<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rome 1b</title>
	<atom:link href="http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/</link>
	<description>Airpower and British society, 1908-1941</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Airminded &#183; Rome 2a</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/#comment-72915</link>
		<dc:creator>Airminded &#183; Rome 2a</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/#comment-72915</guid>
		<description>[...] my first day in Rome, I collapsed onto my bed in my little hotel room, watched Italian TV, and got a good [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] my first day in Rome, I collapsed onto my bed in my little hotel room, watched Italian TV, and got a good [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/#comment-72489</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/#comment-72489</guid>
		<description>You're probably right -- I was a bit surprised by the mystery-mongering tone of the Wikipedia article. I did forget to mention, though, that it does point out that the Pantheon dome is unreinforced, which does make it more impressive. Google throws up &lt;a href="http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/chapt01/chapt01.htm" rel="nofollow"&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, which only suggests that there 'could' have been a catastrophic failure, not that there 'should' have been one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re probably right &#8212; I was a bit surprised by the mystery-mongering tone of the Wikipedia article. I did forget to mention, though, that it does point out that the Pantheon dome is unreinforced, which does make it more impressive. Google throws up <a href="http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/chapt01/chapt01.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a>, which only suggests that there &#8216;could&#8217; have been a catastrophic failure, not that there &#8217;should&#8217; have been one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Evans</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/#comment-72410</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2008/04/03/rome-1b/#comment-72410</guid>
		<description>Can't agree with Wikipedia on Roman concrete, at least not as a universal principle. When in York I took part in several archaeological digs. On one we were excavating a section of the Roman wall, just off Lendal. The Victorians had built a terrace of shops over the top, with concrete foundations. While removing the "modern" accretions, one was immediately, sometimes quite painfully, aware of reaching the Roman substrate as the pick bounced back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t agree with Wikipedia on Roman concrete, at least not as a universal principle. When in York I took part in several archaeological digs. On one we were excavating a section of the Roman wall, just off Lendal. The Victorians had built a terrace of shops over the top, with concrete foundations. While removing the &#8220;modern&#8221; accretions, one was immediately, sometimes quite painfully, aware of reaching the Roman substrate as the pick bounced back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
