attn jimfish
- Thread starter rockhardsolidplastering
- Start date
- Status
kirk johnstone
Private Member
essexandy said:
hello andy mate did you have any look finding one of those giggle sticks for me mate?
essexandy
The Lake Governor
kirk johnstone said:
Sorry Kirk I phoned all the members of the "Ancient Order of the Essex Giggly Stick" and it was unanimous that you could not be given the aid tool until you understand the difference between 3:1 and 9:2:1, and Church I can't believe you suggested we should use that ancient punishment on Kirk even if he doesn't know his render mixes
kirk johnstone
Private Member
essexandy said:kirk johnstone said:
Sorry Kirk I phoned all the members of the "Ancient Order of the Essex Giggly Stick" and it was unanimous that you could not be given the aid tool until you understand the difference between 3:1 and 9:2:1, and Church I can't believe you suggested we should use that ancient punishment on Kirk even if he doesn't know his render mixes
all i said was that lime is a binder and so is cement and if you look in all the books it always works out 3 aggregate to 1 binder ALWAYS so all these people mixing 5-1 s&c and stuff like this are wrong it should at least be 5-1-3/4 s/c/l
if you look in any book it will back up what i say! now send me my fooookin giggly stick!
Chris W
Well-Known Member
i think youre attempting to recover from that hiccup kirk...
i remember thinking eh? that doesnt make any sense.. cant remember why but wasnt it something like 3:1 is exactly the same as 6:1:1 which it isnt, i dont know the technical details why, just what ive picked up over the years about plasticisation/shrinkage etc but theres a good reason for it... or why use lime in the first place?
go find that post so we can have this properly cos i for one would really like to fully understand what goes on in that bucket ;D
im a glutton for technicalities :-[
even cement still has its mysteries for me, all this crystalisation on the chemical set and you shouldnt throw muck back in the mixer etc...
even though i dont normally have much choice or i'd end up ordering double the amount of materials ;D
i remember thinking eh? that doesnt make any sense.. cant remember why but wasnt it something like 3:1 is exactly the same as 6:1:1 which it isnt, i dont know the technical details why, just what ive picked up over the years about plasticisation/shrinkage etc but theres a good reason for it... or why use lime in the first place?
go find that post so we can have this properly cos i for one would really like to fully understand what goes on in that bucket ;D
im a glutton for technicalities :-[
even cement still has its mysteries for me, all this crystalisation on the chemical set and you shouldnt throw muck back in the mixer etc...
even though i dont normally have much choice or i'd end up ordering double the amount of materials ;D
kirk johnstone
Private Member
Chris W said:
the point i am trying to make is that 6-1-1 is 1 binder to 3 aggregate, the use of lime makes the stucco more flexible for a weaker background but you still use a 3-1 mix in the way that you use binders and aggregates. you could use 3-1 lime-sand as they used to on interior plastering (sheltered from weather). 3-1 A-B is the basic rule if its less then it is just too weak. if you disagree then you could always save on cash and mix 10-1 or lets go crazy and do a 1-1-30 mix and see what happens
can you see what i am trying to say mate?
Chris W
Well-Known Member
would this be an american book youre quoting from?
anyway, i get what youre saying and thats more or less what i understood, if in doubt about the background, add 1 lime in place of 1 cement so a 3:1 becomes a 6:1:1
but my point is, many many many experienced spreads will swear down that a 3:1 is too hard by far even on a modern newly built surface, according to your book youre saying thats just not true and 3:1 is the way to go, 6:1:1 for a dodgy background...
what i would like to know is not so much the 'this is the way its done end of' but more - this is the reason WHY we do it this way... you see what i mean? its one thing quoting rules at people and expecting them to soak up the information parrot fashion but something else (and in my opinion a better way of teaching) to explain WHY in the first place, it leads to a better understanding of how and a bonus ability to work different but related problems out for themselves...
make sense? why 3:1, why not 4:1, did someone just start throwing different mixes on and guaged what the results were over a period of many years, in many different climates? i think not somehow...
i not saying i disagree, but i dont understand it fully so im not buying it until it can be proven...
theres also the fact that the sand is different depending on where you are in the world, does this not make any shadow of a difference whatsoever? and if not, why not?
anyway, i get what youre saying and thats more or less what i understood, if in doubt about the background, add 1 lime in place of 1 cement so a 3:1 becomes a 6:1:1
but my point is, many many many experienced spreads will swear down that a 3:1 is too hard by far even on a modern newly built surface, according to your book youre saying thats just not true and 3:1 is the way to go, 6:1:1 for a dodgy background...
what i would like to know is not so much the 'this is the way its done end of' but more - this is the reason WHY we do it this way... you see what i mean? its one thing quoting rules at people and expecting them to soak up the information parrot fashion but something else (and in my opinion a better way of teaching) to explain WHY in the first place, it leads to a better understanding of how and a bonus ability to work different but related problems out for themselves...
make sense? why 3:1, why not 4:1, did someone just start throwing different mixes on and guaged what the results were over a period of many years, in many different climates? i think not somehow...
i not saying i disagree, but i dont understand it fully so im not buying it until it can be proven...
theres also the fact that the sand is different depending on where you are in the world, does this not make any shadow of a difference whatsoever? and if not, why not?
kirk johnstone
Private Member
morterman said:
if that was the case the why dont you just add more feb? simple because the mix will be to weak
kirk johnstone
Private Member
Chris W said:
no mate read the post again he said that lime was just for plasticizing the mix and i said if that was the case then why not use lime and just add feb? simple because lime plays a bigger part than just plasticizing the mix
before i say any more on why you should use one binder to three aggregate i will need to brush up on my facts as i wouldnt want to post false info for you mate so if you dont mind can i continue this with you tomorrow when i can give you an exact answer?
essexandy
The Lake Governor
Chris W said:
Your absolutely right Chris, before decideing what strength mix to use on a job I first check the strength of the substrate and then check the sand, even when it's the same sand that I've ordered many times before as sand is a natural material and can and does vary as they work through the different seams at the pit.
Reading about the strengths of mixes from a book can only be used as a guide, you then need to use your own experience to decide which to use in different circumstances.
kirk johnstone
Private Member
i have just skimmed through the subject of portland cement in my big book of plastering (plastering plain and decorative by w. miller) basicly the section is massive on portland cement, he covers about ten different tests, some of the tests took over two years and were carried out in extreme situations, ie submerged under water and heated to 1000 degrees on little bricks of sand and cement, then they test the tensile strength at the end of each test, he covers the subject in great depth and there is so much info on the subject he also goes into great detail about sand and what grade sieve to use to get the perfect grade of sand to use with portland.. he even goes into detail about the best way two manufacture portland and lots of tests that have been carried out on portland cement alone with no sand, this man wasnt messing about he coverd this subject from every angle.
erm i wouldnt even know were to start to explain to you all the stuff in this book on the subject and the best i can do is copy every word page fore page.....
do i realy have to do this?
it could take me about two days but if every one will benefit then i wiil but i would prefer that everyone bought there own book... or just trust me that a three to one mix is best
please guys dont make me copy this (german word) out for you :-\
erm i wouldnt even know were to start to explain to you all the stuff in this book on the subject and the best i can do is copy every word page fore page.....
do i realy have to do this?
it could take me about two days but if every one will benefit then i wiil but i would prefer that everyone bought there own book... or just trust me that a three to one mix is best
please guys dont make me copy this (german word) out for you :-\
kirk johnstone
Private Member
just to let you guys know there is 18 pages A4 size filled with the subject of portland cement, it covers...
manufacture, analysis, tests, compressive,tensile, and adhesive strengths and uses of portland cement. he didnt just guess what ratio to use, this guy and lots off other fellas who are all mentioned spent years researching to come to the conclusion... in some situations he recommends using 5 parts sand to 2 parts cement.
all i will say is that this fella has lots of photos of his work throughout this 1000 odd page book all with addresses, now i have try'd to go and see as many examples of his work as possible and 85% of the ones that i went to see are still there today looking good and solid over 100 years later. what i am trying to say is i would follow his word without a shadow of a doubt, and not listen to someone who just says oh yeh just use erm a 5-1 or erm a 6-1 or sumthin like that... ?
two all those who say that 3-1 is two strong... can you prove it? how many tests have you done? how long has your work been up?
manufacture, analysis, tests, compressive,tensile, and adhesive strengths and uses of portland cement. he didnt just guess what ratio to use, this guy and lots off other fellas who are all mentioned spent years researching to come to the conclusion... in some situations he recommends using 5 parts sand to 2 parts cement.
all i will say is that this fella has lots of photos of his work throughout this 1000 odd page book all with addresses, now i have try'd to go and see as many examples of his work as possible and 85% of the ones that i went to see are still there today looking good and solid over 100 years later. what i am trying to say is i would follow his word without a shadow of a doubt, and not listen to someone who just says oh yeh just use erm a 5-1 or erm a 6-1 or sumthin like that... ?
two all those who say that 3-1 is two strong... can you prove it? how many tests have you done? how long has your work been up?
kirk johnstone
Private Member
erm do i get my giggly stick now andy?
essexandy
The Lake Governor
kirk johnstone said:
You most definitely DON'T.
I'm not going to bother trying to put you in the right direction where rendering is concerned anymore.
To everyone else please don't listen to this numptey, read the more recent (B.S. book) literature on the subject and avoid causing yourself and your clients any potential problems.
Chris W
Well-Known Member
:
o well, i was hoping that just maybe we might be able to construct some sort of 'guide' to 'mixing render' that people could use based on information given about a selection of common jobs / substrates / circumstances...
sort of - when using sharp sand, it tends to give up its water very easily, drying very very quickly compared to using a softer sand with smaller grains that can hold more water, for this reason the ratio would need to be nearer to x:x rather than y:y....
or something...
more like explaining something at the chemical level but without all the long windedness in laymans terms so that people can easily understand what is happening...
using the experience of several learned members...
it would defo go down well in the newbie section...
o well, i was hoping that just maybe we might be able to construct some sort of 'guide' to 'mixing render' that people could use based on information given about a selection of common jobs / substrates / circumstances...
sort of - when using sharp sand, it tends to give up its water very easily, drying very very quickly compared to using a softer sand with smaller grains that can hold more water, for this reason the ratio would need to be nearer to x:x rather than y:y....
or something...
more like explaining something at the chemical level but without all the long windedness in laymans terms so that people can easily understand what is happening...
using the experience of several learned members...
it would defo go down well in the newbie section...
kirk johnstone
Private Member
essexandy said:
i do appreciate what you are trying to say andy with regards to rendering but all i can say is, this guy did the tests, then he did the work, then he wrote a book, then he died...... 100 years or more ago, then i went to see his work and its still there. so all i can say is this is what i do now because there is proof that it works. nobody else has to do it and if you want i will never recommend any one on this forum to do it, but until i have a problem with one of my jobs or someone can give me a good reason with all the info to back it up, then i will continue to do it like this.
chriss w.... i would love to take on the great task of copying it word from word to post into the newbi section but i dont think it would go down well. so we should probably ask andy to, because he seems to know a whole lot more than w. miller. and if he says that he got his info from his book then we can ask him if the author of that book has done many renders of which we can go and see 100 years later?
p.s. i am not trying to be funny but i am just going off what evidence i have on the subject
kirk johnstone
Private Member
here is an example of millers portland cement work
https://www.rampantscotland.com/glasgow/graphics/parkcircus1461g.jpg
https://www.rampantscotland.com/glasgow/graphics/parkcircus1461g.jpg
phippsy333
Member
Jim first like to say well done mate for getting your idea out there....and well done for it being a success....just seen the vdeo on the belmore trool site tho...your a bit light on the drywall adhesive arnt you lol.......bet u get 15 sheets up out of 1 bag lol......i wouldnt use your thing for skimming as i always like a spotboard but can see a use for it in certain areas of plastering.....could also be used for spanking ;o)
Im a huge lover of northern soul....got me dance moves down and everything ;D
Im a huge lover of northern soul....got me dance moves down and everything ;D
richardbrown
Private Member
essexandy said:
I think you will find its "do not" Andy
rockhardsolidplastering
Active Member
i wonder if you can put flexi cement on with this bucket trowel looking tool
richardbrown
Private Member
rockhardsolidplastering said:
I was talking to les lord about flexi cement and he thinks its amazing
Thanks phippsy as for being light on the dabbing that is just a demo on how to dab you could slap it up the windows with it if you like we all know how to dab an 8x4 is to dab down the edges for strength along the skirting line and top of the board aswell plus dab at intervals across equal sections of the board like i said its merely a demo as for the nothern soul i used to go to wigan casino in the seventies and kept the faith ever since i still go to our local nothern nights even now regards jimfish.phippsy333 said:
Steve you wouldnt be able to plaster with that scoop because you are obstructed running your float across it my trowel is flat and unobstructed take a close look at the handle and bend in the blade cheers jim .And i know your not trying to stir your a midlander like me.and we aint stirrers.steve cov said:
- Status