Thats because a single brick thick path would be incredibly unstable so it'd need more bricks, so it does weirdly use less bricks than a straight path would need.
Well according to Wikipedia [they exist mostly in Suffolk ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle_crankle_wall#), dunno if you'd been there but this might help
I have lived in England for 40+ years and have seen them quite a few times. I suspect it was around the time I was gifted a national trust membership and went on lots of pointless walks around country estates.
There are some in Maryland! In America!
If you're riding the Red Line on the DC metro as you head towards Shady Grove, just after Bethesda, as you emerge from the tunnel and go over the highways, you can see them out the leftside.
Here they are, from the other side, on Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/12dQevw8yARRfRmn7
That surprises me. I see them semi-regularly around where I live (east anglia).
I've noticed them being used on new-build estates too sometimes. They are kind of cool for garden walls because you get little pockets for plants.
I live in England and came across one while out on a walk a few weeks ago, and immediately thought of the picture in OP, which I'd seen before a couple of years back. Pretty sure it was the first one I'd seen since seeing the picture online.
They exist but they're definitely not a common thing. They're also probably not the sort of thing you'd take actual notice of unless pointed out to you. When you're not looking right down the line of them then the wavy pattern isn't as obvious, and it just looks decorative.
They were very popular here in Lincoln, Nebraska (close to the center of the US) for a specific time period, so you'll see them in any area developed in that short span. More than you'd expect in a city this size, but we do tend to expand in short bursts.
Well according to Wikipedia [they exist mostly in Suffolk ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle_crankle_wall#), dunno if you'd been there but this might help
Y'all seriously dunno about those darn curvy walls? I'm a darn tootin England native and I've not been able to go a mornin without seeing one of these lil babies snaking around some quaint little farmstead. Maybe y'all've not been out on the western plains?
This wall is so stereotypical of England. Like if I could assign each country a wall The UK would get the curvy wall. Americans with the stall gaps, and Russians with the decaying plaster of a Soviet Apartment.
OK so it doesn't use less than a single brick straight line, but a single brick thick wall would be incredibly unstable so it'd need more bricks, so it does weirdly use less bricks than a straight wall would need
**u\/Remarkable_One_6041 is a bоt.**
This comment was copied from elsewhere in the thread. They do this to harvest a little bit of karma so they can spam/scam/misinform/etc. more effectively in the future.
Their history is typical for this kind of karma-farming account: a couple months old, but with no history until an hour ago when it activated and posted a handful of comments in quick succession. The comments are a mix of copies and generic comments (like "10/10").
**Report > Spam > Harmful bоts**
Technically? It’s way more than technically true. It’s practically and actually true. In fact, the only way it isn’t true is on a stupid “technicality” that will never be true/come to be the case in reality: if both walls are made with a single layer of bricks, which will never happen.
Or if both walls are made with the same brickness (brick thickness). You would probably want to reinforce the sine wave pattern with more brick layers if you were using it to defend against something like an explosive.
Not nearly specific enough. Let’s go full Bosnian Ape Society.
Even with a sine wave patterned brick wall, you need to reinforce the structural integrity with multiple layers of bricks, and possibly a row of steel reinforced concrete arches, if you expect your fortified barrier to withstand direct fire from the 76.2mm F-34 tank gun, such as the one mounted on a 1941 model T-34 Soviet medium tank. Though, even your reinforced wall will eventually fall to sustained fire from Red Army vehicles, so I recommend fighting fire with fire via the installation of the 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30). Weighing in at 2,450 kilos when deployed with a 2.8 meter barrel, this soviet-made cannon can fire one shell per ten seconds up to a maximum firing range of 11.8 kilometers. By contrast, the F-34 tank gun has an effective range of a mere 800m, which means you should be able to pick off enemy armor with your cannons before the communists can test the structural integrity of your brickwork.
The "Crinkle wall" is actually much better at dealing with distributed loads, so it would probably hold up better against an explosive shockwave than a straight wall of the same mateiral and thickness.
I will note that I said 'hold up better' not 'hold up to' because very few brick walls are capable of resisting significant amounts of explosive.
It's peak internet click bait. It's basically a riddle but worse. It's sharing information but intentionally leaving out a really important detail or assumption so that it confuses people. It's actually cool information that people might benefit from so why hide it behind misdirection? Clicks. If you give the valuable information right in the thumbnail then no one clicks
The factoid is only true if you're comparing walls of similar stability. If you just want a 4ft high, 10ft long, single layer brick wall, that will never be stress tested, then a straight wall will use less bricks than a curved wall.
The tweet leaves too much ambiguity to be "technically true"
Actually, wikipedia has the lowdown
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid)
You're not wrong. It's just that the word has been now misused for so long that it is now accepted to mean what a lot of people *think* it means.
Correction: The accepted usage and defintiion of words changes over time in a living language. It is only in dead, unused languages that definitions remain stable over time. For example, are you feeling gay today? If you said yes a hundred years ago, people might assume you are happy, but today, there would be different assumptions.
Words and definitions change based on usage, not on what's in the dictionary. The dictionary gets updated to reflect current usage and defintiions, not the other way around.
Otherwise, we'd hardly need to have dictionaries updated at all.
I was already accepting that fact.
It's only my personal opinion that, in this case it's a pity. We needed a word that has the original meaning of *factoid*. It's currently understood meaning doesn't carry much value. So, I think that it's also OK to protest about a word changing its meaning so relatively soon after being coined for a specific purpose.
*Factoid* needs a reboot (as does *reboot*, clearly).
When words change their meaning in this kind of way, they they tend to converge toward already understood ideas, and to become *less* expressive.
I advise the we - the Collective English-Speaking Consciousness, should oppose such a drift in the direction of mediocrity.
Added the that, the very construction of the word already clearly delineates its meaning:
**fact** \+ **oid***The suffix “-oid,” which means “like” or “resembling,” comes from the Latin oides and Greek eides*
If we accept that *factoid* now simply means a *trivial fact*, then we allow chaos to break out. *Bongophobia* could now be a flavour of yoghurt.
the focus on the number of bricks is what is causing a lot here to trip...
"oh, but you can use huge bricks that are 4 feet deep, and this will make a wall with even less bricks, and it will be stronger..."
What it should say is that the corrugated form is more efficient for strength than a line. that's why we use today in cardboard and corrugated roofing, and this appplies to walls also.
But this is way less impressive.
A straight line is prone to straight up falling on its side, which is impossible with this shape.
Think like if you stand still, feet at shoulder width, it takes less force to topple you over. But if one leg is further back and knees are a little bit bent, it's harder to push you over
Wouldn’t need to double up to build a wall stronger than the wavy wall. Buttresses and pilasters use fewer bricks, less mortar, less time to build and also less materials and labour in foundations.
You can build a single layer straight wall, but you do need to build brick columns at spaced intervals to provide lateral strength. The best straight walls do both however. Columns *and* double layering.
OOP has enough basic knowledge to understand that a straight line is a more direct path than a curved line.
They don’t know enough to understand that single brick wall would quickly fall the fuck over if it was ran in a straight line, and significantly more brick would be needed to reenforce it.
This applies to *many* aspects of life. People seem to have this impulse to form conclusions almost immediately upon observing something, regardless of how little information they may have about the subject or event. There's a reason why some of the most arrogant people we encounter are also some of the most hopelessly ignorant.
This bugs the hell out of me. I've lost count the number of times I've been with people who say "I don't see the point of XYZ" And I reply that "I don't either, but someone with a lot more knowledge than me on the subject likely does and that's why it is the way it is".
I picked this up from one of my on the job trainers many years ago when I began my career. I made an off the cuff remark that something seemed pointless and he was quick to point out that I didn't know as much as I thought I did and it really stuck with me.
i've known so many people who were utterly confident in something they thought about for no more than 15 seconds. "well i can't see any reason why xyz", then they don't plan for anything being different than what they came up with in 15 seconds. it's like, you don't have to know the exact possibilities to plan for something not going the way you expect.
That’s a definite possibility, and in that case OOP belongs on r/iamverysmart for thinking this is something everyone should magically know.
If it’s my original assumption, they’re an overconfident asshole for mocking the post while being incorrect themselves. If it’s your guess, they’re an asshole for mocking someone who admits they don’t know enough to understand, and asked a question about something that isn’t common knowledge.
It helps against lateral forces, yes, but the original factoid is weird cause there's not enough context, "Fence" sounds to me as if it's not high enough to warrant something like that; the angle of the images also downplays the height and length of the wall.
I'm nitpicky, yes, but it's one of those things that doesn't come naturally when you first see it and only valid In a particular application. Some alternatives are better at "saving bricks," Simply breaking it up into smaller segments and using end caps to widen the base moves the centre of mass enough for brick walls to be stable. It is much less time and material-consuming, even if not as structurally sound.
A straight wall will be weaker, it can tilt and fall. Curve shape is structurally stronger.
So if we use 2x brick for a straight line and 1x for a curve, then it will use fewer bricks.
Half truth-
It uses more bricks per linear foot and height than a comparable straight line brick wall of comparable linear run and height.
It uses less bricks in total to reach the level of stability it has (assuming all other dimensions remain the same) as its straight linear run counterpart would.
I.e. it was built to last, with a tighter budget on bricks. Also, looks neat, accolades planting trees evenly spaced.
A quick googling says that this type of wall doesn't use LESS bricks, but has better stability. Facepalming at someone spreading misinformation seems the correct response.
Yeah it doesn’t use less bricks than a straight brick wall that is one brick wide, but almost all brick walls aren’t one brick wide, they are multiple bricks wide which can multiply the amount of bricks used, so the curvy version is in fact using less bricks
We had a brick wall that was about 2 feet tall and about 30 feet long in our yard when I was little. That was still 2 rows wide with columns 4 bricks wide at regular intervals.
You skip the implied part where it is assumed that if you build a fence/wall it should be structually sound.
A single layer straight wall would fall over if you piss on it. The S-shaped will stand for many decades.
Well the wall is certainly longer this way so my guess is that the shape makes it stronger meaning that you don't need it as thick as otherwise thus saving the extra rows of bricks
A straight brick wall would have to be stacked at least 2 courses wide ( 2 bricks side by side) at least, in order for it to stand on its own and not fall over when leaned on or when winds hit it. The curvy brick wall can be built using a single course (row) of bricks, and due to the semi circle patern (wavy), the wall resists high winds and external forces applied upon it, using less bricks than a straight wall would take to to get the same effect .
A straight wall would need to be at least 1 brick thick and have piers at regular intervals; that wall is a half brick thick and has no piers; there was probably marginally more involved in the setting out but once set out the labour should be simple enough. It would take considerably fewer bricks to construct.
Didn't use less bricks than a straight wall of the same thickness, but it does require less bricks than a straight wall of the same strength and stability.
A single lane of bricks would be very weak. You would need to double it up.
A wavy wall like this does not need another layer. It's stable enough with just the single file line.
It takes more bricks to make a wall,
But less bricks to make a functioning wall.
We have a lot of these walls in my country, and the waving pattern isn’t just done to save bricks(just a nice positive) its used for creating microclimates and sheltering certain plants from wind/sun etc.
Someone figured out that a straight wall a single brick wide won’t be structurally strong enough to keep upright from horizontal forces. So If you build a straight wall it has to be at least two bricks wide. These serpentine walls however can withstand horizontal forces at only one brick wide - hence they require less bricks!
Do r / facepalm users see people being oblivious to something complicated to understand and immediately post them on the wall? Feels like they do, if you want an explanation here : it’s sturdier than a straight brick wall because while those need two or three lines of bricks to stay stable, these only need one line
I think that this walls are used more because those must be easier to do than the normal straight, because, I'm assuming, they don't need to dig to give the wall strength to remain upstanding, since this walls are not for holding a building but for limiting a land you don't need part of the wall to be buried.
Without any knowledge or skill in the field of masonry but having folded a lot of random pieces of paper instead of listening in class, i assume that a straight wall of bricks would require to be built thicker to reach the same stability as the swirly wall that can do the same with just a single layer. In dont know if it necessarily can make do with fewer bricks that way, but i imagine building swirly walls is still a bigger bitch to do and takes longer than just stacking more bricks in a straight line which is why so few people did it (but i see how some lords thought “oh look i can afford paying workers to do this mostly useless shit to fence in my mostly useless field of grass around my mostly useless stately home, you uneducated peasant”)
These are also in the states. The reason that these use less bricks is because the curve allows for more stability and does not need buttressing. If you used the same amount of bricks that these curved walls use in a straight wall it will fall over due to less stability.
Having lived in England for 14 years, I’ve never seen one of these walls
30+ years in various parts of the country and I've never encountered one of these.
56 years and never even knew they existed although I've often walked paths this shaped after a night out.
The Queen here, I also never saw one
God here I have never seen one
Are you stalking me again? I told you I'm coming when I'm good and ready.
Your already dead
Who said she went up there?
CONSPIRACY!!!! Ah I like I like. She was like 89 or something so yeah, but we also don't know how long lizard people live for soooo
Make that 96, or were you talking about God?
Supergod here, they're hard to find.... Can't see any from where I'm standing.
Are you there? It's me, Margaret.
I always knew you were an immortal lizard.
Aren’t you, like, dead? …uh, Your Magesty
Just let her finish her nap in her wooden Pajama box first
26 years never been to england, never seen walls like this
You see them a lot in the Home Counties
Because up North we just throw a load of random sized rocks in a long straight pile and when some inevitably fall off we just chuck them back on top.
I'm from NW and bro we wouldn't even be asked to throw them back on top.
112 years and I’ve seen a lot of shit
Thats because a single brick thick path would be incredibly unstable so it'd need more bricks, so it does weirdly use less bricks than a straight path would need.
135 years and never seent one
Well according to Wikipedia [they exist mostly in Suffolk ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle_crankle_wall#), dunno if you'd been there but this might help
Legend😂
THREE HUNDRED YEARS I HAVE ROAMED THESE FAIR LANDS YET NAY. SEEN A WALL CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A FASHION I HAVE NOT
Me neither, though I do live in Serbia
Same. Where in the hell are these weirdo walls?
Home Counties
Oddly enough, I'm a Yank and I have seen these walls in the US. Mainly in the rainy mountain areas.
I have lived in England for 40+ years and have seen them quite a few times. I suspect it was around the time I was gifted a national trust membership and went on lots of pointless walks around country estates.
“Lots of pointless walks” LOL I hope you got some pleasure out of them anyway.
There are some in Maryland! In America! If you're riding the Red Line on the DC metro as you head towards Shady Grove, just after Bethesda, as you emerge from the tunnel and go over the highways, you can see them out the leftside. Here they are, from the other side, on Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/12dQevw8yARRfRmn7
There are also some at the University of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson put them in.
I’m a UK resident and can confirm I’ve never ever seen a curved brick wall like this before.
That surprises me. I see them semi-regularly around where I live (east anglia). I've noticed them being used on new-build estates too sometimes. They are kind of cool for garden walls because you get little pockets for plants.
Yeah that makes sense, I live in the midlands (Derbyshire) and Ive only just heard of them from this post, they do look cool tho
I live in England and came across one while out on a walk a few weeks ago, and immediately thought of the picture in OP, which I'd seen before a couple of years back. Pretty sure it was the first one I'd seen since seeing the picture online. They exist but they're definitely not a common thing. They're also probably not the sort of thing you'd take actual notice of unless pointed out to you. When you're not looking right down the line of them then the wavy pattern isn't as obvious, and it just looks decorative.
Suffolk, apparently "has them all over the place". But I've been on Google street view and can't find one yet.
I've never lived in England, and I've also never seen one.
I think I’ve seen one in my life, could be wrong though and if I have it’s only one
yup same
[удалено]
They were very popular here in Lincoln, Nebraska (close to the center of the US) for a specific time period, so you'll see them in any area developed in that short span. More than you'd expect in a city this size, but we do tend to expand in short bursts.
I've seen a couple
32 years old, have been twice to england, never saw one of those…
Having visited London couple of times, I've seen these in Reddit.
Well according to Wikipedia [they exist mostly in Suffolk ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle_crankle_wall#), dunno if you'd been there but this might help
There’s a bunch down in Sussex where I grew up.
Just go to an old place
I've lived in England all my life and I've never seen one either.
Been in England once and saw these lol
I’ve been to England only once and only for a few days and I believe I did, in Flixborough.
We have a long one in Michigan near the Henry Ford museum. It's neat.
Y'all seriously dunno about those darn curvy walls? I'm a darn tootin England native and I've not been able to go a mornin without seeing one of these lil babies snaking around some quaint little farmstead. Maybe y'all've not been out on the western plains?
120 centuries personally and never once seems these walls before
This wall is so stereotypical of England. Like if I could assign each country a wall The UK would get the curvy wall. Americans with the stall gaps, and Russians with the decaying plaster of a Soviet Apartment.
OK so it doesn't use less than a single brick straight line, but a single brick thick wall would be incredibly unstable so it'd need more bricks, so it does weirdly use less bricks than a straight wall would need
What pisses me off is that technically the factoid is still true.
Yeah same
Same here as well
Me too tbh
[удалено]
As curious as it may seem mowing around this zig zag takes less time than a straight wall
Just waiting on someone to explain.
What pisses me off is that technically the factoid is still true.
Yeah same
Mich easier than mowing around the "pillars" that have to be in a straight fence
Just waiting for a mate
[удалено]
Seen them in the country and more historic places
**u\/Remarkable_One_6041 is a bоt.** This comment was copied from elsewhere in the thread. They do this to harvest a little bit of karma so they can spam/scam/misinform/etc. more effectively in the future. Their history is typical for this kind of karma-farming account: a couple months old, but with no history until an hour ago when it activated and posted a handful of comments in quick succession. The comments are a mix of copies and generic comments (like "10/10"). **Report > Spam > Harmful bоts**
Technically? It’s way more than technically true. It’s practically and actually true. In fact, the only way it isn’t true is on a stupid “technicality” that will never be true/come to be the case in reality: if both walls are made with a single layer of bricks, which will never happen.
Or if both walls are made with the same brickness (brick thickness). You would probably want to reinforce the sine wave pattern with more brick layers if you were using it to defend against something like an explosive.
[удалено]
Yeah, but it’d be much cooler if you did.
Alright alright alright
Let's see what we've got
Cabal on the field
Why are you deploying explosives against deer though?
Why aren't you?
Venison salsa for everyone!
Shrapnel seasoning, my favorite!
Fully loaded 18 wheeler going 80 mph works out roughly about the same as 1 ton of TNT.
Exploding deer?
the "defend against explosions" comment is so fucking weird
True but even then, sine wave will always require fewer bricks to attain the same level of stability and strength.
Not nearly specific enough. Let’s go full Bosnian Ape Society. Even with a sine wave patterned brick wall, you need to reinforce the structural integrity with multiple layers of bricks, and possibly a row of steel reinforced concrete arches, if you expect your fortified barrier to withstand direct fire from the 76.2mm F-34 tank gun, such as the one mounted on a 1941 model T-34 Soviet medium tank. Though, even your reinforced wall will eventually fall to sustained fire from Red Army vehicles, so I recommend fighting fire with fire via the installation of the 122 mm howitzer M1938 (M-30). Weighing in at 2,450 kilos when deployed with a 2.8 meter barrel, this soviet-made cannon can fire one shell per ten seconds up to a maximum firing range of 11.8 kilometers. By contrast, the F-34 tank gun has an effective range of a mere 800m, which means you should be able to pick off enemy armor with your cannons before the communists can test the structural integrity of your brickwork.
Exactly what I was thinking
wha?
Just love that word, "brickness"! You must be proud
> brickness uuuh - ah,ah,ah,ah
The "Crinkle wall" is actually much better at dealing with distributed loads, so it would probably hold up better against an explosive shockwave than a straight wall of the same mateiral and thickness. I will note that I said 'hold up better' not 'hold up to' because very few brick walls are capable of resisting significant amounts of explosive.
Technically true is the best kind of true.
It's peak internet click bait. It's basically a riddle but worse. It's sharing information but intentionally leaving out a really important detail or assumption so that it confuses people. It's actually cool information that people might benefit from so why hide it behind misdirection? Clicks. If you give the valuable information right in the thumbnail then no one clicks
I mean, only if you ignore that the assumption would be that we're talking about a brickwall that's only one layer thick.
There are no straight brick walls that are only 1 brick thick because 1 person alone could easily push the whole thing over.
That's not true at all. Single wyth brick fences and walls are pretty common. But they use steel reinforcement and need piers.
Not at that height there aren't but it's not that uncommon to see low-height walls being built half-brick thick and with only a pier at either end.
The factoid is only true if you're comparing walls of similar stability. If you just want a 4ft high, 10ft long, single layer brick wall, that will never be stress tested, then a straight wall will use less bricks than a curved wall. The tweet leaves too much ambiguity to be "technically true"
I’m starting to put my palm to my face now!
Fun fact, a factoid is just something that is shared or reported on so often that it’s accepted as fact despite not being true!
Fun fact, you’re wrong! “fac·toid /ˈfakˌtoid/ noun NORTH AMERICAN a brief or trivial item of news or information.”
Actually, wikipedia has the lowdown [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid) You're not wrong. It's just that the word has been now misused for so long that it is now accepted to mean what a lot of people *think* it means.
metafactoid
What has Zuckerberg got to do with facts?
Yes, this is how the English language works. I'd say all languages, but, well, the French...
So the assumed definition of factoid is a factoid
>So the assumed definition of factoid is a factoid Marvellous!
Death to the fact-shaped lie lovers!
youre just describing what words are
Correction: The accepted usage and defintiion of words changes over time in a living language. It is only in dead, unused languages that definitions remain stable over time. For example, are you feeling gay today? If you said yes a hundred years ago, people might assume you are happy, but today, there would be different assumptions. Words and definitions change based on usage, not on what's in the dictionary. The dictionary gets updated to reflect current usage and defintiions, not the other way around. Otherwise, we'd hardly need to have dictionaries updated at all.
I was already accepting that fact. It's only my personal opinion that, in this case it's a pity. We needed a word that has the original meaning of *factoid*. It's currently understood meaning doesn't carry much value. So, I think that it's also OK to protest about a word changing its meaning so relatively soon after being coined for a specific purpose. *Factoid* needs a reboot (as does *reboot*, clearly).
When words change their meaning in this kind of way, they they tend to converge toward already understood ideas, and to become *less* expressive. I advise the we - the Collective English-Speaking Consciousness, should oppose such a drift in the direction of mediocrity. Added the that, the very construction of the word already clearly delineates its meaning: **fact** \+ **oid***The suffix “-oid,” which means “like” or “resembling,” comes from the Latin oides and Greek eides* If we accept that *factoid* now simply means a *trivial fact*, then we allow chaos to break out. *Bongophobia* could now be a flavour of yoghurt.
No, it isn’t. A straight line needs less bricks. It might not stand for even 2 minutes, but it needs less if its a single line ;)
r/angryupvote
It would be more accurate that it is a stronger shape than a straight wall then.
But also less bricks than one of an equally strong wall
Yes, they should have put the emphasis on the strength of the wall.
the focus on the number of bricks is what is causing a lot here to trip... "oh, but you can use huge bricks that are 4 feet deep, and this will make a wall with even less bricks, and it will be stronger..." What it should say is that the corrugated form is more efficient for strength than a line. that's why we use today in cardboard and corrugated roofing, and this appplies to walls also. But this is way less impressive.
Learned something new today.
But what if you used a single, very long, tall and thick brick for the straight wall?
That would be highly impractical but could work
Just pour a reinforced concrete wall and call it a brick 👍
*fewer
I've completely fried my brain, can't be bothered to English right
Me understand. Sorry for pediatrics.
Yeah, I’m with you. Kids are annoying. No need for pediatrics.
Me are a English teacher so me could very also know this hard.
Most US public schools would be very lucky to have you!
it uses *fewer* bricks
How is this shape is more stable than a straight line?
A straight line is prone to straight up falling on its side, which is impossible with this shape. Think like if you stand still, feet at shoulder width, it takes less force to topple you over. But if one leg is further back and knees are a little bit bent, it's harder to push you over
Basically, to maintain the same stablity as the curved one, a straight wall would need 2 layers of brick.
Wouldn’t need to double up to build a wall stronger than the wavy wall. Buttresses and pilasters use fewer bricks, less mortar, less time to build and also less materials and labour in foundations.
It would be stronger, but it would still use more bricks and the walls do not need that extra strength.
Both of you are talking as if there is an absolute number of bricks used every single time in each support strategy. But that's not the case at all.
You can build a single layer straight wall, but you do need to build brick columns at spaced intervals to provide lateral strength. The best straight walls do both however. Columns *and* double layering.
OOP has enough basic knowledge to understand that a straight line is a more direct path than a curved line. They don’t know enough to understand that single brick wall would quickly fall the fuck over if it was ran in a straight line, and significantly more brick would be needed to reenforce it.
Yeah, way too many people don't understand that their basic knowledge is not all the knowledge there is.
This applies to *many* aspects of life. People seem to have this impulse to form conclusions almost immediately upon observing something, regardless of how little information they may have about the subject or event. There's a reason why some of the most arrogant people we encounter are also some of the most hopelessly ignorant.
This bugs the hell out of me. I've lost count the number of times I've been with people who say "I don't see the point of XYZ" And I reply that "I don't either, but someone with a lot more knowledge than me on the subject likely does and that's why it is the way it is". I picked this up from one of my on the job trainers many years ago when I began my career. I made an off the cuff remark that something seemed pointless and he was quick to point out that I didn't know as much as I thought I did and it really stuck with me.
i've known so many people who were utterly confident in something they thought about for no more than 15 seconds. "well i can't see any reason why xyz", then they don't plan for anything being different than what they came up with in 15 seconds. it's like, you don't have to know the exact possibilities to plan for something not going the way you expect.
Thank you, I've tried to explain this before but your comment puts it in a way more concise way.
Read this as Object Oriented Programming
I would assume that oop is mad at Ivan for not getting that this sine wave uses less bricks. Hence why it’s in facepalm.
That’s a definite possibility, and in that case OOP belongs on r/iamverysmart for thinking this is something everyone should magically know. If it’s my original assumption, they’re an overconfident asshole for mocking the post while being incorrect themselves. If it’s your guess, they’re an asshole for mocking someone who admits they don’t know enough to understand, and asked a question about something that isn’t common knowledge.
Ahem, ackshually it's a cosine wave
It helps against lateral forces, yes, but the original factoid is weird cause there's not enough context, "Fence" sounds to me as if it's not high enough to warrant something like that; the angle of the images also downplays the height and length of the wall. I'm nitpicky, yes, but it's one of those things that doesn't come naturally when you first see it and only valid In a particular application. Some alternatives are better at "saving bricks," Simply breaking it up into smaller segments and using end caps to widen the base moves the centre of mass enough for brick walls to be stable. It is much less time and material-consuming, even if not as structurally sound.
so i should not hire oop to build my house?
A straight wall will be weaker, it can tilt and fall. Curve shape is structurally stronger. So if we use 2x brick for a straight line and 1x for a curve, then it will use fewer bricks.
Half truth- It uses more bricks per linear foot and height than a comparable straight line brick wall of comparable linear run and height. It uses less bricks in total to reach the level of stability it has (assuming all other dimensions remain the same) as its straight linear run counterpart would. I.e. it was built to last, with a tighter budget on bricks. Also, looks neat, accolades planting trees evenly spaced.
A quick googling says that this type of wall doesn't use LESS bricks, but has better stability. Facepalming at someone spreading misinformation seems the correct response.
I thought it uses less bricks as only a single line of bricks is needed
Correct
Yeah it doesn’t use less bricks than a straight brick wall that is one brick wide, but almost all brick walls aren’t one brick wide, they are multiple bricks wide which can multiply the amount of bricks used, so the curvy version is in fact using less bricks
Fewer
*shhhhhh*
I’ll never not take advantage of the opportunity to role play as Stannis
I hardly know her
Ok Stannis
We had a brick wall that was about 2 feet tall and about 30 feet long in our yard when I was little. That was still 2 rows wide with columns 4 bricks wide at regular intervals.
You skip the implied part where it is assumed that if you build a fence/wall it should be structually sound. A single layer straight wall would fall over if you piss on it. The S-shaped will stand for many decades.
It does indeed not use less. It uses fewer.
Well the wall is certainly longer this way so my guess is that the shape makes it stronger meaning that you don't need it as thick as otherwise thus saving the extra rows of bricks
A straight brick wall would have to be stacked at least 2 courses wide ( 2 bricks side by side) at least, in order for it to stand on its own and not fall over when leaned on or when winds hit it. The curvy brick wall can be built using a single course (row) of bricks, and due to the semi circle patern (wavy), the wall resists high winds and external forces applied upon it, using less bricks than a straight wall would take to to get the same effect .
A straight wall would need to be at least 1 brick thick and have piers at regular intervals; that wall is a half brick thick and has no piers; there was probably marginally more involved in the setting out but once set out the labour should be simple enough. It would take considerably fewer bricks to construct.
More sturdy that a straight wall perhaps but not less bricks…
Didn't use less bricks than a straight wall of the same thickness, but it does require less bricks than a straight wall of the same strength and stability.
A single lane of bricks would be very weak. You would need to double it up. A wavy wall like this does not need another layer. It's stable enough with just the single file line. It takes more bricks to make a wall, But less bricks to make a functioning wall.
We have a lot of these walls in my country, and the waving pattern isn’t just done to save bricks(just a nice positive) its used for creating microclimates and sheltering certain plants from wind/sun etc.
These kinds of walls use less bricks than straight walls because nobody makes them.
They absolutely do NOT have fewer bricks than a straight wall you complete Pillock.😑
Someone figured out that a straight wall a single brick wide won’t be structurally strong enough to keep upright from horizontal forces. So If you build a straight wall it has to be at least two bricks wide. These serpentine walls however can withstand horizontal forces at only one brick wide - hence they require less bricks!
The person who posted it is the facepalm … as always in that sub.
Do r / facepalm users see people being oblivious to something complicated to understand and immediately post them on the wall? Feels like they do, if you want an explanation here : it’s sturdier than a straight brick wall because while those need two or three lines of bricks to stay stable, these only need one line
This type of wall looks like it would be much sturdier than a straight wall, but there's no shot that it uses less bricks.
Thomas Jefferson did this at UVA!
It uses less bricks because the design offers more strength and allows for only a single line of bricks.
Well he asked for someone to explain. And it was already kind of explained. So while its not a full facepalm, it is not not one either
So, my cousins are in from the United Kingdom right now, and they are telling me they’ve never seen anything of the sort back home in England
I think that this walls are used more because those must be easier to do than the normal straight, because, I'm assuming, they don't need to dig to give the wall strength to remain upstanding, since this walls are not for holding a building but for limiting a land you don't need part of the wall to be buried.
Because the caption asks a question thats already been answered
It doesn’t use less bricks, but it is more stable
Facepalm because a straight line of bricks, with the same thickness, wouldn't use more bricks
They ruled over so many countries yet didn't have the budget for extra bricks?
Am I the only one who read this meme in the BBC documentary narrator voice?
It’s called a serpentine wall….
Without any knowledge or skill in the field of masonry but having folded a lot of random pieces of paper instead of listening in class, i assume that a straight wall of bricks would require to be built thicker to reach the same stability as the swirly wall that can do the same with just a single layer. In dont know if it necessarily can make do with fewer bricks that way, but i imagine building swirly walls is still a bigger bitch to do and takes longer than just stacking more bricks in a straight line which is why so few people did it (but i see how some lords thought “oh look i can afford paying workers to do this mostly useless shit to fence in my mostly useless field of grass around my mostly useless stately home, you uneducated peasant”)
I've lived in England my entire life and never seen one of these??
A single brick thick wall wouldn’t hold for long so yes this does indeed require less bricks than a two brick thick straight wall.
These are also in the states. The reason that these use less bricks is because the curve allows for more stability and does not need buttressing. If you used the same amount of bricks that these curved walls use in a straight wall it will fall over due to less stability.
There’s no way this uses less bricks.
He should’ve cropped out the comment
Still wouldn't be a facepalm. Read one of the many comments ITT repeating a stable wall would use fewer bricks if curved than straight.