The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

The figure for Lewis is somewhat impressive - much higher than
hurricane Isobel - in fact, Lewis gets winds higher than that
rather anaemic hurricane every year :-)

I worked in one of the Stornoway dairies waves to Joe and the
engineers erecting a television repeater station mast used to come in
most mornings to buy milk.

An old friend of mine (mentioned here several times in that past) was a
crofter, county councillor on the planning committee, ex RN man, etc. He
saw the mast as it was nearing completion. It stood at the top of a
large hill - or small mountain called (or at least, pronounced) Etchell.

He was telling me about it some time later. "Ach, the firsht good
hurri-cane we have, and that will be down!"

I relayed this prediction to the engineers, who assured me that they had
put up similar masts all over Britain, and "We've never had one come
down yet."

A fortnight later it was a chastened engineer who came for the
milk.............

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

In article , Ric wrote:


Interested to know how they derived those figures, and whether builders are
legally required to use those figures. I wouldn't worry about your house
blowing down - even the lowest figure (for London) is over F12 on the
Beaufort scale and barely survivable in the open.

Dunno. The reference is:

CP3: Chapter V: Part 2: 1972. Wind Loads. British Standards
Institution.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

/me reaches for his copy of above standard.

The map of the united kingdom shows the various windspeeds as "Maximum
gust speed likely to be exceeded on the avarage only once in 50 years at
10m above the ground in open level country."

Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Maybe, just MAYBE when all British Standards are no longer British
Standards but BS EN standards or ISO standards then it will be taken off
the design listing.

To give an indication of how many revisions we have had over 30 years in
my particular field - roof trusses - our code BS5268 pt 3 was not even
written in 1972. Nor was it`s predicessor cp112!!!!!! I have had 4
revisions of BS5268 pt 3 in my career with the major one in 1998. It`s
now on the table to become a European code with all that that entails.
We have also had part of BS5268 pt 3 taken out and become it`s own code
of practice. BS EN 1059 which is the manufacture part of it. This then
goes on to state that you will need ISO 9000 accreditation when BS 5268
pt 3 is made into the Eurocode. I spend alot of time no longer dealing
with the stiff end of roof truss design but on making sure we have all
our required practices in place.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:32:46 +0100, Christopher Norton
wrote:

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

In article , Ric wrote:


Interested to know how they derived those figures, and whether builders are
legally required to use those figures. I wouldn't worry about your house
blowing down - even the lowest figure (for London) is over F12 on the
Beaufort scale and barely survivable in the open.

Dunno. The reference is:

CP3: Chapter V: Part 2: 1972. Wind Loads. British Standards
Institution.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

/me reaches for his copy of above standard.

The map of the united kingdom shows the various windspeeds as "Maximum
gust speed likely to be exceeded on the avarage only once in 50 years at
10m above the ground in open level country."

Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.

perhaps an indication of the lack of open level country in London?


--
Martin

In article ,
Christopher Norton wrote:

The map of the united kingdom shows the various windspeeds as "Maximum
gust speed likely to be exceeded on the avarage only once in 50 years at
10m above the ground in open level country."

Ah. Interesting.

Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

Yes, that's what I said.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
in this context.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

Yes, that's what I said.

Just quoting the actual standard to verify your point.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
in this context.

Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

Yes, that's what I said.

Just quoting the actual standard to verify your point.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
in this context.

Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

Yes, that's what I said.

Just quoting the actual standard to verify your point.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
in this context.

Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

Yes, that's what I said.

Just quoting the actual standard to verify your point.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
in this context.

Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

In article ,
Christopher Norton writes:
|
| My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
| have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
| 30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.
|
| Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
| in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
| so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
| modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
| in this context.
|
| Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
| these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
| It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

Enough to be a statistically significant indicator that the change is
likely to continue? If so, it would be close to the first data that
demonstrates such a change that I have heard of - though I am not a
meteorologist, and there might now be some. There certainly wasn't
until very recently and still may not be any that is generally
accepted.

| However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
| in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

Without seeing it, let alone using it, I can't comment. If it is
getting hard to use because of changes in notation, you have a good
point.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Christopher Norton writes:
|
| My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
| have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
| 30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.
|
| Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
| in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
| so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
| modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
| in this context.
|
| Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
| these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
| It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

Enough to be a statistically significant indicator that the change is
likely to continue? If so, it would be close to the first data that
demonstrates such a change that I have heard of - though I am not a
meteorologist, and there might now be some. There certainly wasn't
until very recently and still may not be any that is generally
accepted.

| However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
| in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

Without seeing it, let alone using it, I can't comment. If it is
getting hard to use because of changes in notation, you have a good
point.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Christopher Norton writes:
|
| My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
| have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
| 30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.
|
| Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
| in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
| so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
| modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
| in this context.
|
| Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
| these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
| It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

Enough to be a statistically significant indicator that the change is
likely to continue? If so, it would be close to the first data that
demonstrates such a change that I have heard of - though I am not a
meteorologist, and there might now be some. There certainly wasn't
until very recently and still may not be any that is generally
accepted.

| However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
| in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

Without seeing it, let alone using it, I can't comment. If it is
getting hard to use because of changes in notation, you have a good
point.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Christopher Norton writes:
|
| My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
| have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
| 30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.
|
| Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
| in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
| so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
| modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
| in this context.
|
| Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
| these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
| It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

Enough to be a statistically significant indicator that the change is
likely to continue? If so, it would be close to the first data that
demonstrates such a change that I have heard of - though I am not a
meteorologist, and there might now be some. There certainly wasn't
until very recently and still may not be any that is generally
accepted.

| However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
| in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

Without seeing it, let alone using it, I can't comment. If it is
getting hard to use because of changes in notation, you have a good
point.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

Yes, that's what I said.

Just quoting the actual standard to verify your point.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
in this context.

Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

In article ,
Christopher Norton writes:
|
| My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
| have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
| 30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.
|
| Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
| in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
| so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
| modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
| in this context.
|
| Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
| these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
| It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

Enough to be a statistically significant indicator that the change is
likely to continue? If so, it would be close to the first data that
demonstrates such a change that I have heard of - though I am not a
meteorologist, and there might now be some. There certainly wasn't
until very recently and still may not be any that is generally
accepted.

| However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
| in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

Without seeing it, let alone using it, I can't comment. If it is
getting hard to use because of changes in notation, you have a good
point.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Londons figure is in the 38m/s band and is the lowest in the country.
You then use this map to design any requirements for the wind forces.

Yes, that's what I said.

Just quoting the actual standard to verify your point.

My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.

Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
in this context.

Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.