Advanced Feature test

For discussing walling related subjects not included in other headings.

Advanced Feature test

Postby AA » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:03 pm

If one builds a lunky for the advanced feature test is it acceptable to build an arch instead of using lintel(s)? What if one would need to buy the lintel stones - which would not be of local origin? They are available for purchase in the area though. thanks
AA
New member
New member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Eugene, Oregon USA

Re: Advanced Feature test

Postby Tracey B » Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:41 pm

Hey Alan. A very huge welcome to your first post on this forum. I hope it will be the first of many.
I will contact the DSWA office this week to check out their policy re: an arch instead of a lintle for you. Can't help thinking in a work/field situation and you if had no suitable stone, it would be an ideal (and attractive) alternative, but with regards to Certification, and as we know, flexibility is not always their strongpoint!
If you have to import stone for lintles would you be able to obtain anything that in any way resembles the stone you are already working with?
Regards. T
User avatar
Tracey B
Active Subscriber
Active Subscriber
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Advanced Feature test

Postby AA » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:00 am

Thanks for your help Tracey. We'll go with lintels.................
AA
New member
New member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Eugene, Oregon USA

Re: Advanced Feature test

Postby stonewaller » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:25 pm

Welcome home everyone!!!!
Feeling a bit stiff, due more to the weather and 120 years of backbreaking experience (or thats what it feels like) than being an inflexible examiner!

An intriguing idea. First thoughts suggest it ought to be acceptable because its harder. But the tests work to a mark schedule with criteria for how marks are awarded, this is to ensure some sort of standardisation of a subjective evaluation. There are criteria for arches but they relate to the masters test. You could argue that you just mark the arch to these at MC level, or use commonsense to downscale them. Problem is commonsense is not necessarily a good idea when you are trying to instigate National standards. 2 different wallers in different places at different times need to be marked equivilently, which isn't entirely likely when people have different common senses. Even if you do mark to MC standard the actual marks awarded are different and asking most examiners to convert marks out of 12 to marks out of 20 and adjust for differentials, off their own backs really might be asking for trouble!

When researching "DSW" I was shown some arched lunkies, and an interesting technical point was raised. The sides of the lunky were used to support the former so the opening was sort of mushroom shaped (albeit with a very fat stalk). This is the sort of thing that commonsense is likely to treat in two very different ways if you do not have a pre-existing criteria for what is or is not acceptable.

I can think of a few other issues which I wont bother with here.

Generally my advice would be not to complicate matters by over-elaboration. Don't make it harder for yourself than it is, and an arch is definitely harder than lintels.

What does everyone else think, it is the sort of thing that the DSWA should review/consider. Candidates and potential candidates have a right to have these things considered, but please bear in mind that if it doesn't change it is not necessarily inflexibility it might just be a greater appreciation of the wider implications. Am I really saying this having been such a critic of the scheme????? Walls on 40 degree slopes my :shock: :!:

I`ve asked the chief examiner to have a look at this thread when he comes back from his holidays in a week or so.

Sean
stonewaller
Active Subscriber
Active Subscriber
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:03 am
Location: North Wales

Re: Advanced Feature test

Postby AA » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:09 am

Thanks for the reply Sean, always a pleasure to hear your take on things.
Alan
AA
New member
New member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:40 am
Location: Eugene, Oregon USA

Re: Advanced Feature test

Postby stonewaller » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:41 pm

Well obviously no-one thinks anything about this one.

Basically it isn't acceptable because as I sort of hinted/explained it isn't within the specified mark schedule standardisation wise.

But should it be?

Answers on a postcard (I don`t expect any here)

Sean
stonewaller
Active Subscriber
Active Subscriber
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:03 am
Location: North Wales


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron