Recommended changes

[biondoli]

Re: Recommended changes (Page 59)

Hello James,
new on the forum, just downloaded the instructions ang going through them...
On page 59 Ver. 1.2 of the book under Material List 36" Oven
it states:
(8) 10' lenghts of 1/2" rebar, (4) cut to 80"; (4) cut to 94"
the rebars are for the grid foundation...if the foundation is 71"x80" how come the rebars are longer? Am I missing something? thanks Carlo

[Frances]

Re: Recommended changes

Yes, please do include metric measurements! That would help a lot.

One thing I noticed is that on the firbrick primer page there is no mention of the bricks' dimensions. Required number, weight, alumina content is there, but if you live in a country where there is no such thing as a standard firebrick size, you still don't know what you're looking for.

[Wlodek]

Re: Recommended changes

Just to continue on the awkward note of units and locales.

As a Polish man after nearly 20 years in the UK I am a partly imperialised metric person, as bad as it sounds. Even though members exactly like me will be likely fairly rare, you will have lots of metric readers.

I am still uncomfortable with temperature in F, inches are OK, but I still think in metric when I am drawing or measuring things. It takes me a while to visualise something like 2'3" as well. I try to use both Imperial and metric when I post.

I would appreciate dual measures on Forno Bravo, and I am sure many others outside UK and US would not mind this either.

It would be hard to enforce this in forum posts, of course, but in publications it would be really great and help lots of interested people. Remember the early NASA story when an inch measurement crept into otherwise metric calculations and nearly caused a problem? And don't say ovens are not rocket science.

Having said that, the FB oven models are metric, aren't they (say Ristorante110 refers to the diameter in cm ...).

Best wishes,

W.

[dmun]

Re: Recommended changes

On my first trip to Europe, this would have been in the late '70's, I stayed in a coastal town in southern Spain, Fuengirola, that was in the middle of a building boom. All around my neighborhood there were houses being built out of hollow terra cotta tile, structurally, instead of brick. These walls were laid up quick and dirty, i mean you never saw such rotten mortar joints, and then the stucco people would come in, and make everything look smooth and square. To a midwestern US boy it was as odd as seeing houses built from big lego blocks.

Every country has an indiginous building style. Do you know that roof pitch varies by amount of snowfall? From flat roofs in the tropics to A-frames on ski slopes is no accident. Angles are expensive in work and material, but not as expensive as a roof that's caved in under snow.

One of the things that's interesting about Forno Bravo forum is the imput from all over the world. We have people reading here who have no idea what a two-by-four is. (it's a piece of pine, fir, or spruce lumber that measures 1.5 by 3.5 by 96.125 inches. The inch has been a graphic user interface for the metric system since 1957, at 25.4 mm exactly.)

Our instructions have been accused of being vague, but they have been adapted to use in every conceivable corner of the world.

[jengineer]

Re: Recommended changes

Just measured a 2x4: 35mm x 85 mm. And a 4x4 post: 82mm square. Now what?
It means your 2 X 4 is really a 1.4 X 3.3 and your 4X4 is about 3 1/4 square.

I think the gist of supplying both sets of numbers is to give the builder general guidance. So when it says frame up with a 2X 4 or equivalent we are meaning go and search out something on the order of 35x85mm or larger. I am a strong believer of oversdesign not design on the ragged edge of failure - no collapsed bridges here. I also think that going to the nearest 5 mm is ok too.

[CanuckJim]

Re: Recommended changes

JE,

In Canada, we're supposed to be metricafied . Like England, though, it's very skitzy in that regard. We buy gas in litres, but beef in pounds, beer in pints, wine in litres. We get 2x4s that ain't, but a 4'x8' sheet of ply is still 4'x8', though the thickness can be tricky. Some sheets really are 3/4" or whatever, some are shy, meaning metric. This is especially true at our Home Depot outlets, where a lot of the hardwood plywood is European or Russian.

Wish I could give you a standard metric measurement for 2x4, 2x6, etc., but there doesn't seem to be one; depends on origin, I guess. Best bet? Take an Imperial/metric tape with you when you pick up the wood to make sure it all has the same dimensions.

Just measured a 2x4: 35mm x 85 mm. And a 4x4 post: 82mm square. Now what?

Jim

[jengineer]

Re: Recommended changes

James - I will send you a quick and easy tool to do the conversions.
Folks - we actually had most of the document in reverse proper form in regards to measurements. US Technical papers are supposed to be in Mteric and US Imperial units are supposed to follow in parenthesis. One of the querstions I was having is in regards to what we commonly call dimensions of wood such as 2 X 4, 2 X 6. Back in the day this used to be the "real" thickness of the wood. Now you find that t a 2 X 4 is less than 2 inches by 4 inches. The question is what is the normal or equivalent of a 2 X 4? Is it a 5 X 16 cm?

[james]

Re: Recommended changes

Ciao Carioca,
Agreed. We should have mm included in brackets behind each inch and foot measurement.
That's on the list -- though it will take some work.
James

[carioca]

Re: Recommended changes

Ciao tutti quanti! One quick suggestion if I may: I realise the Forum readership is largely imperial (feet & inches) but it would help the metricated to see the corresponding measurements in the other dimension, too (mm etc) - perhaps in brackets...

Other than that, seeing that I am a long-time sub-editor, I could offer to 'sub' your texts prior to release...

Ci vediamo!
Carioca

[james]

Re: Recommended changes

Ciao Marcel,

Well written. Thanks. I like the surface areas description, and we can clarify this section with your corrections in the next release.
James

[Marcel]

Re: Recommended changes to "The First Course"

Hi, James,



(M) Since you requested edits I suggest a closer look at Page 32 since the photos don't clearly match the text. Below, I've Copy-Pasted the new text and inserted some suggestions in BOLD to clarify:



"The STARTING BOTTOM First Course

The dome itself is a series of self-supporting circular brick
chains that curve inward, until they meet at the keystone
at the oven top. The first chain CAN BE BUILT IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS:


1- "is a ring of brick cut in half and standing on their ends, with the thin edge (2 1/2?) facing inside the oven. You can adjust the exact diameter
of your oven to match the size circle that your bricks form, so that you do not have to cut a brick in your first chain."



(M) Which illustration is meant to support the text above? ___



7.1. First course a half brick set upright.

(M) THIS ILLUSTRATION IS NOT IDEAL SINCE THE END BRICK IS SHOWN FULL HEIGHT.



"The first course can be oriented in three ways. First, you
can stand a brick cut in half upright, as showN in Photo 7.2."

(M) I WOULD START DESCRIBING THE POSSIBILITIES IN NUMERICAL ORDER: Photo 7.1, Photo 7.2, Photo 7.3.


(M) The instructions that refer to photo 7.2 show a picture of my oven's first course. My bricks do NOT stand upright. I would describe their orientation as: cut in half and lying on one of it's 2 largest area sides. The rest of the dome uses all bricks in that same orientation.



=============================================



2ND Second, you can lay a half brick on its side, as shown in
Photo 7.1.

(M) Here is a duplicate wording and is ambiguous for the Newbie since THE END BRICK shown IS UNCUT, FULL HEIGHT.



" 3RD THIRD Finally, if you are building a Naples-style oven,
you can assemble the first course with a full height brick
standing upright."


(M) I would suggest including an illustration (7.3) in reference to the text described as "Third".



(M) The instructions show Photo 7.3 but don't reference it. That's also probably not the best illustration to support the text because the initial bricks lie on their full length largest area sides. The builder shows the opening throat and a Newbie might be confused since only the ensuing bricks to the right are full height bricks standing upright.

(M) In general I think its important to use consistent descriptors for the brick orientation(s). I've read many convoluted Forum discussions resulting from misunderstandings about brick orientation.

================================================== ===


(M) When describing a FULL, UNCUT BRICK, consider using terms that make clear the three (3) differing surface areas: The smallest, The MIDDLE size area, and the LARGEST AREA. That way you need make no distinction for the nominal different size bricks in the U.S. versus those in some other countries.



(M) When describing a 1/2 CUT BRICK, consider using terms that make clear the two (2) differing surface area: The smaller rectangular areas, and the larger square areas.





"There is no right or wrong way to start your oven. Once you decide the style oven you want to build, you can decide which first course method works for you."



(M) Here you might also want to mention that the builder's choice of which of the 3 ways of orienting a starter course should / could be utilized is influenced by how high above the hearth floor s/he would construct the dome.




(M) I hope that this is helpful and not "simpler than possible".




Ciao,



Marcel

[james]

Hello all,
The Pompeii Oven plans are being downloaded at a good clip, so I think it is time to make a place where everyone can make recommendations for changes, bug fixes and improvements.

The current version is V1.2.

Post your recommendations here, and we will make sure they are included in the next release.
Thanks.
James