Talk:Magnesium oxide wallboard
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magnesium oxide wallboard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Help with magnesium oxide board installation
[edit]please any suggestions for the proper jointing compound required for the boards also what type of material is used for the skimming of the the boards?41.219.220.112 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is best to ask a question like this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
water/moisture resistance?
[edit]What's up with those claims? Magnesia does react with water, after all, and even dissociates into Mg2+ and OH- ions. I suppose the pressed material offers very little surface area for that, but "waterproof" would be quite strong a claim.
I would guess it's similar to how aluminium forms a passivation layer and is quite hard to dissolve except in the presence of catalysts such as mercury.
What's the effect of acid rain or H2CO3 (worse, a combination of the two) on MgO boards?
RandomP (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
'Disadvatages' section reads like an advert from one of the biggger suppliers in the industry, the language should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.24.130 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Rosendale Natural Cement non-fired?
[edit]The article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosendale_cement says that it is "calcined" (~=heated) in a kiln.
So if they're the same thing and that page is right, then the claim here that it's non-fired is wrong.
I think that what's natural about it is that the manufacturers found geological sources of appropriately pre-mixed minerals. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Lede
[edit]First sentence is CRAP. Sadsaque (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced but not a copy
[edit]This is informational.
The disadvantage section has a weird "[?reference]", which made me suspicious. However, it does not appear to be a copyright violation. The section generally lacks citations, so I Googled several sentences, which brings up a Shanghai Metal page. However, the sentence that set up skepticism is 2011, while the page is dated 2016 (see the news list page). Therefore, it was a false positive. Naruyoko (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)