Talk:Roman concrete

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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 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.

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.

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)

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)

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

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

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]

"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. --

talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you also to the IP editor who spotted (and corrected) a further subtle vandalism.--

talk) 10:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-finally-know-why-ancient-roman-concrete-stood-the-test-of-time Fxmastermind (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would add it, but I know I will do it wrong. Fxmastermind (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources reliable enough to be included in here?https://news.wttw.com/2023/12/24/roman-concrete-vesuvius-damaged-scroll-here-s-6-historical-mysteries-scientists-finally https://www.cnn.com/style/article/roman-concrete-mystery-ingredient-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/roman-concrete-mystery-ingredient-scn/index.html Startrain844 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the actual research paper (via link in last section). It's already in the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is it? What section? Startrain844 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should anything from this website be included? http://romancementmixes.com/contact.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startrain844 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]