Re: Newport Tower and windmills - some comparisons
- From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:59:10 +1300
On 30 Jan 2007 04:53:02 -0800, ghughesarch@xxxxxxx wrote:
A few random comments on various suggestions made so far:
I could play a low-level devil's advocate and ask if there was a
footing for the axle of the mill? I don't remember one and it would
seem to be an important part of the construction. Theoretically, it
would be possible to construct a roof that would cover the tower's
irregularity and then set a rotating portion with in it, using a
collar bearing on the second floor and the footing on the first floor
to align it. Highly doubtful it would work over any period of time or
heavy wind.
You seem to be suggesting a post mill inside the tower. Now that would
be really novel.
Novel, but not unknown:
http://asso.nordnet.fr/aramnord/que_savoir/photos_templeuve_vertain.htm
16th century mill in France, near Calais, one of at least two
examples of a "post mill inside a tower" known to have existed (the
other was a few miles away). Before anyone gets carries away, its
connection with Newport is zero.
http://asso.nordnet.fr/aramnord/que_savoir/templeuve_moulin6.jpg show
that in that particular mill the mechanism stands upon the post which
rotates with the mill when it is turned to face the wind. This is not
the construction of a conventional post mill in which the post is
fixed and the mill is impaled upon it. See
http://www.runham.org.uk/Mill_Insides.jpg
If it was built or adapted to operate as a tower millNot a particularly good example, as that is a nineteenth century tower
http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/special/pics/muggslides/F183594.JPG
shows the general nature of the mechanism which would have been
housed.
mill fitted with a fantail to turn the cap automatically. The fantail
was invented in 1745, so could not have been a feature of Newport.
For a better comparison, try the measured drawings here:
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/FB38E4B4600E4287802571030039F71B
At last - a (reasonably accurate) cross-section of Chesterton mill on
the web. Please compare this closely with the Newport Tower.
http://www.banhamandthebucks.co.uk/windmill/index.html shows the Old"The present mill was built in 1818 and is the only tower mill
Buckenham Tower Mill and claims:
known to have been built in the village. It has the widest tower
of any mill in the country - 23' across at the base - although
others are taller (most tower mills are around 12 to 14'
across)."
If 23' at the base (and less across the top) of a mill built in 1818Not 23ft across at the base:
makes it the widest tower of any mill in the country, then building a
mill in Newport 23' across the top in the mid 17th century made it an
extraordinary construction.
http://www.norfolkmills.co.uk/Windmills/old-buckenham-towermill.html
"The 42 foot high tower only had a 3 foot 6 inch batter, being 26 feet
6 inches at ground level and 23 feet at the curb with 2 foot thick
walls, all of which made it the widest towermill in the country."
It's the curb diameter (top of the tower) that is large - though it's
not vastly more than some other tower mills in England, and in fact
the earlier tower mills, which are parallel-sided, or nearly so, tend
to have the larger curb diameters. As has been pointed out upthread,
Chesterton is over 20ft at the curb.
For a much wider mill:
http://www.norfolkmills.co.uk/Windmills/gt-yarmouth-southtown-towermill.html
"Gt Yarmouth Southtown tower mill, which was often known as High Mill
or Press's Mill was 102 feet to the lantern at the top and was the
tallest windmill ever built in England, extending to 12 storeys
including the ogee cap. The top of the lantern on the cap stood a
further 20 feet higher. At ground level, the base of the mill was 40
feet in diameter (also reported at 46 feet) with walls 3 feet thick
and it was said that carts could drive into the mill to load up inside
the tower. "
In fact, we now know it wasn't quite the tallest mill in England - one
a few miles away was built deliberately to be taller but was wrecked
in a storm within a few years.
Given that the walls are about 1.5 feet (0.5 metres) thick at the top, a
circular track placed on them would not "overhang" at any point. Also,
provided the top of the walls is properly levelled*, the anti-pigeon skirt
for the cap does not have to overlap, merely to come almost in contact with
the wall-top.
David B.
*Incidentally, I don't buy the claim that the top of the Newport Tower walls
was damaged in an attempt at sabotage during the Revolution; if you want to
sabotage a structure standing on eight stupid pillars, you undermine a few
of the pillars. If the tops of the walls were damaged, it was probably the
result of a sudden disappearance of the cap and sails of the "windmiln".
Hear hear!
Gareth
Eric Stevens
.
- References:
- Newport Tower and windmills - some comparisons
- From: ghughesarch
- Newport Tower and windmills - some comparisons
- Prev by Date: Re: Alignments of the Newport Tower
- Next by Date: Re: Tara's Bog Man: Wealthy Dandy or Celtiberian Scout
- Previous by thread: Re: Newport Tower and windmills - some comparisons
- Next by thread: Stonehenge find
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
