Rising Damp

[Michael McNeil]

It's difficult to imagine that the physics of interstical granular caivity attraction or the process of liquids being "sucked up" narrow capilliaries is still being taught if there is no such thing.

One wonders how a variety of nationalities with a variety of building techniques, histories and concepts have hit on the same methods for overcoming something that does not exist.

Take the UK for example. There are timber houses standing in or near every large town that have been there for many centuries. The timber cills are of course tar laden and usually of a timber that is open to preservatives such a oak. Almost without exception the surviving buildings are mounted on red stone outcrops that are or were at least a yard above ground level at the time of building.

One wonders at the aptitude of a builder who takes the touble to remove vast sections of surrounding landscape in order to achieve that all important rise from the water table. That too, in a time prior to mechanical diggers.

[Neil Jones]

Are these general observations, or are you thinking about something in particular?

Neil

[Michael McNeil]

You sound like the sensible sort of a chap who is likely to have the tit that keeps posting on here about there being no such thing as rising damp killfiled. (Thus missing out on all the fun.)

[John Rumm]

Not seen anyone "around these parts" say that rising damp does not exist... although I have seen plenty (myself included) that would say it is far less common than made out by the damp proofing industry, and is often mis-diagnosed for cases of damp caused by bridging or condensation.

[Dave Plowman]

Think also what's in dispute is just how high it rises. As was said, pretty well all houses are built with the floors above the ground level, but many 'experts' would have you believe it's common for it to rise several feet.