Talk:Papercrete

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

I just added a reference to hybrid adobe. I'm not sure that I have my facts straight, so could someone check on what I've written? Davidlark 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does any one hold a patent for this product?

Patents?

I have searched for 1928 patents related to papercrete, but cannot find any.

Eric Patterson's patent #5,350,451 only shows the following previous ones in that timeframe:

1268929 June 1918 Conniff

1604097 February 1926 Hewlett

1608562 November 1926 Melandri

1633702 June 1927 Hewlett et al.

2152190 May 1936 Henderson

Here's another one garnered from a deeper patent search, but still not 1928...

1571048 January, 1926 Garrow

Eric Patterson denies that there is any pre-existing patent for his formula and method.

Please clarify or change the date at least; preferably reference or delete the claim.

Vince

Article or a sales pitch

I don't know why the tone of this article should be singled out as biased over other wikipedia entries. When I look at pages for fiber reinforced concrete, Portland cement or coca cola, I see a similar positive tone. A solution might be for the objector to write a separate "controversy" section.

Coca Cola(TM) for example, has a "Controversies" section, the Coca Cola Company page mentions the murder of union workers under a separate "Criticism" section.

I suggest that the dispute be settled not by rewriting the article, but by adding a separate section, or that the dispute be denied and taken off the talk page. Adding references would help clean up the article in any event.

Thanks,

Vince

Vpski (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be singled out as looking more like a sales pitch not due to controversy but due to form; e.g., there are many trivial details included, references are sparse, etc. If references are added, POV is neutralized, and obscure details are eliminated it would look a lot less like a sales pitch. Jppi Stu (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article or a sales pitch? Izuko 01:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look like a sales pitch to me --SE16 12:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in writing or language, but Papercrete is real enough. There is a large number of people making it themselves and building their own structures with it. Viewing the external links will expose readers to many such do-it-yourself projects. The only thing holding it back is lack of building code approval. I can't answer the question about whether or not it is appropriate in a Wiki article to mention the only (that I'm aware of) commercial vendor of the material. --Slurryguy 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disagreeing that it exists. But even if it was as wonderful as the article suggests (unlikely), the tone of the article would still be wrong and out of line with WP:NPOV. --SE16 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in the tone of literature, but it seems to me that it's easy to complain. If there is a better way to write the article that falls within the rules, perhaps you can detail the specific changes that would correct the "tone" issues you're concerned about. Of course your changes would also be open to scrutiny.--Slurryguy 21:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples:

When cement is added, this material is not as "green" (environmentally-friendly) as would be ideal, but the relatively small amount of cement is perhaps a reasonable tradeoff for what papercrete can offer. -- What does "perhaps a reasonable" mean? Or "can offer"? That sounds like a sales pitch, not the tone of an encyclopaedia.

Papercrete has some amazing qualities and it is a promising building material that is in the family of "green," environmentally friendly products. -- "Amazing qualities" and "promising building material" are both in the tone of an ad rather than an article.

Once it dries, papercrete is remarkable in that it takes on the strengths of wood and concrete, but is missing the weaknesses of either. -- Can you cite some research that shows this? It seems to me that it will be weaker than wood in tension, and weaker than concrete in compression, for example.

Unlike wood, it will not crack or burn. -- Can you cite fire tests? Even concrete fails when exposed to sufficient heat.

Unlike concrete, it will not fracture. -- Again, a citation perhaps? Any cement-based material will break under load. Are you implying that it fails in a ductile rather than a brittle manner?

There are many more, but it's difficult to pick examples, because the whole tone of the article is wrong. -- Kvetner 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Pointing out the faults in things is easy. You've successfully pointed out 5 more faults. Congratulations, someone has given their best effort to write an article and you've successfully complained. Many are skillful at complaining. Sadly, complaining doesn't improve the writing of the article.

Who is skillful at helping? Who can do more than find fault? Who is more interested in a well written article than attacking one? Instead of 5 complaints, who can offer 5 potential SOLUTIONS? What 5 rewordings, or rewritings would correct the problems that are being complained about? Is someone willing to back up these assertions with text that solves the problem? Be prepared for others to pick apart what gets written. It's clear many find complaining a favorite pasttime. Pointing out faults without offering solutions is a waste of time.--Slurryguy 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a first go at improving it, perhaps others can chip in. The main thing that needs doing next is to provide citations for many of the claims; and to remove a lot of the anecdotal detail about the material's developers, which is largely inappropriate in an encyclopedia. This is also an opportunity to break it up into better defined sections. -- Kvetner 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It is easy to complain. In fact, I went ahead and did it. None the less, its ease does not mean we're wrong. In my case, I brought it up as an issue to let y'all think about it before I came back to hammer it out, since I knew I would likely forget about it. What do you know, I was right. Izuko 23:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The patent is held by Eric Patterson. Patent #5,350,451. Reports are that Mr. Patterson has chosen not to enforce his patent in hopes that the technology would be helpful in providing low income housing. I cannot document the veracity of these reports. Link to patent at US Patent Office --Slurryguy 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found Kvetner's suggestions for improvement very helpful. The litmus tests he suggests are exactly the kind of scrutiny that any serious inventor has to subject themselves and their technology to. Its part of all our paths of learning to not over claim our achievements prior to controlled testing experiments. I'm involved in lots of waste recycling technology R and D and so have been held to the standards suggested by Kvetner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapora (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a re-write and update?

I just returned from a trip to visit MasonGreenstar's plant in Mason, Texas. Their work on GreenBlox and GreenRox has progressed considerably. Econovate in England is also progressing, just issuing a press release on their new product.

Anyone out there interested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpski (talk • contribs) 23:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]