Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Europe, 100km is a long way; in the US, 100 years is a long time.
Unless you fly ryanair for 10$
If you fly Ryanair, 20 minutes is like 100 years.
Why was Roman concrete so durable?
281–290 of 299 posts
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
And lots of other Roman buildings didn’t survive because they were destroyed so the blocks could be repurposed into churches in other locations. The Parthenon is one (1) building that survived basically as-is while countless others were actively demolished. One thing that surprised me when visiting Rome is how little original buildings existed. But when you get increasingly far from the city of Rome, you’ll find quit…
The Pantheon is just an example, but many other instances can be found in Rome: the Church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, the Basilica of Saints Cosmas and Damian, etc. (These are just examples you find in Rome, there are plenty of other examples here in Italy.) The OP suggested that the loss of architectural art is mainly due to a clash of different cultures and to religion. While there were cases where this was surel…
Exactly my point as well. The ancients didn’t think to not tear down buildings so we could discover them 2000 years later. It’s a miracle anything of that time is left at all in terms of physical structures, and the best preserved have been buildings repurposed by the church.
This isn’t even touching on the subject of the Latin corpus which is ONLY extant because of the Church.
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not bad for something built nearly 2,000 years ago. According to the Pyramids, Stonehenge, Newgrange, Watson Brake, et al., it's a little premature to suggest that. Let's check back in 3,000 years.
stone != concrete edit: we have a > 2,000 years old pyramid in Rome too, and it's in perfect shape, because stone != concrete https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Ci...
Funny, its perimeter vs. height approximates pi, rather than the originals' 2pi.
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
With zero sarcasm, when I read “every time I go to Rome” I feel that I took a wrong turn in life somewhere. Fucking awesome mate.
Italy is wonderful, you should go, only problem is that they speak Italian.
I think this is meant to be funny but it upsets me a little bit to be honest. Learning at least some basics of the country's language is travelling 101 to me. Going abroad and expecting the locals to speak my language is a very rude thing and a display of disrespect in my opinion.
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you take out the rebar. Concrete is porous, water penetrates to the rebar inside, the rebar rusts and expands, cracking the concrete. But if you remove the rebar, you remove much of the tensile strength of the structure, which means you need to use way more concrete to compensate (via the sheer compressive force of its own weight).
What about those new materials for rebar? Like fiberglass? What do you think of them?
Not the parent. My understanding is metal rebar is the cheapest. You need a lot of rebar in modern concrete construction.
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#286Relevant thread: https://twitter.com/cleptok/status/1611622181665923075 Ok. Let's do a short thread on Roman cement for the 3 people out there that might be interested. You often hear that the Romans had some sort of superior and arcane knowledge on superior cement mixes that has been now lost. And still today we cannot replicate it. This is complete nonsense. Modern day cement (and any other building material, reall…
That reads as somewhat misguided and dismissive. You don't have to understand the chemistry to improve recipes by trial and error, over multiple generations, and learn from the still-standing structures. And there is still value in studying today those that survived in order to improve ours. The way lime healed cracks is new to me at least, but it's taken as a given here. > you wouldn't build anything worthwhile You…
The thread seems to have been written by a Greek, a bit of Roman-bashing is par for the course :)
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in a refinery, or you have to buy weird/expensive non-sparking hammers and wedges. Aluminum bronze wedges are commercially available but the liability insurance is incredible so you're better off cutting your own (its a wedge, not a rocket engine...). It ends up being cheaper to use the expansive grout.
This is exactly what I mean by "paying to get around process tech debt" Facility has a "no sparks" in buildings A, B and C rule. Rule obviously doesn't apply to contractors doing a ton of welding during a holiday shutdown. Non-contractors in maintenance dept want to fix some other crap at the same time. Sure they could try and get approval to use a jackhammer concurrent with the other work but in reality there's a 75…
Murphys Law implies the contractors will not be legally permitted onsite during operation so who cares what they do, but if you let the full timers play with jackhammers its guaranteed some idiot will try to use the jackhammer after operation resumes. So you'd need to do something like have the safety officer personally responsible for removing the jackhammer from the premises. Or renting it, perhaps.
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drive confidently but attentively and you fit in beautifully. Source: tried it myself.
Can't confirm. Drive unsafely like the worst drivers in LA and you'll fit right in but still be miserable.
Hah.
Probably practice is needed, but your holidays are too short for that.
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#289So how difficult is it to destroy Roman concrete? If we start using it to build things are we going to be stuck with those things for 2000 years?
Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?
#290Relevant thread: https://twitter.com/cleptok/status/1611622181665923075 Ok. Let's do a short thread on Roman cement for the 3 people out there that might be interested. You often hear that the Romans had some sort of superior and arcane knowledge on superior cement mixes that has been now lost. And still today we cannot replicate it. This is complete nonsense. Modern day cement (and any other building material, reall…
> You often hear that the Romans had some sort of superior and arcane knowledge on superior cement mixes that has been now lost. And still today we cannot replicate it. This is complete nonsense.
That’s what I heard. And that we found it recently but it wasn’t useable economically because it required an extremely long time to dry instead of modern ciment and it’s ability to dry (and so raise a building) a lot faster.