Jump to content

Talk:Energetically modified cement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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:

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.162.190 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've had the article, and therefore its talk page, on my watchlist for years. I wonder what you think my "pet theories" are – I'm not aware of any. I do know that the article was once extensively edited by someone making implausible claims for the process while failing to explain what the process was; but his contributions were all removed, I think by Karl, years ago. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


I think that was the point being made... that "Karl" was stooge or whatever... and looking at his edits a one trick pony who disappeared once his "mission" was accomplished. The fact you are ignoring that, persistently, is not comfortable to me and im sure others when you have been equally deeply hostile to this page for whatever reason. The science was always there. As is clear from the EMC webpage and its various claims, anything licensed for usage by a US DOT has instant credibility. It is no more complex than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.112.224 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

DEFINATELY NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:6487:93C5:206F:3729 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Small amount of updating

I have made changes to accomodate the mechanochemistry lexicon and to undo some of the damage by sockpuppet "Karl". No biggies but at least the article is not the laughing stock it was, to those in the specialised discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:6487:93C5:206F:3729 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about "sockpuppet Karl", but please make sure your edits follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and are not promotional, and are not targeted toward representing energetically modified cement as "very important"—just try to describe the subject as factually as possible, based on how it is reported on in reliable sources. Also, if you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, please declare it. Some editing notes: In general, section titles should be fairly brief. I would also suggest moving the picture of the university back to the history section—I'd expect any photo in the lede to be of the subject of the article (i.e., energetically modified cement), not something merely related. —Enervation (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really. This article was a disgrace and you are not going to bait me into discussing that by a discussion over the palcement of a photo showing where the process was discovered. Youve no basis to assert your preference and "Karl" was sockpuppet. My modest inputs will do now rather than his folksey self serving bullshit. Seriously.

And checking the logs, one of the guys that hammered a former legitimate editor back in 2013, was permo-banned as a sockpuppet. So, this page has been vandalized by sockpuppets who were on a mission to neutralise its claims. I understand that aspects of the orignal page before "Karl" were maybe a bit too "selliy" but you cannot level that with my edits.

I'm sticking to the science buddy. Real science. It may be "wierd" science but it is real. And this page has lacked this for years. Because of a one-trick sockpuppet allowed to run havoc and disparage a real editor at the time of litigation in Texas...

AWFUL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:6487:93C5:206F:3729 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

My editing is done and I have contacted Ronin for more (narrow) work to be done.

I have vastly imporoved the page but not in a "selly" way. There is now real science and real applied sicence in there. I cannot easliy "forgive" some of the deletions made. Cannot figure why the Bache method was removed. So relevant. Or the self-healing. So interesting. Anyway, it is now back there.

NOTE: I am not happy that the fundamental science is being explained but I do not want to overstep the mark. I have therefore emailed Dr. Rionin and invited him to make additions in that narrow aspect. I have also asked for photo of an EMC to be added.

Let's hope there is a response to the invite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:2A:F0F2:F7EC:67BA (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

EDIT UPDATE: I have received an email from Dr. Ronin and he says he will consider the request.

Why not more widely used?

Perhaps some info on this would be useful. Are there technical disadvantages? Are architects waiting to for some kind of decade long test?

Is it more expensive than Portland cement? If so is there some break-even carbon price?

Chidgk1 (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not know. Hopefully Dr Ronin will take the invite I wrote and explain, but it seems there has been litigation and maybe it was seen as so valuable that others tried to steal it. From the Texas docket, all I can say is the litigation was over stolen trade secrets and the pilot plant was the subject of a hostile takeover.

I'll level with you: this is exemplar of mechanochemistry, which is a Soviet/Iron Curtain approach (we're talking way back) and possibly why it is not particularly understood in "the West". BUT it seems these past 10 years or so especially, there is a snowballing effect where mnechanochemistry is being seen as a very compelling solution for some aspects.

My motivation came from reading about mechanochemistry, then seeing a paper on EMC which brought me here. I saw that there is a very new Wiki page on mechanochemistry and that helps to build the narrative. I looked at the hisdtory of this page and was appalled at how it had been ripped to shreds on several occasions, only to be rebuilt, for it to ripped to shreds again, the latest time being in April 2014 just at the time of the jury trial in Texas I menioned above.

I just think its time has come. The original authors back in 2013 did not quite have the insight to give that "deeper" understanding, but now we can.

Take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:79B6:A1FB:C673:D0CF (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Comparison with other low carbon cements

According to the first sentence of its article "Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3) is a low-carbon cement" but maybe comparison between them and any other low carbon cements should be in the cement article itself rather than here? Chidgk1 (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is best. Calcination by definition is the thermal heating of a compound to eject its "insensible" CO2 (e.g. heating calcium carbonate, to give calcium oxide as the solid reidue). It's a million miles from what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:79B6:A1FB:C673:D0CF (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Could someone rewrite the lead to make it easier to understand please

Sentences such as "The effects of HEBM-transformation comprise a thermodynamic justification that resides ultimately in a modified Gibbs Energy." are a bit tough for someone like me who has never heard of this stuff before.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

OKAY. I will but this is always the problem here. People who think this is an "armchair" subject suddenly get confronted with the fact it is NOT. And then DOUBT the science. The text I wrote is scientifically accurate and this is a science page. Go and look at the Gibbs energy page to see how complex real science is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:2A:F0F2:F7EC:67BA (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


DONE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:8D88:57FB:8AD6:51D4 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It is definitely better now but I think it could be further improved. For example in the sentence "This causes, amongst others, a thermodynamic transformation in the material to increase its reactivity." I think people who only read the lead will likely not understand "thermodynamic transformation" and what "reactivity" means here. Also they will not know what "cementitious materials" means. Can't we just say that it is a class of cement and link to the cement article? I have not looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for writing a lead for some time but if I remember right it should probably be more like an "executive summary" than an abstract of a scientific paper. If other non-experts could make suggestions here too that would be great.Chidgk1 (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
If we remove the "thermodynamic" then we get back to the accusations that this is "bogus". The explanation for mechanochemistry is ultimately thermodynamic. So, I will hotlink the word "themodynamic" and add "chemical" before "reactivity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:79B6:A1FB:C673:D0CF (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
DONE!

Was "Karl" a Single-Issue Sockpuppet?

There is a problem with this page which reflects a wider problem in Wikipedia. Namely, amateurs get to debunk real work. This page was amended extensively by a poster called "Karl".

His period of attack occured precisely as a jury trial was going on in Texas over this technology (it is on the Texas Supreme Court Docket). Karl's work and his poisonous attitude ensured a frenzy of removal, that removed real insight into a technology and rendered the article into virtually nothing. The mechanochemistry effects are well known in applied inorganic material science, for example in alloying and sintering. The thermodynamic justification is by all accounts very real

  • I do not know who that "Karl" is but I do know he does not understand anything about distinguishing "Mechanical Activation", which is a generic term (which can include grinding such as for flour), as against HEBM which is a specialised subset and VBM applications which is a further specialised subset of HEBM. I believe that some of it (if not a lot of it) originally came out of the USSR's spent nuclear fuel processing industry. That work was Soviet or Iron Curtain and therefore no wonder it was not widely publicised.
  • I note that "Energetically Modified" has been used in recent third party non-connected papers about fly ash. But as it is, it is a term that dates back to the early to mid 1990s from the Swedish work connected to HEBM approaches on cementing materials per Ronin.
  • "Energetically Modified" descibes some sense of a thermodynamic justification for the process.
  • Having read a bit it seems that there is no basis for Karl's attacks.
  • He does nothing to advance any thermodynamic insight and his ramblings (I put that mildly) ignore the work of Thiessen.
  • He ignores the Texas work and then seeks to trivialise it just at the time of that 2014 Texas jury trial. If the volumes are accurate, then that's more concrete than the Hoover Dam, let alone surely it stands to reason you dont get to pour anything on a US Highway unless it is thoroughly approved.


It is lamentable to say the least that others who have no knowledge were instead led by their noses by a person who seems to have a very important purpose, namely to rubbish this advancement, spread a meme that there was no scientific basis, denude it into a generic term, and ignore the work of mechanochemistry, specifically HEBMs and the VBM subset----precisely at the time of that 2014 jury trial.

I think Karl was a single-issue sockpuppet who got to destroy an advanced article on very advanced applied science used in real usage settings. Such a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:6487:93C5:206F:3729 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have now reviewed all of "Karl's" postings. It took me 2.5 hours. It is rant after rant after rant. But when the OP was trying to justify, the OP got banned. This is highly depressing. No one stood back to say of Karl: why are you so utterly obsessed with debunking legitimate science when you admit you are a novice? It just built and built and built. And he then changed his IP address. But on both, his posts are, as far as I see it, only about EMC and then nothing ever else. The OP never rants. He or she is trying to deal with it but it's clear it's just a sustained mud-slinging attack. And nobody stopped this. Very depressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:88C5:920A:44F:68FB (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM EMC CEMENT BV

A recent outreach made by a concerned editor of this page has necessitated the following communication:

Dear Sirs:

I have been working with Dr. Ronin for nearly 20 years and make this statement on behalf of the Patent holding entity via its entity EMC Cement BV. Because of COI we shall not edit the main page. But we ask editors to consider the following:

1. Dr. Ronin has asked me to make available the following resources, which I have uploaded to Wikimedia for consideration / inclusion on this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Denslenovo
2. To correct "There are several types of EMCs, depending on the raw materials transformed. All contain a minority proportion of Portland cement, which may itself undergo EMC Activation." to read
"There are several types of EMCs, depending on the raw materials transformed. Depending on user-requirements, delivered dry products may comprise also a minority proportion of Portland cement, which may itself undergo EMC Activation."
3. To develop a small section on the underlying science of the milling method used (here, called HEBM on this page). In such regards, because this is a rarified subject, we have contacted that same editor who emailed Dr. Ronin. We have suggested source texts and will say nothing more.
4. To make it clear the process (called EMC Activation on this page) is patented.


Beyond the above, we wish all editors the best of luck and assure you all the process does what the article says. We understand that the page has been through various guises in the past and would simply observe the nuanced distinctions on the page at the date of this message are, for practical purposes, accurate.


GOOD LUCK TO ALL BONA FIDE EDITORS. YOU ARE THANKED FOR YOUR TIME IN SHEDDING INSIGHT INTO THE ADVANCED SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY THAT IS EMC!


This ends the communication. --Denslenovo (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Non controversial changes

Dear sirs:

I have replaced the Bache diagram with a modern vector, added a photo of an EMC and taken care of Dr. Ronin's request re the mod to the bullet points (as section above) and added as a new one:

  • An EMC is a fine powder (typical of all cements) whose colour depends on the material processed.

I leave all other requested ideas (as the section above says) to others.

--Denslenovo (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


Since the above, I have edited but not added substantively to the page. I have simplified some of the text and moved previous captions of the self-healing insert and Bache into a new note sections. I have moved the excellent section on pozzolanic chemistry to the final section as it is more to do with the chemistry of a concrete cast using a pozzolan, rather than purely about the EMC process. While that section gives an excellent insight into why EMC Pozzolans make great concrete, it does not explain WHY EMC pozzolans are capable of replacing so much Portland cement in that concrete.

The simple fact is, assuming one has a material which is capaple of being deployed as a "cement", then as for the level of replacement in the concrete, one is always limited by the strength development requirements of the various concrete norms. EMCs allow a greater degree of pozzolans to be used so that the concrete norms are still met. But this article still does not explore why.

As we said above, we leave all other requested ideas to others and so this concludes what I am prepared to do. But we would urge that a section on the fundamental science needs adding for the reason set out just.

Again we thank you!

--Denslenovo (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Simplified the layout and added 2020 McKinsey Reference

I have simplified the layout as the page was having too many major headings. So I've reorganised the page. It is now much improved.

I have also spell checked it and added a reference to a 2020 McKinsey article.

I do not have the detailed insight to look at the new section proposed by the Real Jammy Dodger above, but have again sent an email to EMC Cement itself so hopefully Dr. Ronin or whoever can add some thoughts on Jammy's ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:C09C:AE01:2DAC:AD0C (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New Section

I have been working on a new section on the mechanochemistry and it is on my talk page.

I am new to Wikipedia and so it took a lot of time and practice in the sandbox but I decided it was best to place it on my own page rather than here and so I have created an account.

Will someone of expertise please check it through.

I hope everyone finds it interesting. I have enjoyed writing it and a have a lifetime professional interest in the practice of chemistry at an industrial scale.

The Real Jammy Dodger (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have today commented on your talk page as follows:
"Dear sir:
On behalf of EMC Cement BV (please see talk page of the article) we have today reviewed your changes as posted here.
Because your work is substantive, we offer no validation on any of the content nor any guidance as to its suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, we wish to thank you for your efforts and consider your work is generally accurate. We would ask you to consider the following:
1. Regarding your chosen function for the force of ball collision in VBMs, we wonder if the term "P" should instead read "F".
2. In that same section, we wonder if it should be noted that velocity as incorporated into your function "k", renders a denominator for your Force equation that has the effect of increasing that Force as v inreases.
3. We believe that your thermodynamic account is accurate but we wonder whether the focus on entropy may be confusing. We have noted you state that others have commented that an amorphous state is "semi molten". We think that aspect can be further exploited in your text because we can all agree that a "semi molten state" of the same substance must be interently less stable than its crytalline state counterpart when both are at standard state conditions.
For example, you might want to consider a note section making it clear that during a phase change delta G=0 (to yield heat when moving to a more structurally stable format). Consider liquid water to ice. This may provide an insight into why the apparent increase in entropy rendered during activation of "compund A" nonetheless may add to overall momentum in any resulting reaction at a given temperature T. Recall: delta H of lattice formation is always negative, which is thermodynamically favoured. At phase change, since the process is at constant pressure, the change in enthalpy is equal to the heat transferred from the surroundings to the system
i.e. delta S = delta H / T
In sum, at phase change (because delta G = 0) one gets to assert entropy in terms of enthalpy and hence it is phase change that "connects" the two features delta S and delta H. We do not wish to subscibe to easy trpohes that "entropy" is only about "disorder" when it is clear moving to a crystalline state, heat is exuded. A crystal may be inherently more stable and less "disordered" yet still favoured thermodynamically if the temp gradient is also faovurable (ignoring pressure for a moment just to keep it simple). Again, think freezing water.
We trust the above is helpful to you and again thank you for considering this and of course your work."


Denslenovo (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


Further Comment
Dear sir:
We hope the following is also useful to you.
In your proposed text you state: "Overall, EMCs are likely less temperature dependent for a chemical pathway's onward progression (see next section on Pozzolanic reactions), which may explain why EMCs provide self-healing benefits even at low arctic temperatures"
You then use a citation but it's not clear which one. I have been tasked to point out your proposed words are accurate and the following papers may support your assertion:
  • Ronin, V, Jonasson, J-E. (1995): High strength and high performance concrete with use of EMC hardening at cold climate conditions, Proceedings of International Conference on Concrete under Severe Conditions, Sapporo, Japan, August 1995
  • Ronin, V. and Jonasson, J.-E. (1994): Investigation of the effective winter concreting with the usage of energetically modified cement (EMC) - material science aspects. Report 1994:03, Div of Struct Eng, Lulea Univ of Techn, Lulea 1994, 24 pp.
The papers are not available generally. However, if you wish to have copies I have been authorised to email them to you if you wish. We place no obligation on you but all you need do is use the "contact form" on the external website idnetifed already on the page.
We thank you again for all your work!
Denslenovo (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear sir:

Thank you for your input. I have taken on board all your points and incorporated all them but not the suggestion of a note. This is to keep it simple, as this is not a page to explain the finer points of G etc. I might revisit that sometime, but for the moment I am pleased with the changes made over my original proposal and hope everyone concurs. I have spent much time getting this right and therefore would ask that those who do not have a science background do not tinker with it.

Thank you very much. As I said, I have enjoyed doing it which I was asked to do by the person who was editing the page about a week ago, but who felt they were at the end of their useful knowledge on these difficult issues.

Yours

The Real Jammy Dodger (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


Dear sir
Thank you for letting me know and thank you for all of your careful work.
Denslenovo (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)



Subparagraph headers added to Amorphisation section

Dear Jammy

I very much appreciate your work . I have taken the liberty of adding subparagraph headers in your new section and changing the paragraph order to improve readability.

I have made no substantive changes

2A00:23C8:3D03:D300:A480:74AA:ACF4:44A6 (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


Dear sir:
We have reviewed your changes again and under the VBM equation we have changed the sentence, "As can be seen, the size and mass of the grinding media play important roles. F's denominator term k incorporates both v and E meaning that an increase in velocity of impact increases F and also that the nature of the material used for the grinding media is an important factor"
to read:
"As can be seen, an increase in velocity of impact increases F. The size and mass of the grinding media also contribute. F's denominator term k incorporates E meaning that the nature of the material used for the grinding media is an important factor"
We believe the change is helpful
Thank you again!
Denslenovo (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


Article Ratings were done when?

I don't understand when these ratings were done, but this just about one of the best cleantech articles on here!!! This tech is stunning. How timely with COP26!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.27.125 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Lord Turner and Lord Stern Report (with reference) added

I have visited the EMC website and noted a reference to an Energy Transitions Commission report from 2019 and hence set it out in the "EMCs as "Low Carbon" cements" section. I have added the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.79.80 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I have placed the following on this user's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#Removal_of_quote_from_Energetically_Modified_Cement_page)

"I see you have removed the quotes from Lord Turner and Lord Stern that I put on there. Interesting. This is your justification: "remove quotations; there's no reason why original prose could not be prepared"? If you visited the EMC Website, which is where I saw it, you will its states that the EMC Organization was not consulted

https://lowcarboncement.com/proven-tech

Therefore, your justification for removing my addition seems spurious and based on supposition rather than checking for yourself first. I am assuming that you are making some sort of conclusion that somehow the EMC Organization influenced or somehow promoted the outcome of the said report, which is a thinktank comprised of some of the leading economic thinkers and industrialists?

I assume you at least looked at the report you removed reference to? If you can see any reference in that report that it was paid for, any evidence at all to back up your assertion warranting your removal (i.e. assuming I understood your reasoning correctly), could you state it please? If not your behavior seems capricious. But, then, maybe there is a rule on Wikipedia about third party articles which says it has to be proven that it was not self promoted for inclusion? If so can you point it to me, if indeed that was your objection.

I'll put it simply, I don't understand your justification which strengthens the impression you have acted capriciously. I don't want to sound harsh which is why I think you need to be forthcoming.

Thank you!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.79.80 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


UPDATE: I think I have understood the objection and have addressed this now by reinserting the references but without the quotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.79.80 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


FURTHER UPDATE: Issue resolved with Diannaa. No further action required. The amendment I made per the UPDATE above is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.79.80 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energetically_modified_cement/Archive_2&oldid=1211471827"