm

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

I can't remember if I posted about the roof in Woodbury Salterton that, when they started to remove the thatch, had the entire history of its thatching going back to the 1th century...

Anyway, they removed most of it, but left some of the original timbers and the lowest layers of thatch (blackened by the smoke that would have escaped by a smoke hole, being before the days of chimneys), and are now building a brand new roof that will enclose the old bits within the new roof.

Am slightly conflicted about this. On the one hand it's remarkable that original thatch has survived along with substantial parts of the roof structure. But building an entirely new roof a couple of feet above the old one is a pretty extravagant thing to do and in almost any other era, the usable timbers would have been saved and the rest replaced and brought up to date. I'm not sure how I feel about turning bits of people's homes into museum exhibits.

Thankfully not a routine thing to do, but I suspect that this was rare enough in its completeness to make the owners think that partial preservation was warranted. From a practical POV it's a nightmare, I'm sure.

I asked the thatchers who removed the old thatch, and apparently they didn't find a smoke hole.

I do wonder about theories about domestic fires before chimney. I mean you'd barely be able to breathe if there was an open fire and no roof opening, nor would the fire burn properly without a draft.

Chimneys only really took off in England after glazed windows became a thing, so I suspect that there were plenty of draughts to waft the smoke around, if they weren't posh enough to have a smoke hole.

I've got a friend who occasionally gives me a little history lesson when I post photos on Facebook... I posted one of the fantastic chimneys in Otterton (which I think you'll know well), and he proceeded to tell me the history of the chimney in England, then another of my friends (a trombonist) then told me that when he'd worked as a thatcher that they'd uncovered an original smoke hole in a house in Whimple.

I wish my friend would publish a book of his architectural archaeological reconstructions for Exeter, on a series of walking trails - he brings the history of old buildings alive as he strips back the layers and explains how houses have developed over the centuries. And his drawings are superb.




https://www.tree-ring.co.uk/RichardParker.htm

If you don't have a chimney you do need some sort of aperture in the roof otherwise the fire won't work and you will choke everyone. Having grown up in a house heated by wood, I have first hand experience of what happens when smoke can't escape properly. Open windows isn't going to cut it. If they haven't found a smoke hole then they have either missed it or the chimney is older than the thatch (or maybe replaces an earlier one).

Nice drawlin' by the way.

pblakeney

Saw these while touring the Outer Hebrides.

Black house (Probably named for good reasons 😉)
The buildings were generally built with double wall dry-stone walls packed with earth, and were roofed with wooden rafters covered with a thatch of turf with cereal straw or reed. The floor was generally flagstones or packed earth and there was a central hearth for the fire. There was no chimney for the smoke to escape through. Instead the smoke made its way through the roof. This led to the soot blackening of the interior which may also have contributed to the adoption of name blackhouse.

The blackhouse was used to accommodate livestock as well as people. People lived at one end and the animals lived at the other with a partition between them.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

Saw these while touring the Outer Hebrides.

Black house (Probably named for good reasons 😉)
The buildings were generally built with double wall dry-stone walls packed with earth, and were roofed with wooden rafters covered with a thatch of turf with cereal straw or reed. The floor was generally flagstones or packed earth and there was a central hearth for the fire. There was no chimney for the smoke to escape through. Instead the smoke made its way through the roof. This led to the soot blackening of the interior which may also have contributed to the adoption of name blackhouse.

The blackhouse was used to accommodate livestock as well as people. People lived at one end and the animals lived at the other with a partition between them.

Devon/Dartmoor longhouse too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmoor_longhouse

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

Nice drawlin' by the way.

I was trying to find one of the sequences where he demonstrates the development of posh houses, basically from barns with a fire in the middle to the 17th/18th centuries with separate floors. bedrooms, chimneys etc. It really makes their history come alive. And he bases these sequences on actual buildings, so making it that much more tangible.

TheBigBean

I remember one house with wood fire heating from an open fire. I would be burnt on one side and freezing on the other. Hated it.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

Nice drawlin' by the way.

I was trying to find one of the sequences where he demonstrates the development of posh houses, basically from barns with a fire in the middle to the 17th/18th centuries with separate floors. bedrooms, chimneys etc. It really makes their history come alive. And he bases these sequences on actual buildings, so making it that much more tangible.

A useful contact to have if we ever need any timbers dated. Have bookmarked.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Saw these while touring the Outer Hebrides.

Black house (Probably named for good reasons 😉)
The buildings were generally built with double wall dry-stone walls packed with earth, and were roofed with wooden rafters covered with a thatch of turf with cereal straw or reed. The floor was generally flagstones or packed earth and there was a central hearth for the fire. There was no chimney for the smoke to escape through. Instead the smoke made its way through the roof. This led to the soot blackening of the interior which may also have contributed to the adoption of name blackhouse.

The blackhouse was used to accommodate livestock as well as people. People lived at one end and the animals lived at the other with a partition between them.

This is the bit that doesn't make sense. If the thatch is waterproof, how on earth do people think smoke is making it's way through? Or put the other way, if smoke could escape, rain would come straight through it.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Saw these while touring the Outer Hebrides.

Black house (Probably named for good reasons 😉)
The buildings were generally built with double wall dry-stone walls packed with earth, and were roofed with wooden rafters covered with a thatch of turf with cereal straw or reed. The floor was generally flagstones or packed earth and there was a central hearth for the fire. There was no chimney for the smoke to escape through. Instead the smoke made its way through the roof. This led to the soot blackening of the interior which may also have contributed to the adoption of name blackhouse.

The blackhouse was used to accommodate livestock as well as people. People lived at one end and the animals lived at the other with a partition between them.

This is the bit that doesn't make sense. If the thatch is waterproof, how on earth do people think smoke is making it's way through? Or put the other way, if smoke could escape, rain would come straight through it.

Early goretex?

rjsterry

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Saw these while touring the Outer Hebrides.

Black house (Probably named for good reasons 😉)
The buildings were generally built with double wall dry-stone walls packed with earth, and were roofed with wooden rafters covered with a thatch of turf with cereal straw or reed. The floor was generally flagstones or packed earth and there was a central hearth for the fire. There was no chimney for the smoke to escape through. Instead the smoke made its way through the roof. This led to the soot blackening of the interior which may also have contributed to the adoption of name blackhouse.

The blackhouse was used to accommodate livestock as well as people. People lived at one end and the animals lived at the other with a partition between them.

This is the bit that doesn't make sense. If the thatch is waterproof, how on earth do people think smoke is making it's way through? Or put the other way, if smoke could escape, rain would come straight through it.

Early goretex?

Goretex is vapour permeable, but effectively airtight.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Saw these while touring the Outer Hebrides.

Black house (Probably named for good reasons 😉)
The buildings were generally built with double wall dry-stone walls packed with earth, and were roofed with wooden rafters covered with a thatch of turf with cereal straw or reed. The floor was generally flagstones or packed earth and there was a central hearth for the fire. There was no chimney for the smoke to escape through. Instead the smoke made its way through the roof. This led to the soot blackening of the interior which may also have contributed to the adoption of name blackhouse.

The blackhouse was used to accommodate livestock as well as people. People lived at one end and the animals lived at the other with a partition between them.

This is the bit that doesn't make sense. If the thatch is waterproof, how on earth do people think smoke is making it's way through? Or put the other way, if smoke could escape, rain would come straight through it.

Smoke is less dense than water?

veronese68

I suspect thatch doesn't act like a completely waterproof outer layer, will some of the water get down to a certain depth? Presumably the smoke will do the same from below, if so is it better at finding it's way through the thatch?
Obviously I have no idea if this is true, but seems like one possibility.
On the subject of chimneys, I've heard the tour of Hampton Court chimneys is very good. Need to book it and remember not to look down.

webboo

Bill Bryson book “At Home” gives a good history of how chimneys came in to being and the break through that made upper floors affordable in poorer homes.
When chimneys started to put on ordinary houses rather than just castles, people complained that they were colder and less healthy. They believed that being well kippered from the smoke stopped them getting ill.