Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#61

Post by dghlsakjg »

jlawson wrote: post #44
canoebuilder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as we know, the fire was an accident “As far as we know” In the same sense of like “innocent until proven guilty” But is that the right lens to be looking through here? What is the rate of accidental church fires, let alone at somewhere that is such a treasured location as this? Then factor in, wasn’t there an ongoing spate of what were clearly church arson attacks going on at the time? Then factor in what y…

I'm reminded how literally within an hour of the fire breaking out, the news was telling us all _very clearly_ that it was an accident - a fact that they clearly could not possibly have known at that time given the flames were still rising and no investigation could possibly have been done.

Can you point to a source that shows that news was reporting that it was an accident within hours, and not stating that there is no appearance of foul play/terrorism.

"This doesn't appear to be a terrorist attack" is a normal thing to say in a city and country where terrorist attacks are somewhat common.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#62

Post by mywittyname »

samtho wrote: post #33
franky47 wrote: post #26

There are many solutions in old hand-tool woodworking that were elegant back then, and are still more relevant today than spinning a tool at 20k RPM. Example: when removing waste with a chisel for joinery, going cross-grain allows popping large chunks with ease, rather than route them to dust. And it's a lot of fun! Power tools do have a use for repeatability and mass-production, which may be useful in the Notre Dame…

As a woodworker, I get what your saying but calling the approach of using older methods as “more honorable” kind of rubs me the wrong way. It’s not like the original builders had a choice of what to use, I would bet they would choose the modern stuff if you could somehow loan them the technology from the future. Using modern tools is not antithetical to craftsmanship, it’s about the care, attention to detail, designs…

Cheap and quick has been the carpenter's mantra since the dawn of time. One look at the inside of an old piece of furniture shows how little effort went into things that weren't readily seen.

Mortise and tenon joints are fast and easy (read: cheap and quick) to make with a chisel and hammer. You can bet carpenters of old would be using nails and screws to build all kinds of things, if they were as cheap and abundant as they are now.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#63

Post by dnissley »

cmcaleer wrote: post #14

Whatever happened to the many hundreds of millions French billionaires said they would donate for it? I know a couple have coughed up, and most of the companies who said they would have but I don't all who promised to do so have.

Nothing here suggests they're running short on funds

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#64

Post by brianwawok »

canoebuilder wrote: post #34
ceejayoz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the rate of accidental church fires, let alone at somewhere that is such a treasured location as this? https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v2i7-508... 1,300/year in the US, 25% of which are arson. Clearly it's not a unique occurrence.

Are you saying “clearly not a unique occurrence” in regard to accidental, or arson? I’m surprised at the 25% arson rate, that is considerably higher than I would have guessed, and when combined with the strange response as OP was pointing out, and the fact that there’s not a large subset of “No cause determined,” it would seem to tip the scale pretty strongly to arson being the most probable cause in this case.

A lot of people are angry at churches. Mostly with good reason. So they tend to get the torch a lot more than your average business.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#65

Post by Animats »

They're using ordinary power tools, such as bandsaws and sanders. There's some hand tool work on the connections between beams. It looks like cabinetmaking carpentry on a larger scale, with lots of chiseled joints.[1]

The real hand work is on artistic stonework. That really is being done by hand. Omni CNC's proposals to make replacement parts with their stone-cutting computer controlled milling machines were turned down.[2]

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/travel/notre-dame-restoratio...

[2] https://www.omni-cnc.com/how-cnc-stone-cutting-machine-help-...

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#66

Post by seszett »

barelyauser wrote: post #21
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole building isn't economic or productive. They could probably make more money tearing it down and replacing it with a Starbucks. It likely has economic impact vastly larger than any Starbucks via tourism.

And what does "economic impact" means? A bunch of people burning jet fuel to get there and spend some hours looking at it? Why not working towards helping other people?

Not all tourists in Paris comme from far away, probably a majority of tourists came by train or car. I never take a plane to visit Paris.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#67

Post by canoebuilder »

brianwawok wrote: post #64
canoebuilder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying “clearly not a unique occurrence” in regard to accidental, or arson? I’m surprised at the 25% arson rate, that is considerably higher than I would have guessed, and when combined with the strange response as OP was pointing out, and the fact that there’s not a large subset of “No cause determined,” it would seem to tip the scale pretty strongly to arson being the most probable cause in this case.

A lot of people are angry at churches. Mostly with good reason. So they tend to get the torch a lot more than your average business.

Hating God, is hating the world, is hating yourself. No good reason for that.

If another earthly mortal connected to a church has done something you take issue with, take it up with that person, don’t damage or destroy a community’s property, heritage, and connection to the transcendent.

people here srsly advocating/justifying criminal, potentially homicidal activity, smh

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#68

Post by tokai »

mcdonje wrote: post #32
soco wrote: post #5

They also rely on medieval era trees to reconstruct it, as the more than 1000 oak trees painstakingly sought through entire France had to be more than 1 m wide. Okay not medieval - they are only about 200 years old. Could have made a nice title though.

That's really sad. What a shame cutting down 1k large old oaks for any building at all. It's not necessary these days. Of course they need some wood in publicly viewable areas, but this amount of not only wood but large old oak trees is excessive and concerning. Is there any indication that they're improving the structure so it will be more fire proof? Or are they simply restoring it to the configuration that already…

Oak don't grow straight naturally, so all most all tall 1 meter thick oak trees were planted and are crops. If you don't cut some down now and replant there will be no tall 1 mete wide oak trees in 200 years time. Most European forests are cultural landscapes that are actively harvested and renewed.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#69

Post by krisoft »

canoebuilder wrote: post #16
bambax wrote: post #4

The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As far as we know, the fire was an accident (not foul play) -- but an extremely preventable one. There were works in progress on the roof of the cathedral, so people were coming and going, some of them possibly smoking, electrical devices were being used, etc. And t…

> As far as we know, the fire was an accident “As far as we know” In the same sense of like “innocent until proven guilty” But is that the right lens to be looking through here? What is the rate of accidental church fires, let alone at somewhere that is such a treasured location as this? Then factor in, wasn’t there an ongoing spate of what were clearly church arson attacks going on at the time? Then factor in what y…

> if it could be shown to be a clear cut case of being accidental why wouldn’t people in a position to do so, show that?

How would that even look like? The conclusion that it is most likely an accidental fire was not reached by finding something in particular, but by not finding evidence indicating a criminal motive.

> It raises some questions doesn’t it?

You are are certainly raising a lot of questions. If you think something why don't you spell it out?

> Why aren’t they safe guarding and defending the nation’s culture and heritage? Why are they leaving it open and vulnerable to attack?

Why are you talking about an attack? Who attacked the church in your opinion and how?

What in particular would you like to be done by whom?

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#70

Post by krisoft »

canoebuilder wrote: post #45
ceejayoz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_fire#Investigation Workers were smoking in a space where it was explicitly not permitted, and renovation work meant there was electrical supply where "normally, no electrical is allowed in the roof space because of the extreme fire risk". Pinpointing the exact source of ignition is a bit challenging given the fire and collapse, I suspect, but without any evidence poi…

Were they smoking there in the moments immediately preceding the fire, and a dropped cigarette and maybe some sawdust or something somehow ignited a 35cm or whatever wide beam? And the smokers didn’t notice? But I think the answer is there weren’t any construction workers around in the time before the fire to be smoking anyway. “Maybe it was an electrical thing or something” is far from conclusive evidence, and as OP…

> The whole point of my original post was that all the circumstantial evidence points toward arson.

What evidence are you talking about?

Post reply on HN