490
THE BUILDING NEWS. June 14, 1872.
Correspondence, CAPTAIN SEDDON’S PAPER ON TESTING MATERIALS. To the Editor of the Burtp1ne News. Sir,—In your last issue there is a letter from Mr. Hurst, C.E., which calls for a few words from me in reply. With reference to the formula to which I took objection in my paper, I am perfectly aware how, and by whom, it was arrived at; but that has nothing to do with its being a good formula to give in a handbook without a word of explanation; or with its being a useful one for general application. It is a formula which no one who knew what he was about would be troubled with, inasmuch as it only applies to iron of a certain strength, and is also ob- jectionable on account of one of the terms being in feet and the rest in inches, which leads frequently to mistakes being made in working out calculations. If, as Mr. Hurst says, the formula is only intended for those who have previous knowledge of the subject, I must be allowed to remark that those are the very people who, as far as my experience goes, would never think of using the formula in question. Another explanation should be given in connection with the same formula, as given in Mr. Tiurst’s ‘“* Handbook "—namely, whether the rivet-holes are intended to be deducted from the area indicated in the accompanying section. I must be allowed to differ in toto from Mr. Hurst when he says that the formula given in my paper is ‘not a whit less con- ventional or misleading than the other,” as in the one case every symbol used is plain and intelligible— only requiring its value in inches, or tons to the inch, substituted for it—whilst in the other a purely conventional, or rather manipulated constant is made use of, so that the formula conveys no definite meaning to any one who has not taken the trouble to unravel it, and find out how the constant was arrived at. With regard to the discrepancy alluded to by me, between the tensile strength of oak as given in Molesworth’s ‘* Pocket Book,” and its value deduced from the formule for the transverse strength of beams given in Mr. Hurst’s ‘‘ Handbook,” which, as my paper showed, isin accordance with the results of experiments made on large working scantlings, I am much obliged to him for pointing out that the value quoted by me was not taken from the latest edition of the ‘‘ Pocket Book ;”’ at the same time it does not affect my argument that our knowledge of the strength of building materials is not what it ought to be. Chatham, June 11. H. C. Seppon. VENTILATION OF SOIL-PIPES. Sir,—I have carefully read Mr. Slagg’s letter (p. 469), but in so far as his remarks bear upon the subject in hand—viz., the ventilation of soil-pipes— he brings forward no eyidence to show that in so far as the purpose to be served by it is concerned, a ventilating pipe of 2}in. in diameter will not, if properly put in, duly ventilate a 4}in. soil-pipe. All that is wanted as regards this ventilating pipe is that it should prevent the unlocking of the siphon- traps when water and soil are sent through soil-pipe, as also that it should likewise afford a free passage to outer air for any foul air rising up the soil-pipe. Now, I held that a ventilating-pipe—whether iron or lead, it is all one in principle—of 2}in. diameter was quite sufficient for a 44in. soil-pipe, because, from practical experiment, 1 had found that an air- pipe even much less than 24in. often served the purpose. Further, the foul air which gathers in soil-pipes does not do so all at once, but gradually. Consequently, it can only go out gradually, there- fore, it follows that a 44in. ventilating-pipe, for the same size of soil-pipe, is quite unnecessary. I, however, readily admit that the 44in. ventilating- pipe will dono harm—only I think it a waste of money. From Mr. Slagg’s letters it would appear that he considers the proper thing for soil-pipes to be a 44in. soil-pipe, with a 44in, ventilating-pipe above it ; now, thatis not my idea. My beawideal for a soil-pipe, where a good job is required, is to have the muin soil-pipe 5in. in diameter, the soil- pipes branching into it 44in. in diameter, and a 3in. ventilating-pipe on top—not forgetting the small ventilating-pipes for branches shown by Fig. 118, p. 392. In support of his ideas, Mr. Slagg alludes to his “ten years practice in and constant study of the subject ;” but if I may be permitted, I can allude to a continual practice of fifteen years, dur- ing which, in the course of business, I have been continually brought face to face with the subject, and as the result, I approve of large main soil-pipes, with branches, &c., as above. There is one point in Mr. Slagg’s letter which I cannot allow to pass wnnoticed—viz., where he says he advocates a 3in. pipe instead of a #in., and a 4in. pipe instead of a lin., just as if I had advocated the use of either a 3in. or lin. pipe. What I spoke of was a 2in. or a 24in. ventilating-pipe, while the fin, or lin. air-pipes only referred to short branches, as was explained. Some months ago I had orders to ventilate certain soil-pipes as economically as possible, and I put in some 2in. iron pipes, and they served the purpose; originally 14in. lead pipes had been used, but where they passed through the garrets they had been stolen away and the ends left open; so far as I could judge, the 14in. lead ventilating pipes were put in about twenty years ago. All good plumbers were aware of the effects of non-ventilation owing, e. g., to the effects produced upon the service-boxes of their water-closets when the air-pipe of any service-box got choked up. In conclusion, I can assure Mr. Slagg that there were no intentional personalities in my letter, and I am always ready, as I have elsewhere fully shown, to admit that I am wiser to-day than I was yesterday—only I must get the extra knowledge first.—I am, &c., PLUMBER.
THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION. Srr,—Kindly find room in your next number for a letter from me connected with this subject, and one in which I think that all of us are much interested. It has frequently occurred to me how strange it is that the International Exhibition is closed so early as six o'clock in the evening. Now that we are almost in the height of summer, could it not be kept open until, at any rate, eight o'clock during the longest days? Again, I would also advise that the charge for admission to the Exhibi- tion should be reduced to sixpence on all Saturdays during the remainder of the season; if not for the whole of the day at any rate for part of it—say, for instance, after two o’clock p.m. If these two little suggestions of mine were duly considered and carried into operation it would, I believe, be doing the general public a good service by giving a very large portion of it an opportunity of visiting the Palace of Wonders who otherwise might not, perhaps, be enabled to do so.—I am, &c., London, June 10. NATHANIEL WATERALL.
FURNITURE IN THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, Srtr,—Referring to your article of 1st June on “Furniture in the International Exhibitién,’ I am glad to observe that Messrs. Morant & Co. have written in the BurnpDING News of last week to save Mr. Tarver'sname from being extinguished by Mr. Talbert’s. Permit me also to defend myself from the same mis- fortune which threatened Mr. Tarver. My name appears in the Exhibition Catalogue as the designer of Messrs. Johnstone, Jeanes & Co.’s cabinet and chairs, and I cannot understand why the honour which is said to be due is not rightly bestowed. Your insertion of this note will oblige.—I am, &c., Won. Scorr MorrTon. Dalry Park, Edinburgh, June 11, WOODEN WATER-MAINS. S1r,—In your notice of ‘* Wooden Water-Mains” last week you mention “that none of these old wooden pipes have come to light for the last seven years.” This is, howeyer, not exactly the fact, for during the con- struction of the Metropolitan District Railway many of the wooden pipes were found. They were made and jointed exactly as you describe, but were of a less diameter. They were found in yreat numbers in that part of the line between S. James’s Park and Sloane- square stations.—I am, &c., M.I.M.E.
PLAGIARISM. Srr,—In reference to Mr. E. W. Godwin’s letter in this week’s issue under the above heading, may I be allowed to ask how it is that gentleman’s design for the Guildhall, Winchester, as well as his premiated designs for the Bristol Assize Courts, bear so curious a resemblance in their detail to the designs of Messrs. Norman & Hine for the Plymouth Town Hall, an illus- tration of which appeared in an architectural publication ayear orsoago? Iknow that in one corner of the view in question Mr. Godwin’s name appears as ** Con- sulting Architect,” but does that honorary position authorise him in working up nearly the self-same details for other competitions ? Parsons preach, but we don’t listen as I suppose we should do, because we know that asarule they do not practice what they preach. The last paragraph in Mr. Godwin’s letter is beautiful in its ideal, worthy of having proceeded from the pen of Mr. Ruskin himself, but ‘those who live in glass houses should be careful how they throw stones.”—I am, &c., A DISINTERESTED LOOKER-ON. MR. NORMAN SHAW AND MR. JAMES MACLAREN. Srr,—The remarks which haye already appeared in reference to Mr. MacLaren’s plan for a villa residence have induced me to say a few words. It struck me, im- mediately I saw the design, how its details seemed to have been taken from some of Mr. Norman Shaw’s designs, which have appeared from time to time in your paper. On comparing the design in question with the illustra- tion of Preen Manor House in the Burnpinc News, August 11, 1871, I noticed the following particulars :— The chimney-stack seen in Mr. MacLaren’s lawn eleva- tion was almost a facsimile of that at the east end of Preen Manor. Most of the windows were exactly copied. So are even the weathercocks. Turning to the Burtp1nG News of May 31, 1871, the resemblance of the designs is still more striking. The weathercock which occupies the highest point in Mr. MacLaren’s per- spective view is seen in a similar position in the bird’s- eye view of Leyes Wood. Theform of the roofs below both is the same. The only feature which does not seem to be a copy is an ugly one. I allude to the trun- cated roof, which, I suppose, Mr. MacLaren put into his design for the sake of making the sky-line of his per- spective as near a semicircle as possible. If he had paid a little more attention to the beautiful sky-lines which Mr. Shaw gives to his buildings, his design would almost have passed for one by that gentleman, especially as the style of the foregrounds is the same. I cannot blame Mr. MacLaren for adopt- ing Mr. Norman Shaw as a model or a teacher. But what I do find fault with is that almost every beautiful detail of his design (and, for aught I know, designs) is taken from some building erected by Mr. Shaw, and illustrated in the BurnpixnG News.—I am, &c., Bath. Cc. P. E. (We think it right to say that another correspondent called our attention, in an incidental way, to the extra- ordinary similarity existing between Mr. MacLaren’s details and those of Mr. Norman Shaw, as illustrated in the Burnp1nG News. This was done a fortnight before the appearance of Mr. Norman Shaw’s letter a fortnight since. The correspondent was not aware at the time of the exact similarity in plans as well. In fact, it is only too evident that Mr. MacLaren has been appropriating without acknowledging Mr. Norman Shaw’s ideas. This being the case Mr, MacLaren’s simple disclaimer last week is insufficient. The facts against him are too strong, and he certainly has not improved his position by his repudiating altitude.— Ep.)
ILLEGIBLE LETTERING.
Srr,—I was glad to see your rebuke last week to
those who write old bad English in preference to
modern good English. I have often been puzzled to
read the names on some of your illustrations. Take
last week, for instance. Why, in the name of common
sense, should Mr. H. W. Pratt, in his interesting sheet
of ‘Towers and Spires of Sussex,” have diminished
the value of his work by using such barbarous letter-
ing? Why not have written so that all who can read
tolerably can understand? He imagines, I suppose,
that the Bu1LpinG News is only read by architects.
If so, he is mistaken ; it is read by civil engineers and
builders as well, and I hope after these little hints
that architectural draughtsman, though they may go
back a few hundred years for their architectural forms,
will give us modern lettering at all events.
A MANCHESTER BUILDER,
OUTLANDISH LETTERING. Srr,—It was amusing to read last week your note to “T, Gs” letter on letter-box at Castle Hotel, Aberystwith. You might haye mentioned another funny thing which struck me when there some years since, but which passed probably unnoticed by you. The architect (I believe it was Mr. Seddon) was ambi- tious of stamping his character on everything in the hotel. For instance, he designed the teapots, or T was so informed. But these teapots had such extraordinary long handles and such very small bottoms, that imme- diately you took up one of them full it had the extra- ordinary knack of turning your hand on one side. The teapots were not made as teapots generally are, small at the top and bigger at the bottom, but big at the top and small at the bottom. The consequence was they required more than twice the power to hold them in the hand than ordinary common-sense teapots. The designer might have been a shining artist, but he was a miserable mechanic. I wonder whether the designer of the teapots was the writer of the letters? If so, he certainly deserved the punishment you would mete him as intimated last week.—I am, &c., Grand Parade, Brighton. LEONARD Foster, CHORLEY TOWN HALL COMPETITION. Srm,—In confirmation of the statements contained in my previous letter respecting the untoward result of this competition, and in answer to the letter of Messrs. Ladds & Powell, which appeared in your last issue, allow me to quote the following paragraph from the report of the Commissioners’ meeting, which ap- peared in the Chorley Standard of June 1:— “The Chairman observed that Mr. Powell had called upon him, and expressed his gladness to wait upon the Commissioners with reference to his plan, but the Chairman advised him to wait. He asked Mr. Powell if he could guarantee to put up the Town Hall | for the sum of £10,000, and that gentleman replied
