On Oct 29, 7:01 am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:50:55 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 28, 1:18 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:49:40 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:25 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:58 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:29 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
From Lake Lanier Army Corp of Engineers website:
Constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
1950's, Lake
Lanier is a multi-purpose lake that provides for flood
protection,
power production, water supply, navigation, recreation and
fish and
wildlife management.
Same way with Lake Carlyle . that is with exception of power
production.
It is fed by the Kaskaskia river, and it's level has dropped
considerably. it is a huge man made lake and is about 4 mi
wide and 10
mi long. But in many places the shore line is rather
shallow. in some
cases un aprochable with a typical runabout up to 150 ft
from shore.
But when the lake is full, these spots are usually
navagational within
50-75 ft.
Still plenty deep in the middle, but unhandy for reaching
beach lines.
Lake Lanier is fed by two rivers, each runoff from the
mountains, so
there is a LOT of water being pushed down, normally. Because of
downstream concerns plus Atlanta's thirst, they are still,
even with
drought conditions releasing anywhere from 600 to 900 million
gallons
per day. Lanier is a really cool lake, because of the
mountainous
conditions, there are many coves and what used to be creek
inlets to
explore. How far is your lake down? Lanier is down 12 feet
(so far).
I don't really know how much it has dropped and really don't
know how
to find the actual stats, but on the south end the lake is
dammed, and
there's very little coming over the spill way.
kaskaskia isn't a large river, but now it's about like a creek.
I saw a bit ont he Weather Channel about Lake Hartwell. It's
in bad
shape too.
fortunately for our area, it's been raining fairly steady for
the last
three hrs and I did look and saw its steady on Carlyle too.
But it
won't effect the lake much at all, unless the rains start
saturating
up north to flow down.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Tim, if it's an Army Corp lake, you can get current stats,
predictions, etc from the Corp's website. Yes, Hartwell is in bad
shape too. Oconee is the only one in these parts not suffering.
I think Hartwell is down about 10-11 ft and things do not look
good.
Last weekend I had 15 ft under my dock in Gumlog creek. But our
place is
blessed with deep water. My biggest concern is getting out of
Gumlog
Creek to the main channel. There is one point that is rather
skinny, but
I check it last weekend and there is a skinny, but deep path
threw it.
At this time I am considering if I should get a trailer for the
runabout
and pull it. If this goes into next year I don't want to be
stuck with
the boat on the lift and no way to get it out. ie ramp access etc.
Capt Jack R.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've fished up in Gumlog creek. Had a friend who had a place
close to
there. Lake Lanier is now down 14 feet, they are saying there's
enough
water for 80 days. Army Corp of Engineers, because of their attitude
that no one can make a decision unless it's in some obscure code or
law, won't stop; discharging even now!
Well if you are ever in the area again let me know.
I'll do that, thanks!
And I agree, the corp is going to keep doing this even though it
really
does not make any sense to me. Where I live they pull water from
Lanier.
I guess when the place is dry they will stop :-(
Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As of last night, the state has filed an injunction to try and get
this madness stopped. I've dealt with the Corp, and have vowed to
never, ever take a project that they are involved in. They get to use
zero engineering judgement, and can only do what is spelled out in a
manual, or code book.
Bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
John, your trash mouth simply shows your blanket *Army can do know
wrong* rhetoric. I've dealt with the corp. Many times. I know how they
operate, as opposed to how civilian engineers operate. And my
statement is true. They get to use no judgement. Let's say that I
design a simple span beam. Now, I've done the math, I know the loads,
I've added a factor of safety, etc. etc. Now, the Corp wants to see
any and all calculations. If I take one step in those calculations
that is known good engineering, but is not completely spelled out in a
code book, or one of the corps manuals, they will not approve it. I've
even had a corp engineer tell me that he understands why I did what I
did, understands that it works, understands that it is good
engineering, but can't approve it because it's not their SOP.

You're probably correct. I was in the Corps (note the 's') for only 24
years, so I'm sure your many dealings with the Corps (note the 's') makes
you an expert on the operations of the Corps (note the 's').

JohnH,
He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers.

It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps.

I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the illustrious words of yourself, Bull****.

On Oct 29, 7:52 am, " JimH" ask wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message

...

JohnH,
He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers.

It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps.

I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.

The two of you are like a bad sequel to the movie dumb and dumber.

So how many folks are you arguing with and putting down today? So far I
count 3.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

On Oct 29, 7:01 am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:50:55 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 28, 1:18 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:49:40 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:25 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:58 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:29 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
From Lake Lanier Army Corp of Engineers website:
Constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
1950's, Lake
Lanier is a multi-purpose lake that provides for flood
protection,
power production, water supply, navigation, recreation and
fish and
wildlife management.
Same way with Lake Carlyle . that is with exception of power
production.
It is fed by the Kaskaskia river, and it's level has dropped
considerably. it is a huge man made lake and is about 4 mi
wide and 10
mi long. But in many places the shore line is rather
shallow. in some
cases un aprochable with a typical runabout up to 150 ft
from shore.
But when the lake is full, these spots are usually
navagational within
50-75 ft.
Still plenty deep in the middle, but unhandy for reaching
beach lines.
Lake Lanier is fed by two rivers, each runoff from the
mountains, so
there is a LOT of water being pushed down, normally. Because of
downstream concerns plus Atlanta's thirst, they are still,
even with
drought conditions releasing anywhere from 600 to 900 million
gallons
per day. Lanier is a really cool lake, because of the
mountainous
conditions, there are many coves and what used to be creek
inlets to
explore. How far is your lake down? Lanier is down 12 feet
(so far).
I don't really know how much it has dropped and really don't
know how
to find the actual stats, but on the south end the lake is
dammed, and
there's very little coming over the spill way.
kaskaskia isn't a large river, but now it's about like a creek.
I saw a bit ont he Weather Channel about Lake Hartwell. It's
in bad
shape too.
fortunately for our area, it's been raining fairly steady for
the last
three hrs and I did look and saw its steady on Carlyle too.
But it
won't effect the lake much at all, unless the rains start
saturating
up north to flow down.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Tim, if it's an Army Corp lake, you can get current stats,
predictions, etc from the Corp's website. Yes, Hartwell is in bad
shape too. Oconee is the only one in these parts not suffering.
I think Hartwell is down about 10-11 ft and things do not look
good.
Last weekend I had 15 ft under my dock in Gumlog creek. But our
place is
blessed with deep water. My biggest concern is getting out of
Gumlog
Creek to the main channel. There is one point that is rather
skinny, but
I check it last weekend and there is a skinny, but deep path
threw it.
At this time I am considering if I should get a trailer for the
runabout
and pull it. If this goes into next year I don't want to be
stuck with
the boat on the lift and no way to get it out. ie ramp access etc.
Capt Jack R.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've fished up in Gumlog creek. Had a friend who had a place
close to
there. Lake Lanier is now down 14 feet, they are saying there's
enough
water for 80 days. Army Corp of Engineers, because of their attitude
that no one can make a decision unless it's in some obscure code or
law, won't stop; discharging even now!
Well if you are ever in the area again let me know.
I'll do that, thanks!
And I agree, the corp is going to keep doing this even though it
really
does not make any sense to me. Where I live they pull water from
Lanier.
I guess when the place is dry they will stop :-(
Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As of last night, the state has filed an injunction to try and get
this madness stopped. I've dealt with the Corp, and have vowed to
never, ever take a project that they are involved in. They get to use
zero engineering judgement, and can only do what is spelled out in a
manual, or code book.
Bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
John, your trash mouth simply shows your blanket *Army can do know
wrong* rhetoric. I've dealt with the corp. Many times. I know how they
operate, as opposed to how civilian engineers operate. And my
statement is true. They get to use no judgement. Let's say that I
design a simple span beam. Now, I've done the math, I know the loads,
I've added a factor of safety, etc. etc. Now, the Corp wants to see
any and all calculations. If I take one step in those calculations
that is known good engineering, but is not completely spelled out in a
code book, or one of the corps manuals, they will not approve it. I've
even had a corp engineer tell me that he understands why I did what I
did, understands that it works, understands that it is good
engineering, but can't approve it because it's not their SOP.

You're probably correct. I was in the Corps (note the 's') for only 24
years, so I'm sure your many dealings with the Corps (note the 's') makes
you an expert on the operations of the Corps (note the 's').

JohnH,
He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers.

It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps.

I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U.
wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal
joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is
commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it
doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and
grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is
commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is
diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it,
can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs
that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem
getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess
why?

On Oct 29, 7:37 am, BAR wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote:
It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps.

I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.

I'll bet that old Bassy doesn't know how many Corps are in the Naval
Service.

Nope, don't know, don't give a ****.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:29:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:


I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.

I have no idea about the engineering specs and manual that Bassy was
talking about, but it seems to me that the jobs the C.O.E's tackle would
require them to be very creative and to think outside the box.

I do think he was correct about the water management issues, based upon
what I have read about the Corps priority lists and down stream
commitments.

Did you notice I change the Corps to COE, so I would not make the Fax
Paux of calling them Corp.

Yes, I'm glad to see that boo-boo not repeated. However, USACE is the
preferred abbreviation.

I've no doubt that the USACE is following the law, which is having a
detrimental effect on the local area. It sounds as though someone put
mussels over humans in the priority list.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:52:54 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

JohnH,
He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers.


It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps.


I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.


The two of you are like a bad sequel to the movie dumb and dumber.

So how many folks are you arguing with and putting down today? So far I
count 3.


Jimh, I think you are probably an extremely sensitive person. Have you ever
thought of moving to San Francisco? Highly sensitive people are found out
there, from what I see on the TV.

Do you notice that when you call names, I don't respond with more names?

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:36:47 -0000, wrote:

On Oct 29, 7:01 am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:50:55 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 28, 1:18 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:49:40 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:25 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:58 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:29 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
From Lake Lanier Army Corp of Engineers website:
Constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
1950's, Lake
Lanier is a multi-purpose lake that provides for flood
protection,
power production, water supply, navigation, recreation and
fish and
wildlife management.
Same way with Lake Carlyle . that is with exception of power
production.
It is fed by the Kaskaskia river, and it's level has dropped
considerably. it is a huge man made lake and is about 4 mi
wide and 10
mi long. But in many places the shore line is rather
shallow. in some
cases un aprochable with a typical runabout up to 150 ft
from shore.
But when the lake is full, these spots are usually
navagational within
50-75 ft.
Still plenty deep in the middle, but unhandy for reaching
beach lines.
Lake Lanier is fed by two rivers, each runoff from the
mountains, so
there is a LOT of water being pushed down, normally. Because of
downstream concerns plus Atlanta's thirst, they are still,
even with
drought conditions releasing anywhere from 600 to 900 million
gallons
per day. Lanier is a really cool lake, because of the
mountainous
conditions, there are many coves and what used to be creek
inlets to
explore. How far is your lake down? Lanier is down 12 feet
(so far).
I don't really know how much it has dropped and really don't
know how
to find the actual stats, but on the south end the lake is
dammed, and
there's very little coming over the spill way.
kaskaskia isn't a large river, but now it's about like a creek.
I saw a bit ont he Weather Channel about Lake Hartwell. It's
in bad
shape too.
fortunately for our area, it's been raining fairly steady for
the last
three hrs and I did look and saw its steady on Carlyle too.
But it
won't effect the lake much at all, unless the rains start
saturating
up north to flow down.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Tim, if it's an Army Corp lake, you can get current stats,
predictions, etc from the Corp's website. Yes, Hartwell is in bad
shape too. Oconee is the only one in these parts not suffering.
I think Hartwell is down about 10-11 ft and things do not look
good.
Last weekend I had 15 ft under my dock in Gumlog creek. But our
place is
blessed with deep water. My biggest concern is getting out of
Gumlog
Creek to the main channel. There is one point that is rather
skinny, but
I check it last weekend and there is a skinny, but deep path
threw it.
At this time I am considering if I should get a trailer for the
runabout
and pull it. If this goes into next year I don't want to be
stuck with
the boat on the lift and no way to get it out. ie ramp access etc.
Capt Jack R.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've fished up in Gumlog creek. Had a friend who had a place
close to
there. Lake Lanier is now down 14 feet, they are saying there's
enough
water for 80 days. Army Corp of Engineers, because of their attitude
that no one can make a decision unless it's in some obscure code or
law, won't stop; discharging even now!
Well if you are ever in the area again let me know.
I'll do that, thanks!
And I agree, the corp is going to keep doing this even though it
really
does not make any sense to me. Where I live they pull water from
Lanier.
I guess when the place is dry they will stop :-(
Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As of last night, the state has filed an injunction to try and get
this madness stopped. I've dealt with the Corp, and have vowed to
never, ever take a project that they are involved in. They get to use
zero engineering judgement, and can only do what is spelled out in a
manual, or code book.
Bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
John, your trash mouth simply shows your blanket *Army can do know
wrong* rhetoric. I've dealt with the corp. Many times. I know how they
operate, as opposed to how civilian engineers operate. And my
statement is true. They get to use no judgement. Let's say that I
design a simple span beam. Now, I've done the math, I know the loads,
I've added a factor of safety, etc. etc. Now, the Corp wants to see
any and all calculations. If I take one step in those calculations
that is known good engineering, but is not completely spelled out in a
code book, or one of the corps manuals, they will not approve it. I've
even had a corp engineer tell me that he understands why I did what I
did, understands that it works, understands that it is good
engineering, but can't approve it because it's not their SOP.

You're probably correct. I was in the Corps (note the 's') for only 24
years, so I'm sure your many dealings with the Corps (note the 's') makes
you an expert on the operations of the Corps (note the 's').

JohnH,
He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers.

It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps.

I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U.
wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal
joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is
commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it
doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and
grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is
commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is
diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it,
can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs
that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem
getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess
why?

Absolutely not.

I wasn't there, I don't know the problems they faced or the constraints
under which they were working.

Besides, you've already referred to my stated experience with the Corps as
'bull****'. We'll just leave it at that.

On Oct 29, 10:29 am, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:36:47 -0000, wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:01 am, JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:45:57 -0400, BAR wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:50:55 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 28, 1:18 pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:49:40 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:25 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:58 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:29 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote:
From Lake Lanier Army Corp of Engineers website:
Constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
1950's, Lake
Lanier is a multi-purpose lake that provides for flood
protection,
power production, water supply, navigation, recreation and
fish and
wildlife management.
Same way with Lake Carlyle . that is with exception of power
production.
It is fed by the Kaskaskia river, and it's level has dropped
considerably. it is a huge man made lake and is about 4 mi
wide and 10
mi long. But in many places the shore line is rather
shallow. in some
cases un aprochable with a typical runabout up to 150 ft
from shore.
But when the lake is full, these spots are usually
navagational within
50-75 ft.
Still plenty deep in the middle, but unhandy for reaching
beach lines.
Lake Lanier is fed by two rivers, each runoff from the
mountains, so
there is a LOT of water being pushed down, normally. Because of
downstream concerns plus Atlanta's thirst, they are still,
even with
drought conditions releasing anywhere from 600 to 900 million
gallons
per day. Lanier is a really cool lake, because of the
mountainous
conditions, there are many coves and what used to be creek
inlets to
explore. How far is your lake down? Lanier is down 12 feet
(so far).
I don't really know how much it has dropped and really don't
know how
to find the actual stats, but on the south end the lake is
dammed, and
there's very little coming over the spill way.
kaskaskia isn't a large river, but now it's about like a creek.
I saw a bit ont he Weather Channel about Lake Hartwell. It's
in bad
shape too.
fortunately for our area, it's been raining fairly steady for
the last
three hrs and I did look and saw its steady on Carlyle too.
But it
won't effect the lake much at all, unless the rains start
saturating
up north to flow down.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Tim, if it's an Army Corp lake, you can get current stats,
predictions, etc from the Corp's website. Yes, Hartwell is in bad
shape too. Oconee is the only one in these parts not suffering.
I think Hartwell is down about 10-11 ft and things do not look
good.
Last weekend I had 15 ft under my dock in Gumlog creek. But our
place is
blessed with deep water. My biggest concern is getting out of
Gumlog
Creek to the main channel. There is one point that is rather
skinny, but
I check it last weekend and there is a skinny, but deep path
threw it.
At this time I am considering if I should get a trailer for the
runabout
and pull it. If this goes into next year I don't want to be
stuck with
the boat on the lift and no way to get it out. ie ramp access etc.
Capt Jack R.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've fished up in Gumlog creek. Had a friend who had a place
close to
there. Lake Lanier is now down 14 feet, they are saying there's
enough
water for 80 days. Army Corp of Engineers, because of their attitude
that no one can make a decision unless it's in some obscure code or
law, won't stop; discharging even now!
Well if you are ever in the area again let me know.
I'll do that, thanks!
And I agree, the corp is going to keep doing this even though it
really
does not make any sense to me. Where I live they pull water from
Lanier.
I guess when the place is dry they will stop :-(
Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As of last night, the state has filed an injunction to try and get
this madness stopped. I've dealt with the Corp, and have vowed to
never, ever take a project that they are involved in. They get to use
zero engineering judgement, and can only do what is spelled out in a
manual, or code book.
Bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
John, your trash mouth simply shows your blanket *Army can do know
wrong* rhetoric. I've dealt with the corp. Many times. I know how they
operate, as opposed to how civilian engineers operate. And my
statement is true. They get to use no judgement. Let's say that I
design a simple span beam. Now, I've done the math, I know the loads,
I've added a factor of safety, etc. etc. Now, the Corp wants to see
any and all calculations. If I take one step in those calculations
that is known good engineering, but is not completely spelled out in a
code book, or one of the corps manuals, they will not approve it. I've
even had a corp engineer tell me that he understands why I did what I
did, understands that it works, understands that it is good
engineering, but can't approve it because it's not their SOP.

You're probably correct. I was in the Corps (note the 's') for only 24
years, so I'm sure your many dealings with the Corps (note the 's') makes
you an expert on the operations of the Corps (note the 's').

JohnH,
He is referring to the Army Corp of Engineers.

It is Corps, Corps of Engineers, just like in Marine Corps.

I now think that Bassy *was* referring to the Marine Corps. He seems
to know very little about the US Army Corps of Engineers, of which I
was a member for 24 years.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U.
wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal
joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is
commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it
doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and
grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is
commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is
diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it,
can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs
that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem
getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess
why?

Absolutely not.

Why, I already gave you the answer! Because the diagonal type of shear
reinforcement in the horizontal CMU reinforcing interferes with the
cells, making harder, and sometimes impossible to properly place the
vertical reinforcement bars. Just what WAS your job in the Army Corps
of Engineers????

I wasn't there, I don't know the problems they faced or the constraints
under which they were working.

I've told you the problem. And you do know the constraints. They don't
use any engineering judgement, and make no decisions unless it's in a
document somewhere.

Besides, you've already referred to my stated experience with the Corps as
'bull****'. We'll just leave it at that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, just what was your job?
My step daughter's grand dad was a civil engineer in California and
worked many many years for the Corps of Engineers. If talked to him
many times about just this subject, and he agrees 100%, as does any
civilian engineer or technician that I know that has done Corps work.

wrote:
John, I can show you a very miniscule example, very easily. C.M.U.
wall. Exterior. Because of specific loads, we needed the horizontal
joint reinforcement to be at each and every joint. We use what is
commonly called ladder type, because it's easier to place so that it
doesn't interfere with the cells that need to be reinforced and
grouted solid. Well, some SOP manual of theirs specifies only what is
commonly called diagonally stiffened, ie, the stiffening portion is
diagonal. We told them why, they agreed, but alas, couldn't do it,
can't use your own judgement, because there is some document of theirs
that says they can't. Then, they call. Seems there is a problem
getting the vertical cell reinforcement into the cells. Want to guess
why?

I've also noticed in many cases with gov't agencies, that they're
never there to tell you how to do it right, but always around to tell
you how you did it wrong....

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:16:36 -0000, wrote:

Besides, you've already referred to my stated experience with the Corps as
'bull****'. We'll just leave it at that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, just what was your job?
My step daughter's grand dad was a civil engineer in California and
worked many many years for the Corps of Engineers. If talked to him
many times about just this subject, and he agrees 100%, as does any
civilian engineer or technician that I know that has done Corps work.


Besides, you've already referred to my stated experience with the Corps as
'bull****'. We'll just leave it at that.