Cristobal Cristo

Peter van den Berg wrote:I suspect those refractory slabs aren't available in the US.

I have purchasesd 18x18x2.5" super duty (over 40 Al2O3) slabs for around $30 a piece in Los Angeles. I do not know the manufacturer. It could be HWI. Well stocked refractory material stores should have them.

Tommy Bolin wrote:Finns don't seem to use steel as a radiant surface unless for cooking, they believe it strips the air of negative, healthy ions

I read a better explanation in an older masonry building book - steel surfaces heat to temperatures high enough to burn the dirt particles and the fumes created pollute the air. It makes sense, taking into consideration that dirt will be partially composed of organic compounds like skin, hair, food remnants, microplastic, etc.

Ned, I did what you are planing. Because I focus on lasting beauty and not on functional disposobility it costs a lot of sacrifice.
It helps to be debt free low spender with flexible job, so quality materials can be purchased and labor paid. I would not rely on any "youtube algorithms" (whatever it means) - all my calculation for time and money turned out to be irrelevant, because as Rio said - it's a process, part of life. Life is too short and f you really want to do it, it's better to dive earlier than later. It may turn out to be different (or more diffucult) than what you envision, but net result will be more positive happiness.

Thomas,

What is the exact (alphanumeric) model name of your Marey?

John C Daley wrote:Cristobal, what material would you recommend fot those interior walls?

I was thinking about it.
For the mud walls I would use compressed earth blocks/adobe. I consider this building to be more seismic resistant than the one built from irregular stone.
For the stone building - to preserve its building system to some extent it would be nice also to use stone - of the same type, but I would opt for stone ashlars - at least with split faces (usually cheaper than sawn, but it depends on the supplier and the equipment they have). If not stone, then the second bet would be solid bricks.

Hardik Dhaduk wrote:what would be your recommendation to account for any seismic events and lateral forces exerted by the roof?

You should talk to a structural engineer in the area where the house is located.

Western Gujarat has highest seismicity in India. On the other hand, the house is still standing and seems fine (except the termite affected roof). Seismic retrofitting can be more or less intrusive. It would not make sense to surround an old house with concrete beams, but since you are already considering the roof replacement - a good concrete bond beam will help. It holds the walls together and resists expanding forces exerted by the gable/hip roof.
Since you want to convert the building to a livable house it would make sense to build walls inside in such a way that they will be perpendicular to the long walls and spaced 3-4 m apart. They will brace the long walls, reinforcing them. Then a continuous bond beam can be poured over all exterior and interior walls (I did it for my house). It's possible that the fact that the walls are 450-600 mm, helped to survive quakes in the past. Building with thick/low walls are more resistant than thin and tall.  Because of that I would recommend to build the interior walls at least 400 mm thick - they would look compatible with the old building and would also have comparable mass to the exterior walls.

dalo franss wrote:- do you just stack the firebricks? or need some goop between them?

If you dry stack brick, thermal expansion will quickly move them around and will open the joints. It would work with a well designed tension frame, but would work better if the dry stacked bricks had thin layer of refractory wool in the joints. For testing, dry stacking will work fine, especially if brand new (straight and square dry pressed, not extruded) firebricks are used.
The brick can be mortared with:
-clay/aggregate mortar - air setting; can be reused
-or hydraulic mortar - water setting based on alumina cement; can not be reused
Tension frame is a good addition even if mortars are used.

dalo franss wrote:- insulating the riser with rock wool or is that too low temp stuff?

Outside of the riser the temperatures are much lower than inside. for example a brick that is almost too hot to the touch at 70 C, it will be 450 C on the fire side. i do not know if people use it, but I think it would work.

dalo franss wrote:- the top insulating bricks that's that funny whatchamacallit white material right?

Yes. They are insulating bricks. There exist various kinds and not all of them are designed to work in the flame path (perlite or calcium-silicate).
The most popular insulating firebrick ARE designed to work in the flame path. For riser it's recommended to use IFB-2600, rated to 2600 F. They can be purchased at well stocked refractory supplier for $6 a piece (US made).

dalo franss wrote:Yes, evolve, my intention is to build one which can be "easily" disassembled and upgraded,
and builing the first one outside.

Building a prototype outside is the best approach. You will learn a lot and risk nothing.

Dalo,

You just use the firebricks for the core and it will work. If you insulate the riser, it will work better and if you build the upper part of the riser from insulating bricks, it will work even better. It can evolve further into building entire core from insulating material, but it's impractical, due to its fragility and softness, so the compromise is chosen - hard firebox and soft upper part of the riser.
Before the invention of modern firebricks in late XIX century, regular bricks and cob were used for the purpose of building heaters. Even in older times people were aware that some clays are more refractory than others and various bricks were used for various tasks.
And now it's easy to purchase quality and uniform refractory material.

It depends what you consider as "scrubbing". I use cast iron every day. To clean it I scrub with steel spatula and hot water. If I want it perfectly clean for pancakes or frying eggs then I just wash it with rough (green) side of the dish sponge and detergent untill it's clean. Only then I do not have black spots on my first two pancakes or fried eggs.

I would strongly recommend AGAINST using cement to replaster/repoint the existing old stone walls. These walls are probably still standing, because of compatibility of materials used.

1. Traditional stone masonry always used lime or clay based mortars, so the wall could better adjust to uneven loads (and movement) of uneven stone material.
2. Lime based mortar will allow free flow of water/water vapor that is the key to wall longevity,
3. If the wall is made of very dense rock (igneous) then plastering/pointing with lime plaster will improve the air quality in the house allowing the walls to breathe by absorbing moisture - lowering interior humidity and also the temperature. For this reason an adobe/earth wall will cool the house more than the wall made of low porosity concrete.
4. Adding moisture impervious cement based material will increase the possibility of mold formation.

Just for reason 3 and 4 it makes sense to use lime only. If the building should remain for the future generations 1 and 2 have to be considered. Using incompatible material is actually an outdated practice of the past that created more damage than good and material science left it in the dust of history.

For a mason it makes no difference with what material he is reponting. If anything - it would be easier with lime, because it gives creamy consistency to the mortar.