[quetzalcoatl]

Do you think the fact that things change is a supernatural force?

Why is it necessary to rely on Hegelian dialectics for an understanding of history? Cannot historical materialism be preserved using other analytical tools?

Fichtean Dialectics (Hegelian Dialectics) is based upon four concepts:

Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time.
Everything is composed of contradictions (opposing forces).
Gradual changes lead to crises, turning points when one force overcomes its opponent force (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
Change is helical (spiral), not circular (negation of the negation).

My main objection is to the second concept (and by extension, the third). Not everything in history proceeds by contradictions of opposing forces, nor do crises exclusively form the basis of new systems.

I wish to proceed from an altered set of concepts:

Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time.
Everything is composed of nested interlocking complex systems.
Change is internal, arising from constant communication within system elements.
Failed subsystems are those that do not adapt in a timely manner. If not corrected, failures lead to internally generated 'crises'.
Change is organic and non-directional, mediated by internal communication within systems.

Basically what I am trying to get away from is the dualism that pairs every element of a system with an opposing force.

[The Immortal Goon]

Cannot historical materialism be preserved using other analytical tools?

I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm arguing that Marxism isn't based upon, "magic."

[quetzalcoatl]

I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm arguing that Marxism isn't based upon, "magic."

I understand. This is probably not a good place to raise my concerns anyway.

[Truth To Power]

The Soviets were actually heading in the correct direction when they started doing Constructivist architecture, and that's because generally speaking, all forms of modern architecture were going in a nice direction.

Ah, no.

One would think that this would have produced wonderful buildings in the USSR, since looking at what Bauhaus in Germany and Vkhutemas in Russia were doing, you could see that these people were making really pretty buildings.

Flat roofs are an abomination. Every architect who designs a flat roof should be forced to live in a house with a flat roof.

But there were still some good things in East Germany (GDR), if you count that as 'USSR proper', namely the Bauhaus building itself:





A+.

Fail. Flat roof is always a fail. A building with a flat roof is only acceptable in a desert where it never rains or snows, nowhere else.

There is no need for things like giant human statues and enormous screaming eagles and twisty spires and gigantic columns as a front facade to a building and which are useless ornaments because no load is resting on them. Any architect who adorns a building with cylindrical Roman-style columns upon which no load is resting, should probably be shot: that is the one rule I would want to enforce in architecture, if I were ever given the chance to 'make the rules'.

Well, some people just love their phallic symbols to death. With ferro-concrete, the whole building can be a phallic symbol.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, warehouses with large floor areas and a single storey should all have peaked roofs.

Industrial parks can look like the pyramids of Giza.

Also roof gardens should always be sloped. For the kids!

[Harmattan]

None of you know what is important: gnome gardens are the supreme pop aesthetic.

When I will be president ultreme, my first measure will be to impose all green spaces to have gnomes to rejunevate the country's moral values. If our ghettos turned out the way they did, it is only because kids there did not have gnome gardens to guide their hearts to nobler republican ideals.

My second measure will be to prohibit bastardized colors and only tolerate primary ones. We do not need this pesky yellow, we only need red, green and blue. No, forget green: it's Islam's color and it's not on the French flag, must be another immigrant ready to assault our maiden and deprive our youth.




(I wish it was a caricature, but after twenty more years of economic nihilism Europe will probably get this kind of leader)

[SolarCross]

My second measure will be to prohibit bastardized colors and only tolerate primary ones. We do not need this pesky yellow, we only need red, green and blue. No, forget green: it's Islam's color and it's not on the French flag, must be another immigrant ready to assault our maiden and deprive our youth.

lol, yellow is a primary colour, green is not. You can get green by mixing yellow and blue. Some president ultreme you would make.

[Lexington]

lol, yellow is a primary colour, green is not. You can get green by mixing yellow and blue. Some president ultreme you would make.

The primary colors vary on what your medium is. Your computer uses red, green, and blue, and makes yellow by mixing red and green.

For additive combination of colors, as in overlapping projected lights or in electronic visual displays, the primary colors normally used are red, green, and blue. For a subtractive combination of colors, as in mixing of pigments or dyes for printing, the colors magenta, yellow, and cyan are normally used.[1] However, red, yellow, and blue are commonly used as primaries when painting or drawing.[2] See RGB color model, CMYK color model, and RYB color model for more on these popular sets of primary colors.

[Truth To Power]

My second measure will be to prohibit bastardized colors and only tolerate primary ones. We do not need this pesky yellow, we only need red, green and blue. No, forget green: it's Islam's color and it's not on the French flag, must be another immigrant ready to assault our maiden and deprive our youth.

lol, yellow is a primary colour, green is not. You can get green by mixing yellow and blue. Some president ultreme you would make.

The eye perceives color mixing differently depending on whether the color is being emitted (added, as by a TV screen) or reflected (subtracted, as by paint). If you examine your computer monitor screen closely with a magnifying glass, you will find that yellow is made by combining red and green.

Yes, warehouses with large floor areas and a single storey should all have peaked roofs.

They should have roofs that slope enough to drain rainfall rather than accumulate it and leak, or grow weeds. 1:20 is enough.

Industrial parks can look like the pyramids of Giza.

If you don't know anything about architecture.

Also roof gardens should always be sloped. For the kids!

A slight slope helps soil drainage. Terracing over a sloped waterproof layer also works well.

[SolarCross]

The eye perceives color mixing differently depending on whether the color is being emitted (added, as by a TV screen) or reflected (subtracted, as by paint). If you examine your computer monitor screen closely with a magnifying glass, you will find that yellow is made by combining red and green.

Meh in a thread about architecture and art, the primary colours of paint are more relevant than TV screens.

[Pants-of-dog]

They should have roofs that slope enough to drain rainfall rather than accumulate it and leak, or grow weeds. 1:20 is enough.

Low slope roofs also have enough slope to drain rainfall. 1:100 is actually considered enough by roofing experts for certain membrane systems. 1 in 20 is a good minimum slope for BUR membranes, or tar and gravel membranes.

Also, many municipalities require control flow roofing systems where water is intentionally kept on roofs and the water is slowly released to the storm drain system. This reduces the load on the drain system, allowing for lighter infrastructure.

If you don't know anything about architecture.

I know enough about architecture to know that warehouses and other large footprint low rise buildings achieve substantial cost saving by specifying an epdm or pvc single ply roofing system, that the miminum slope required depends on material and is often shallower than 1/20, that roofing insulation that is not needed for thermal protection but is needed for sloping is often not a price the customer wants to pay, and that sloping the steel to get a 1/20 slope will increase the heated but unusable space in the ceiling between joists, and will increase the number of roof drains, drain leaders, cleanouts, and other assorted plumbing, and will increase the number of roof penetrations and thereby increase the chance of a leak.

A slight slope helps soil drainage. Terracing over a sloped waterproof layer also works well.

Yes, exactly. Roof gardens require low slope roofs.

-----------------

Meh in a thread about architecture and art, the primary colours of paint are more relevant than TV screens.

Lighting, especially natural lighting, is an important part of architecture. Light is the most dynamic and fluid of architectural components.

[Rei Murasame]

Flat roofs are an abomination.

You're wrong in two different ways.

See Pants-of-Dog's response to you, he's 100% correct.

[Stormsmith]

The reason that you're seeing it that way is because you are seeing it through the wrong eyes.

You are not Carnac. You do not have access to other peoples' private sensations.

(The eaves) serve a function and nothing else, which is that during the day they cut down and render the sunlight ambient on all sides of the house, which is necessary given that the windows are enormous.

The function of the eaves, which is the board actually attached to the roof's edge, is to prevent rain water running off the roof from blowing back onto the wall. If the wall is structurally compromised, the rain water could seep into the envelope and cause mould issues. Those 2 by (?) 6's that extend beyond the eaves are the pergolas. A minor point, but if you'received going to discuss something, the reader needs to know you know what you're writing.

it means that when you open ......worse yet, wallpaper.

Irrelevant.

Everything going on there seems completely logical to me, and the upside is that it takes modern materials and building methods and builds something modern with it that is still fundamentally human, rather than turning around and asking, "How can I literally copy something from 400+ years ago using the tools I have now, for no particular reason?"

everything I see has been used for two thousand years. Some things have changed, i.e., sheet glass is rolled, a relatively recent change but is it better? Blown glass is costlier, and bloody hard to find. You have more options, but not necessarily perceptually or structurally superior. Some of those old homes you're panning are centuries old, and the charming ones retained their charm. You want to take a guess on the longevity of this one? Ps glass is still taxed today, as are homes.

Why? Because the regressive people only use tools to more accurately imitate things from 400+ years so that they can pat themselves on the back at country clubs, whereas modernists use tools because they want to build a house.

this isn't an argument.

if Karl Marx were alive, he'd have a lot to say about this as well, and I think he'd be on my side on this one. The laughter which you two - Skinster and Stormsmith - are directing toward me, is actually a social-democratic bourgeois affectation, you two seem to like the ideological messages which are bound up in houses built by people during a time period where people were constrained by the inadequacy of their tools and manufacturing methods, and during a time and place (mainland Britain and its colonies particularly) when most people couldn't even have proper windows because windows were being taxed. What is there to be romantic about? In my view there is nothing to yearn for there, their buildings are not magically standing outside of time and space, they are subject to the flow of time, the changing of the era, and to being analysed through the lens of historical materialism just like everything else.

1. What has Marx to do with this
2. I didn't laugh at you. I posted this, in response to the actual existence of that unlovely house:
3, Wrong again. Mr SS and I built our home, using modern tools, i.e. an air compresser and air tools as opposed to hammers and drills/screwdrivers because they are much more efficient than hand tools.
4. I'm not arguing any particular style or age is superior to another. You are. All I said was your selection was ghastly. You have completely misread my posts.

This is what I wrote:

Mikema 
That's nice, but here, those are expensive to insure. In contrast, Rei's example looks as if it's designed to promote urban depression
....and....
These completely charmless concrete buildings tricked out in cheap wood and window moldings recycled from trailer park homes, in my opinion, would bring about urban depression

Look at it. The gapping maw set in that concrete slab wall. That's what the unlucky guy across the road sees, all day, every day.

That, and the underside of the pergolas, which, from what I can tell, are merely screwed or nailed together, and are devoid of metal brackets. It wouldn't pass code here. It would be consider dangerous. Or shoddy. New isn't synonymous with better. Ask yourself, do you think that view adds value to the neighbour's property?

It does answer the question "Why is the only thing the guy across the street growing St John's Wort." Its most noteworthy use is as an anti-depressant agent.

[Truth To Power]

They should have roofs that slope enough to drain rainfall rather than accumulate it and leak, or grow weeds. 1:20 is enough.

Low slope roofs also have enough slope to drain rainfall. 1:100 is actually considered enough by roofing experts for certain membrane systems.

1:100 is suitable for a deck or garden, but requires a very even finish and stable foundation and walls to avoid pooling on a roof.

Also, many municipalities require control flow roofing systems where water is intentionally kept on roofs and the water is slowly released to the storm drain system. This reduces the load on the drain system, allowing for lighter infrastructure.

At a far higher cost for structure, maintenance and leaks.

If you don't know anything about architecture.

I know enough about architecture to know that warehouses and other large footprint low rise buildings achieve substantial cost saving by specifying an epdm or pvc single ply roofing system,

Saving on construction in the short term, but typically losing far more in maintenance and leaks over the life of the building.

that the miminum slope required depends on material and is often shallower than 1/20, that roofing insulation that is not needed for thermal protection but is needed for sloping is often not a price the customer wants to pay,

Customers not wanting to pay is the reason we have building codes.

and that sloping the steel to get a 1/20 slope will increase the heated but unusable space in the ceiling between joists, and will increase the number of roof drains, drain leaders, cleanouts, and other assorted plumbing,

Oh, so now drainage is just a costly frill, and we don't mind walking around in ankle-deep water...?

and will increase the number of roof penetrations and thereby increase the chance of a leak.

<sigh> The chance of a leak is increased very slightly by each roof penetration, but the damage PER leak is FAR higher when water has pooled inches deep on a flat roof. Your "argument" shows typical shallow thinking, much like AGW nonscience.

No, it is objectively correct.

Fail.

Materialism exists.

And...?

Fail.

[Dialectic materialism] is a supernatural force prophesied to direct future events in a way that is not empirically observed.

Do you think the fact that things change is a supernatural force?

Strawman. Fail. Dialectical materialism does not say merely that things change, but that they must and will change in a particular way prophesied exclusively by Karl Marx.

Everything Changes
Young people grow old.
Days turn into nights.
Short hair grows long.

But capitalism doesn't turn into socialism.

Change is like a tug-of-war with two sides pulling in opposite directions. For something to change, one side has to pull harder than the other.

SOME change is like that.

Changes start little by little with each side pushing or pulling against the other.

SOME changes are like that.

Has reading this made a change in you?

I'm a couple minutes older, and if anything even less impressed with dialectical materialism.

Marxism is simply acknowledging this and then looking at how history has changed and may change.

Nonsense. It says it WILL and MUST change specifically and only as Karl Marx prophesied.

No. Marxism does not study why things change. It simply ASSUMES that a supernatural force will make them change in certain prophesied ways, even though they in fact do not change in those ways. Marxism is logically equivalent to a biological "science" -- like Lysenkoism -- that says evolution has to produce a certain type of organism in the future, even though that type of organism has never been observed.

Source?

Seriously?

A typical Marxist non sequitur. Socialism is defined in the dictionary. It's not just whatever you say it is.

I had assumed that you understood context and defined socialism in the Marxist sense of the word, which is actually an acceptable definition of "socialism."

A definition might be "acceptable," but not useful for communicating anything interesting.

a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Oh, THAT socialism... But, of course, that says nothing about having to be implemented worldwide all at once.

It seems that you have difficulty reading.

<sigh> I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not.

[Pants-of-dog]

1:100 is suitable for a deck or garden, but requires a very even finish and stable foundation and walls to avoid pooling on a roof.

No one cares about a bit of water on top of a warehouse roof.

At a far higher cost for structure, maintenance and leaks.

There is rarely any higher cost for structure, because snow loads for the same building would be higher than the loads due to holding water on the roof.

As for maintenance and leaks, I doubt that. This is because the local roofing assocaition I work with (Association de Maitre Couvreurs du Quebec) give you the same guarantee regardless if the drains are conventional or control flow.

Saving on construction in the short term, but typically losing far more in maintenance and leaks over the life of the building.

That is what single ply roofs are all about. They could go with a mod-bit (modified bitumen two ply system) like schools and hospitals do, but the client does not know if he or she is going to be in the same warehouse fifty years from now. Gov'ts, on the other hand, know they are not going to move their hospitals and schools in the next few decades, so they go for the more expensive membrane.

None of this has anything to do with the amount of slope in a roof.

Customers not wanting to pay is the reason we have building codes.

And the building codes, as well as the industry standrards governing roofing, allow for a 1:100 slope for certain membrane systems.

Oh, so now drainage is just a costly frill, and we don't mind walking around in ankle-deep water...?

The Canada Plumbing Code specifies a minimum of two drains per roof, plus a maximum spacing of drains, and a maximum vertical distance between the drain and the top of the drainage slope. This already ensures that you are not sloshing around in ankle deep water even if you happen to be standing on a low slope roof at the very end of a long and powerful rainstorm.

If you increase the slope, you reduce the distance between drains, as the top of the slope is set. If you reduce the distance between drains, it increases the number of drains for a given roof. You are asking the client to absorb that cost despite the code having established useful standards.

<sigh> The chance of a leak is increased very slightly by each roof penetration, but the damage PER leak is FAR higher when water has pooled inches deep on a flat roof. Your "argument" shows typical shallow thinking, much like AGW non science.

The amount of water that pools on a poorly constructed low slope roof is not enough to create a significantly higher amount of water pressure which would thereby cause more water to penetrate and cause damage. Other factors, such as water collecting on top of the vapour barrier, are more likely to affect the extent of damage.

[Truth To Power]

1:100 is suitable for a deck or garden, but requires a very even finish and stable foundation and walls to avoid pooling on a roof.

No one cares about a bit of water on top of a warehouse roof.

Until it leaks down into the building.

At a far higher cost for structure, maintenance and leaks.

There is rarely any higher cost for structure, because snow loads for the same building would be higher than the loads due to holding water on the roof.

And that's the proof you're wrong: WET snow will drain from a sloped roof, but not from a flat one. So a flat roof has to be able to hold not only a snow load, but the water that can make it a slush load. A sloped roof will drain most of that water away.

As for maintenance and leaks, I doubt that.

But are wrong.

This is because the local roofing assocaition I work with (Association de Maitre Couvreurs du Quebec) give you the same guarantee regardless if the drains are conventional or control flow.

You must have a lot of practice in non sequiturs.

Oh. Right.

Saving on construction in the short term, but typically losing far more in maintenance and leaks over the life of the building.

That is what single ply roofs are all about. They could go with a mod-bit (modified bitumen two ply system) like schools and hospitals do,

And which always leak.

but the client does not know if he or she is going to be in the same warehouse fifty years from now. Gov'ts, on the other hand, know they are not going to move their hospitals and schools in the next few decades, so they go for the more expensive membrane.

None of this has anything to do with the amount of slope in a roof.

Of course it does. The client who goes for the cheaper flat roof to save money in the short term is just pushing the leaks onto the next user.

Customers not wanting to pay is the reason we have building codes.

And the building codes, as well as the industry standrards governing roofing, allow for a 1:100 slope for certain membrane systems.

Building codes allow a lot of things that are bad design.

Oh, so now drainage is just a costly frill, and we don't mind walking around in ankle-deep water...?

The Canada Plumbing Code specifies a minimum of two drains per roof, plus a maximum spacing of drains, and a maximum vertical distance between the drain and the top of the drainage slope. This already ensures that you are not sloshing around in ankle deep water even if you happen to be standing on a low slope roof at the very end of a long and powerful rainstorm.

Low slope roofs are far better than genuine Bauhaus-style flat roofs, on which there is often so much standing water that you can sometimes watch ducks raising their families there.

If you increase the slope, you reduce the distance between drains, as the top of the slope is set. If you reduce the distance between drains, it increases the number of drains for a given roof. You are asking the client to absorb that cost despite the code having established useful standards.

The fewer drains, the more likely they will clog with leaves in the fall. Simple, obvious relationship, but you missed it, same way you miss the simple, obvious relationship between the sun and the warmth of the earth.

<sigh> The chance of a leak is increased very slightly by each roof penetration, but the damage PER leak is FAR higher when water has pooled inches deep on a flat roof. Your "argument" shows typical shallow thinking, much like AGW non science.

The amount of water that pools on a poorly constructed low slope roof is not enough to create a significantly higher amount of water pressure which would thereby cause more water to penetrate and cause damage.

Again, just as with AGW, you show you can't even understand what the important factors are. It's not a question of water pressure, but of the AMOUNT of water available to penetrate the roof. If there is a leak in a sloped roof, only the water flowing over the leak can penetrate the building. With a flat roof, virtually ALL the water that falls on the roof can go through the leak into the building.

Other factors, such as water collecting on top of the vapour barrier, are more likely to affect the extent of damage.

Wrong, as proved above.

[Pants-of-dog]

Until it leaks down into the building.

This does not support your claim that all roofs should be sloped to a minimum of 1:20.

And that's the proof you're wrong: WET snow will drain from a sloped roof, but not from a flat one. So a flat roof has to be able to hold not only a snow load, but the water that can make it a slush load. A sloped roof will drain most of that water away.

No. The water in wet snow is held by van der Waals forces (aka capillary action) in the interstitial spaces of the snow. This is true for sloped and flat roofs.

This is why you have to take into account the rain load during winter when calculating snow load.

But are wrong.

You must have a lot of practice in non sequiturs.

Oh. Right.

If control flow membrane systems caused more leaks, why don't roofing professionals give shorter guarantees for such roofs?

And which always leak.

Actually, they leak a lot less. A mod bit roof often comes with a fifty year guarantee, which is longer than almost any other building component. This is why they are more expensive.

Of course it does. The client who goes for the cheaper flat roof to save money in the short term is just pushing the leaks onto the next user.

....and since the gov't is the first and last user of schools and hospitals, they opt for the more expensive and ling term system.

Building codes allow a lot of things that are bad design.

Then why did you use building codes as an argument when you said "Customers not wanting to pay is the reason we have building codes."?

Low slope roofs are far better than genuine Bauhaus-style flat roofs, on which there is often so much standing water that you can sometimes watch ducks raising their families there.

Genuine Bauhaus roofs are over eighty years old now. Even pitched roofs do not last that long without maintenance.

Also, what is the difference between a low slope roof and a "genuine Bauhaus-style flat roof"?

The fewer drains, the more likely they will clog with leaves in the fall. Simple, obvious relationship, but you missed it, same way you miss the simple, obvious relationship between the sun and the warmth of the earth.

Actually, I pointed put that the PCC demanded a minimum of two drains per each roof, and the reason is to ensure drainage even if one becomes clogged. Most low slope roofs have far more than that.

Again, just as with AGW, you show you can't even understand what the important factors are. It's not a question of water pressure, but of the AMOUNT of water available to penetrate the roof. If there is a leak in a sloped roof, only the water flowing over the leak can penetrate the building. With a flat roof, virtually ALL the water that falls on the roof can go through the leak into the building.

No. This is because the amount of water that can pour through the leak depends on several factors such as the size of the hole and where it is located. The condition you descibe would only happen if there was a large hole right next to the sole drain on the roof, which would not be allowed by code.

If that were to happen, the water would then pool on top of the vapour barrier and then pour down along the drain leader. In a warehouse, this would be very visible to the building users but would not cause much damage. It would not cause much damage because the drain leader is always attached to a steel column which is then embedded in concrete floor. All these components are waterproof.

Low slope roofs tend to get leaks at the point where the membrane comes up to the vertical flashing at the parapet. This is because the membrane will contract during cold spells and pull away from the parapet. This is why BUR roofs require a cant strip (usually a 4x4 cut diagonally) to make it two 45 degree angles instead of a 90 degree angle, and why mod bit roofs need an attachment strip (barres d'attache in French, I do not know the technical term in English) there.

Wrong, as proved above.

Here is a test. What is a vapour barrier? What is its purpose? What is it made of? And, where is it located in a low slope roof composition?

Also, do you know what ice damming is?

[Truth To Power]

Until it leaks down into the building.

This does not support your claim that all roofs should be sloped to a minimum of 1:20.

I made no such claim.

And that's the proof you're wrong: WET snow will drain from a sloped roof, but not from a flat one. So a flat roof has to be able to hold not only a snow load, but the water that can make it a slush load. A sloped roof will drain most of that water away.

No.

Yes.

The water in wet snow is held by van der Waals forces (aka capillary action) in the interstitial spaces of the snow. This is true for sloped and flat roofs.

It's easy to prove you wrong. Put two sheets of plywood out on a flat surface side by side in a snow storm. After the storm sprinkle them with equal amounts of water until they are saturated. Then tilt one and leave the other flat. Wait an hour. The tilted one will weigh significantly less. You see, this is just another case of you not thinking deeply enough to understand the situation, just as you do with AGW nonscience. The tilted roof (or sheet of plywood) effectively has a deeper column of water on it, and the additional water pressure overcomes van der Waals force and pushes water out at the bottom.

This is why you have to take into account the rain load during winter when calculating snow load.

Especially with a flat roof.

If control flow membrane systems caused more leaks, why don't roofing professionals give shorter guarantees for such roofs?

They often do.

And which always leak.

Actually, they leak a lot less.

Actually, you're wrong, as any insurance company will confirm. Many will not even offer coverage for flat-roofed residences.

A mod bit roof often comes with a fifty year guarantee, which is longer than almost any other building component. This is why they are more expensive.

Yes, flat roofs are more expensive, because it is a fundamentally incorrect design.

Of course it does. The client who goes for the cheaper flat roof to save money in the short term is just pushing the leaks onto the next user.

....and since the gov't is the first and last user of schools and hospitals, they opt for the more expensive and ling term system.

Which would be less expensive if they weren't using the fundamentally incorrect flat roof.

Building codes allow a lot of things that are bad design.

Then why did you use building codes as an argument when you said "Customers not wanting to pay is the reason we have building codes."?

You really don't understand that?

Wow.

Low slope roofs are far better than genuine Bauhaus-style flat roofs, on which there is often so much standing water that you can sometimes watch ducks raising their families there.

Genuine Bauhaus roofs are over eighty years old now. Even pitched roofs do not last that long without maintenance.

But a pitched roof of a given quality will last longer than a flat one of comparable quality.

Also, what is the difference between a low slope roof and a "genuine Bauhaus-style flat roof"?

Less than 1:100 slope.

The fewer drains, the more likely they will clog with leaves in the fall. Simple, obvious relationship, but you missed it, same way you miss the simple, obvious relationship between the sun and the warmth of the earth.

Actually, I pointed put that the PCC demanded a minimum of two drains per each roof, and the reason is to ensure drainage even if one becomes clogged. Most low slope roofs have far more than that.

Making them more expensive.

Again, just as with AGW, you show you can't even understand what the important factors are. It's not a question of water pressure, but of the AMOUNT of water available to penetrate the roof. If there is a leak in a sloped roof, only the water flowing over the leak can penetrate the building. With a flat roof, virtually ALL the water that falls on the roof can go through the leak into the building.

No.

Yes.

This is because the amount of water that can pour through the leak depends on several factors such as the size of the hole and where it is located.

Obviously where the leak occurs is important, but it is common for leaks in flat roofs to occur near the bottom of pooling areas, from whence all the pooled water above the leak will eventually find its way into the building whatever the size of hole.

The condition you descibe would only happen if there was a large hole right next to the sole drain on the roof, which would not be allowed by code.

Flat false. It can happen any time a flat roof pools water.

If that were to happen, the water would then pool on top of the vapour barrier and then pour down along the drain leader. In a warehouse, this would be very visible to the building users but would not cause much damage. It would not cause much damage because the drain leader is always attached to a steel column which is then embedded in concrete floor. All these components are waterproof.

But in the real world, leaks in flat roofs often run along vapor barriers and only visibly enter the building space far from the source of the leak, making it difficult even to determine where the leak is without demolishing the whole roof.

Here is a test.

LOL!

What is a vapour barrier? What is its purpose? What is it made of?

It's a vapor-proof layer (many different materials can be used) that prevents condensation where warm, moist building air would otherwise contact cold outer components.

And, where is it located in a low slope roof composition?

Between the insulation and the interior finish (a lot of different types are possible).

Also, do you know what ice damming is?

Yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

I made no such claim.

Then perhaps you should clarify your claim.

It's easy to prove you wrong. Put two sheets of plywood out on a flat surface side by side in a snow storm. After the storm sprinkle them with equal amounts of water until they are saturated. Then tilt one and leave the other flat. Wait an hour. The tilted one will weigh significantly less. You see, this is just another case of you not thinking deeply enough to understand the situation, just as you do with AGW nonscience. The tilted roof (or sheet of plywood) effectively has a deeper column of water on it, and the additional water pressure overcomes van der Waals force and pushes water out at the bottom.

It depends. Beyond a certain angle, yes, but once you get past that angle, the snow also collapses. The National Building Code of Canada (NBC for short) puts this angle at 60° if I recall correctly. Even residential houses do not usually have roofs that steep.

This is not the only factor, but hopefully this is enough to explain why the NBC requires you to add the rain load when calculating snow load.

They often do.

Please name a professional roofing association that does. Thank you.

Actually, you're wrong, as any insurance company will confirm. Many will not even offer coverage for flat-roofed residences.

You lost track of the conversation. We were discussing mod bit roofs, not flat roofs.

Also Factory Mutual offers insurance for any flat roof that meets their standards.

Yes, flat roofs are more expensive, because it is a fundamentally incorrect design.

Like I said, we are discussing mod but roofs, not all flat roofs.

Shingled roofs are cheaper because amateurs can install them. Other sloped roof systems (metal, slate, clay tile) are more expensive than most flat roof systems.

Which would be less expensive if they weren't using the fundamentally incorrect flat roof.

Any sloped roof system that can last fifty years would have to be one of the three expensive ones I mentioned above.

You really don't understand that?

Wow.

Oh, you had no reason. You are grasping at straws.

But a pitched roof of a given quality will last longer than a flat one of comparable quality.

No. The guarantee for a flat mod bit roof is the same as for a sloped one.

Less than 1:100 slope.

No roof has that little slope. If your argument is that the minimum slope should be 1:100, then you agree with me.

Making them more expensive.

So, if flat roofs have few drains, they are a clogging risk. If they do not, they are too expensive.

Good thing the PCC has clear regulations to ensure a good balance.

Obviously where the leak occurs is important, but it is common for leaks in flat roofs to occur near the bottom of pooling areas, from whence all the pooled water above the leak will eventually find its way into the building whatever the size of hole.

You are ignoring what I wrote. Low slope roofs rarely develop leaks by the drains because those areas are the most protected from thermal expansion and contractions.

Flat false. It can happen any time a flat roof pools water.

Like you said, the water above the leak will fall through. Since most low slope roofs get tears in the membrane at the top of the slope, there is very little water that will leak through.

But in the real world, leaks in flat roofs often run along vapor barriers

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

and only visibly enter the building space far from the source of the leak, making it difficult even to determine where the leak is without demolishing the whole roof.

1. If the slope is made by sloping the steel structure, then the vapour barrier will also be sloped towards the drain, thus the water will become visible right beside the drain. This is why it runs down the drain leader or the column to which it is attached.

2. Roof leaks are located by doing an infrared scan of the roof from above at dusk or dawn.

It's a vapor-proof layer (many different materials can be used) that prevents condensation where warm, moist building air would otherwise contact cold outer components.

Almost, but good enough for now.

Between the insulation and the interior finish (a lot of different types are possible).

Yes, but there are other components, such as the roof structure, that are also between the insulation and the interior finish. Even a plenum space could be said to be between the insulation and the interior finish.

Half marks.

Yes.

Then what is it?

[Davea8]

It is amazing how far we can get from the thread topic. Is it because arguing is primary and beats any interest in a topic? Hmmm.