[Cob] Cob R Value

[Anna Young]

Hi Cobbers,

Thanks for the info on R values. I've passed the relevant details on to our 
energy consultant. Our site is wooded so not ideal for maximising solar 
gain. That said, we have designed our house with the support of an 
experienced cob architect. Similary with the energy consultant we hope to 
make decisons on windows, etc based on her experience. In this field there 
is inevitably more experience with industry supported building practises 
than natural building. Anything that helps facilitate the transfer of 
experience to cob has my support. I'll let you know how well her assessment 
helps us obtain a comfortable natural home.

Steve


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "otherfish" <otherfish at comcast.net>
To: <dealy at deatech.com>
Cc: "Anna Young" <avjyoung at shaw.ca>; <    >
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Cob] Cob R Value


> Shannon's reply brings to the fore once agian a critical issue for cob.
> Almost all of the info currently used to judge cob is really just
>
> CONJECTURE BASED ON SUPPOSITION
>
> The critical point is that we as cobbers & natural builders have no
> comprehensive tested & accepted basic data of cob and it's pyhsical
> performance.  Every time we try to convince building permit officials of 
> the
> validity of cob we run into this roadblock.  As a result, cob is kept
> marginalized & out of use by mainstream construction.
>
> This is an important issue.  "Normal" construction is responsible for at
> least 2,000,000 new houses each year in the US.  This is a huge impact on
> the planet & if just 1% of new construction was of cob that would be 2,000
> new cob buildings every year.  If cob & natural building were accepted by
> the Building Codes, this 1% would be possible.  As it is, we as natural
> builders, while prehaps solving our own personal shelter needs, are like
> gnats on a dinosaur in the impact we have to help change this terrible
> mainstream rape of the environment in the name of creating shelter.
>
> This can be changed, but only if there is the will to do so. Please go to:
>
> http://www.deatech.com/natural/cobinfo/cobcode.html
>
> to see the proposal for a cob testing program which I put forth in 1996.
> This is critical work that needs to be done.  The project has been stalled
> for lack of funding.  If you or someone you know is a funding expert or
> angle who sees value in this project, please contact me.  Lets cut the
> gordian knot that is holding cob back & set it free for all who want to 
> use
> it.
>
> Thanks
> john fordice
>
>
>
>
>
> on 6/20/05 9:19 PM, Shannon C. Dealy at dealy at deatech.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, otherfish wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>> Robin Clarke wrote:
>>> John
>>>
>>> I am not familiar with cob technique, except for a quick Google browse 
>>> that
>>> I have just done.  Presumably walls made in this way have a density that 
>>> is
>>> around rammed earth and mud bricks, possible somewhere between the two. 
>>> I
>>> suspect that the fraction of straw is relatively small and that there is
>>> some "ramming" of each layer.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Just thought I should note here that while I think his general approach
>> and premises are correct, at 10+% straw, I would consider the level of
>> straw to be significant (though not overwhelmingly so), and the density
>> of cob (due to this level of straw content) is definitely lower than mud
>> brick, in addition, I don't think that the conventional method of
>> manually "knitting" the layers together would really qualify as "ramming"
>> in the sense that I suspect he meant.  Overall, this would result in cob
>> having a moderately higher R-value then his estimate.
>>
>> FWIW.
>>
>> Shannon C. Dealy      |               DeaTech Research Inc.
>> dealy at deatech.com     |          - Custom Software Development -
>> |    Embedded Systems, Real-time, Device Drivers
>> Phone: (800) 467-5820 | Networking, Scientific & Engineering Applications
>> or: (541) 929-4089 |                  www.deatech.com
>>
>