Jingos, what a bunch. Yes, they are historical buildings! Yes, they could be rebuilt! - find the craftsmen and money to do it!! No, you could not put in a sprinkler system, for a structure with such an enormous internal volume!! The pipes would have to be massive to carry the volume of water required, with massive pumps too. No I am not at all religious, the loss of the cathedral is bad enough as it has a rich history, but the loss of the magnificent pipe organ installed in it is beyond quantifying!! That can never be rebuilt.
Unleash the trolls and conspiracy theorists.
One interesting note so far accredited to Bertrand de Feydeau is that “the roof’s beams can’t be remade because we don’t, at the moment, have trees on our territory the size that were cut in the 13th century”. Indeed, I should think those will be hard to find anywhere.
ferret, is the extent of damage - or complete loss- of that magnificent organ yet known?
One interesting note so far accredited to Bertrand de Feydeau is that “the roof’s beams can’t be remade because we don’t, at the moment, have trees on our territory the size that were cut in the 13th century”. Indeed, I should think those will be hard to find anywhere.
ferret, is the extent of damage - or complete loss- of that magnificent organ yet known?
Last edited:
JC -- "The poor will always be with us"
"Never cry for something which can't cry for you. " -- Vittorio de Sica to Sophia Loren when her jewels were stolen.
A fire-boat in New York harbor can put out 10,000 gallons per minute, a pumper truck can put out over 5,000 gallons per minute.
Last edited:
I am sad and do have a personal connection to Notre Dame. For years I lived less then 2.5 km from the cathedral. I would often go to hear organ rehearsals or concerts. And on sunny days I'd lie on the roof of the south tower to catch some rays. Quite the spot way up there. The only time I got vertigo was lying on that roof and looking up at the peak of the (now gone) spire.
Very sad to see the damage, Notre Dame is an essential part of France. But glad to see it wasn't worse.
That's just boo-hoo.
Beams of that size and strength, put out for bid in Maine and Oregon. I have slow-growth Pine on/near my land good for a few beams. A few in 10+ acres, Maine has 23 million acres, we can find some big beams. Oregon is more lightweight wood and presently more cut-over, but 3 times bigger, before you get into Wash and NoCal.
If the medieval builders had Glu-Lam, they would have used it. The only limit on GluLam is getting long lengths to an urban site.
Steel seems odd but can be good engineering. The cheapest form would be like the Eiffel Tower: short triangulations (though done with bent rod instead of rivets). Like a modern warehouse. Indeed that may be the short-term fix to get the building under cover so rain/snow does not rot the stone-work. Welded plate construction could imitate wood shape, a little wood-grain and visitors would not know it wasn't wood. Heavy plate is mildly fire-resisting. But so is heavy wood, so I wonder HOW they got a fire started...
It took over a thousand years to get to this point, construction happening more centuries than not. A Cathedral is a story with many chapters. It will get fixed. Probably somewhat better. Surely with tighter rules on hot-work and on electricals, whatever did or could-have caused this trouble. And you know none of the re-builders will do cheap work, or over-charge as much as usual, because it is a BIG and very public project.
Or they could give up, tear it down, auction-off the stones, use that to mitigate gasoline prices or whatever the yellow-vests are protesting. But I think the building has more long-term value than that.
Inside fire sprinklers seems unwise because of the precious artifacts which would not like a bath. Glass-casing them all to resist a FLOOD would be intrusive.
Roof ridge sprinklers may make sense, especially if the roof surface "can't" be made very fire resisting. But it is an odd place for a fire to start. Unless they were torching tar, or a major electrical junction would not stop arcing. Ridge sprinkler would not save the beams until the roof surface burned through, and now we are back to wet artifacts.
Water is a minor problem. It is an island between two waterways. Large electric power can be put on site (may already pass through the site). Engine driven pumps can cover a power failure. These will indeed be large pumps, not for the area to be covered as for the height it must be delivered to. But this work was mature in the 18th century.
Roof ridge sprinklers may make sense, especially if the roof surface "can't" be made very fire resisting. But it is an odd place for a fire to start. Unless they were torching tar, or a major electrical junction would not stop arcing. Ridge sprinkler would not save the beams until the roof surface burned through, and now we are back to wet artifacts.
Water is a minor problem. It is an island between two waterways. Large electric power can be put on site (may already pass through the site). Engine driven pumps can cover a power failure. These will indeed be large pumps, not for the area to be covered as for the height it must be delivered to. But this work was mature in the 18th century.
PRR, the bulk of the roof’s support structure was oak, with each beam being drawn from a separate tree, with an estimated total of 13,000 trees of 300-400 years age being used. Granted, in the 12th century and several following during which the bulk of original construction occurred not much thought was likely given to ever running out of construction materials, or planning on reforestation for replacement.
Glu-lam or other modern engineered wood fibre materials- sure, but maybe something other than lead for the exterior cladding.
As I alluded earlier, assuming no financial constraints, the project managers definitely have their work cut out for them, and a world wide audience of keyboard warriors such as ourselves second guessing them.
Glu-lam or other modern engineered wood fibre materials- sure, but maybe something other than lead for the exterior cladding.
As I alluded earlier, assuming no financial constraints, the project managers definitely have their work cut out for them, and a world wide audience of keyboard warriors such as ourselves second guessing them.
A structure build by hand needs to be restored by hand. It will most probably take at least 50 years to put everything back to the way it was.
Thinking out loud, it could be a better thing to take the best of what has survived and fuse it with a state of the art modern structure as a symbol of French unity in what are unsettling times. Let's not forget that in its day, medieval cathedral construction was 'state of the art' giving birth to hybridised structures that evolved over centuries.
Last edited:
Did the CNN voice really say "...what appears to be a fire."? WTF!? Now I start to understand why everyone is worried about the press in the US.
Its modern tools that put it on fire, or deliberate action, beams of wood this size char but they don't burn. You can make a fire in the roof and I doubt it will burn.
There must have been gaz, chemicals, lot of combustible and intense heat (for like 40 minutes) before they start to burn.
They can rebuild no doubt, but they will make sure this is more a cultural center than a church in the sanctuary, like modern church which are easy to convert to a any other religion ceremony. The fire was the best way to do this without opposition and fast.
There must have been gaz, chemicals, lot of combustible and intense heat (for like 40 minutes) before they start to burn.
They can rebuild no doubt, but they will make sure this is more a cultural center than a church in the sanctuary, like modern church which are easy to convert to a any other religion ceremony. The fire was the best way to do this without opposition and fast.
