Live data from Hacker News

Why was Roman concrete so durable?

news.mit.edu

91–100 of 299 posts

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#91
post #81

For people who don't know the difference between cement, mortar and concrete: Cement is a substance used for producing mortar and concrete. It's never used on its own. It is a "binding agent". Note that the term "cement" is often not used correctly in everyday speech, with people talking about gluing bricks together with cement, when bricks are actually glued together with mortar. Mortar is the glue between bricks. Y…

[deleted]

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#92
post #73
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably dexpan has lower tensile strength so it can be disposed of easily? Or is the piece excavated and hauled away intact?

It expands in the holes you make in the to-be-destroyed concrete, cracking it. You can haul it off in chunks at that point.

The destroyed concrete, yes, but what about the dexpan?

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#93

This is from the article: > Masic wondered: “Was it possible that the Romans might have actually directly used lime in its more reactive form, known as quicklime?” And this is from Wikipedia, with the source dated 2011: > Gypsum and quicklime were used as binders. Volcanic dusts, called pozzolana or "pit sand", were favored where they could be obtained Is it just me or are popular science articles really so simplifie…

Gell-Mann Amnesia is real.

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#94
post #84
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then multiple that by 20 (the lifetime of the road surface) and factor in that the resurfacing is significantly cheaper than the initial build and you quickly find roads are easily subsidized by property taxes.

There are two sides to this coin. The roads need repair continually and resurfacing eventually, yes. What happens when property values and the local economy begin to deteriorate instead of prosper? All those utilities and public rights of way still need those repairs, but there's no appetite to raise property taxes, and the tax base is dwindling, and there's little reason to keep paying the mortgage on a depreciating…

You abandon it. Detroit did this for example.

Also easy expansion is more a function of interest rates than anything. Municipal bonds buy everything and there’s been very little interest on them. This means fewer taxes to buy things. And new bonds can be sold down the road as the town increases tax base and interest rates fall.

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#95
post #81

For people who don't know the difference between cement, mortar and concrete: Cement is a substance used for producing mortar and concrete. It's never used on its own. It is a "binding agent". Note that the term "cement" is often not used correctly in everyday speech, with people talking about gluing bricks together with cement, when bricks are actually glued together with mortar. Mortar is the glue between bricks. Y…

Though most concrete is reinforced with steel rebar, it can be reinforced with all sorts of other materials to strengthen it under different conditions & loads: glass rods, plastic meshes, fibres, carbon nanotubes, etc.

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#96

This is from the article: > Masic wondered: “Was it possible that the Romans might have actually directly used lime in its more reactive form, known as quicklime?” And this is from Wikipedia, with the source dated 2011: > Gypsum and quicklime were used as binders. Volcanic dusts, called pozzolana or "pit sand", were favored where they could be obtained Is it just me or are popular science articles really so simplifie…

[deleted]

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#97
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says a lot doesn't it. Marie Jackson makes it into the citations twelve times. Otherwise not mentioned by name. Academia: You thought capitalists were greedy for mere money? Come meet academics.

The lead author of this study, Linda M. Seymour, worked with Jackson on reference 29, on the mortar of the Tomb of Caecilia Metella, which is referenced repeatedly and the samples from which form a significant part of the hypothesis. That study: https://ceramics.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jace.18... Story on that study: https://als.lbl.gov/unexpected-transformations-reinforce-rom... Jackson is quoted, if bri…

Thank you for pointing this out.

A common thread, and no doubt mutual fascination behind Jackson's and Seymour's research, is the use of specific pozzolans found in and around Campi Flegrei volcano west of Naples.

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#98
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don’t do this it’s also against the rules: Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. Live by the sword die by the sword

But... you also just did it

But, you replied pointing out that he did it. It's flags all the way down.

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#99
post #92
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It expands in the holes you make in the to-be-destroyed concrete, cracking it. You can haul it off in chunks at that point.

The destroyed concrete, yes, but what about the dexpan?

The dexpan never existed as big pieces.

Re: Why was Roman concrete so durable?

#100
post #92
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It expands in the holes you make in the to-be-destroyed concrete, cracking it. You can haul it off in chunks at that point.

The destroyed concrete, yes, but what about the dexpan?

The dexpan is not a huge concrete structure, it's just a cylinder the size of the hole it was poured in.
Post reply on HN