Talk:Energetically modified cement

possibly renaming article

as mentioned above, the article could, perhaps be renamed to "mechanically activated cement" from "energetically modified cement". This isn't a proposal to make that rename, but rather, my expression of support for doing so if it is formally put up for action. Azx2 04:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it appears as though Energetically modified cement is a trade name and "mechanically activated cement" is far more general.CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

oK CombatWombat42, well if there's a formal tally of support for renaming the article to m.a.c. (or something related) and I don't happen to see that happening, please lmk or simply count me in favor of renaming, absent some material change to the article that would render m.a.c. no longer viable name. Cheers. Azx2 04:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft

Ok, apologies for the delay, but finally got around to a rough draft which I believe does a fair job of cutting out the promotional padding, reduces and simplifies the claims made to those which can be better supported by our limited sourcing, simplifies the language in-so-far as possible and generally bring the entry more in line with encyclopedic tone. See /Draft - Snow, April 2014. Karl (and any other editors still involved who may have relevant knowledge), if you could look it over and give your impressions, and specifically determine which are the best sources to support the various claims made and attribute them accordingly, I'd appreciate it. Snow (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I have looked at your draft, and done the minimum editing I could, to insure technical accuracy, and add some minor tightening up of the text. I removed one section, 2 Benefits and limitations. There were too many technical errors, and claims that I am almost certain that I can't substantiate with proper references. However, otherwise, it is not substantially different, from your draft. Again, feel free to use none, some, or all, of anything that I have written/edited below.

Mechanical activation of cement and cementitious materials, is a process by which a pozzolanic component of a cement is ground in specific varieties of mills in order to increase its reactivity, allowing a larger portion of the pozzolan in the composition of the final cement without compromising its strength.

Mechanical activation makes use of different types of mills, such as vibrating, planetary, and counter-rotating mills. These mills create imperfections in the surfaces of the fine particles composing the pozzolan; the most common variety of which is fly ash, a common waste product resulting from the burning of coal, which is regularly used as a binding agent in the manufacture of Portland cement. The resulting change of the surface properties of the fly ash or other pozzolans, allows it to be used in a larger proportion to the other constituents of the cement without a loss of material strength; and as fly ash is a relatively inexpensive and abundant additive, the overall cost of the resulting cement or concrete can be significantly reduced.

Contents

   1 Mechanism of action
   2 Trade variants and usage
   3 References
   4 See also

Mechanism of action

Although fly ash is the most common material to which mechanical activation is applied, other pozzolans, including fine sand, silica fume, volcanic ash, and pozzolana, as well as other complete cement products, such as portland or slag cements, may sometimes be used. Regardless of the material ground in the mill, the ultimate goal of the process is to create high-speed impacts between particles such that they develop a more cracked, pitted and cratered surface, increasing the pozzolanic reactivity of the resulting material. In the case of fly ash, which is commonly formed mostly of smooth spherical grains of silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide, mechanical activation can substantially increase the reactivity of the processed particulate mass.

Trade variants and usage

Although the process of increasing pozzolanic activity via high-impact milling is in general known as "mechanical activation", a subset of more specific procedures and their resulting materials has been developed under the trade term of "energetically modified cement" ("EMC"), coined in 1992 by Dr. Vladimir Ronin of Luleå University of Technology.

In the United States, mechanically activated cements have been approved for usage by a number of State wide Department of Transport agencies, including PennDOT, TxDOT and CalTrans[1][2], which have collectively developed hundreds of miles of highway paving and bridges using concretes made from cements utilizing mechanically activated fly ash.[1]

One of these projects include the paving of sections of Interstate 10.[1] The mechanically activated cement replaced up to 50% of the traditional Portland cement included in the concrete.[3] Another notable project, is the extension of the passenger terminals at the Port of Houston, Texas where the high-resistances of the pozzolan-heavy cements to chloride– and sulphate–ion permeability are hoped to combat erosion due to seawater.[1]

When the article is closer to it's finished form, I will track down more additional references. Thanks. Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Energetically modified cement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510160418/http://www.concrete.org/general/home.asp to http://www.concrete.org/general/home.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems something wrong with this article

Am I the only one who finds the baby approach to the science here (i.e. up to but not including the "chemistry" section which is very good) written by someone who was out of his or her depth? I mean come on: is the most that can be said for a process that was rewarded for innovation by the European Union is "produced using a special activation process." Further: "Finely grinding"?? I do not think so. Whoever wrote that clearly is not in control of his/her subject.

I do not know who wrote this article, or if indeed, it was dumbed down by a novice, but goodness this seems more about the process of concrete formation using pozzolans than it does about the process itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.88.194.70 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There's been something fishy about this article, for a long time. I've never figured out what's behind it. An obvious suspicion is that someone is promoting a bogus process. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the person who posted the comment you are responding to is closer to the truth in what he has said here and on Snow's Talk page. It appears Karl stopped posting once he had wrested control and changed the article to his liking. It seems "Karl" may have been the puppet, by debunking existing science with rubbish pet theories to abuse the OP who seems to have a high degree of science. And I do not see how this can be bogus if Texas has deployed it on so many hundreds of miles highway. That does not stack up. I note you have been a persistent critic and therefore you have probably no objectivity, let alone the background to say one way or the other. I don't think your pet theories should count anymore than your "gut hunch". Plus it appears you are tracking this page which makes me wonder why you are still so sure to vent your pet theories.