Talk:Roman concrete

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Untitled

In the documentary "Rome's Invisible City", the making of roman concrete (using quicklime, pozzolana and tuff) was shown. Since they made it, they also knew the ratio's of these ingredients in the mix. It should be useful to mention those ratio's here. KVDP (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources for that, then please... That they knew the ratio's is fairly obvious, since they built the Pantheon with it, but what exactly they were should be properly sourced. Kleuske (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant with "they", the makers of the documentary. The roman concrete was made in the program as a test by an experimental archaeologist I believe. The only thing I don't know is whether they used exactly the same materials -as lime, they used modern quicklime- (so ratio's may be slightly different, but atleast close to it)

KVDP (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the experimental archaeologist in the docu was Lara Comis (see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8946161/ ). She seems to be a member of Exarc.net

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Genetics4good (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2018 July 2 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caligulaforprez2024. Peer reviewers: Forgetfulpumpkin, GenevieveHis313.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parking a reference

why-roman-concrete-still-stands-strong-while-modern-version-decays--ClemRutter (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense sentence

This sentence doesn't make sense.

"In knowing the fact of differing ratios we accomplish the deduction of what the Romans' non-use was, portland cement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting the original statement

"Proponents claim that concrete made with fly ash can cost up to 60% less because it requires less aggregate, and that it has a smaller environmental footprint due to its lower cooking temperature and much longer lifespan." ^[1] this became Volcanic Ash. More research is needed but I dare say obtaining the volcanic ash might be a costly exercise. --‎ 58.111.210.221 01:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)‎[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this vandalism. I have corrected. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also to the IP editor who spotted (and corrected) a further subtle vandalism.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/06/priority-25-bc-ancient-romans-developed-recipe-concrete-specifically-used-underwater-work-essentially-formula-used-today/

Environmental effect

Article currently mentions "smaller environmental footprint due to its lower cooking temperature and much longer lifespan." It cites a 2016 article which matches this WP article broadly. I don't know which article is quoting which. A major source of modern concrete's footprint (other than temperature or lifespan) is the chemical release of CO2 when converting limestone (CaCO3) to cement (CaO + CO2). Every molecule of modern cement required that a molecule of CO2 was released to the atmosphere. We need an accurate accounting of environmental footprints. Numbersinstitute (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]