# Well house



## Fancis Casini (Jan 31, 2013)

dom-mas said:


> The stones wouldn't need to be tight to lock without mortar, just have 2 points on each edge touching so it's more than just a pivot. Mortar is better in the short term (the next 70 years or so in his climate)
> 
> I think the pitch is just to shed water. I could be wrong


If thin razor or bevel edge stones are tight it serves no benefit as they cant wedge. They will simply slip past on another and as soon as one fails domino efect results. 

The incline is good for water shed but again if the insides are raised and the edges meet and are fairly made square or wedge shaped as in a brick arch, so as to "not slip over or under each other when pressured" in order to settle they must push out the outer wall or slip past it if merely laid on it.

The reason I like it mortared is that the edges are thin so a bond will lock them. To have two points as you say really is not helpfull with such thin stone beside s who knows the condition of the stones at such particular points but the insatller.

In any event a flat circle of flat stone certainl will fall in unless the stone are long and lap into the sides enough where they are resting on the lower long stone thats also doing the same.

See Fundi's link it shows both ways... they do mention a dummy corbell elswhere but it is a cosmetic covering over the long stone and lapped way not the Canadian way.It is that cosmetic covering which is for waterproofing as well as look. Step on one of those saucer pan sleds we used to use and notice it won't depress. Cut out a 12'' circle in the center and it still won't unless it buckles as very thin dry laid stone would. I would stick with 3' to 5'' flats,.. but then again flats never went good on disco shoes with bell bottoms.....:laughing:


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I agree, in practise thicker stones would be better, in theory it shouldn't matter. Theory should work in practise


----------

