Talk:Energetically modified cement/Archive 1
This article is a HACK advertising piece- and I PROVE it, BELOW-[edit]
No one is going to read or pay attention to any of this. Start fresh and concise below
|
|---|
|
>>Hello! This article is NOTHING but a HACK advertising piece, with references almost exclusively to either the company featured prominently in this article, OR the owner of the company! I have PROVED this absolutely, below! I have, for everyone's benefit, done a complete critique of this section, "The EMC Activation process". Sentence 1: EMC Activation allows for the higher replacement of Portland cement in concretes that nevertheless exhibit performance characteristics that fall within a project's required specifications. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the process, and is the sort of self-serving statement someone working for the company making this stuff would say Sentence 2: For concrete, the more the Portland cement is replaced with pozzolans, the better the concrete's durability.[18] This statement is out-and-out WRONG. This leads to the ludicrous assertion, that 100% pozzolans would have the best durability! This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the process. Of course, the correct pozzolans, IN THE CORRECT PERCENTAGE, and the correct types, will improve concrete's compressive strength. "Durabiliy", is not a quantified cement characteristic. Presumably you mean flexural strength, or another normal characteristic. Normal pozzolans at weak at this. Too much will give you poor flexural strength, and poor fracture strength. Sentence 3: This is facet is well-settled and not controversial (the chemical basis, is set out in the section below). This is also completely wrong. WHO says 100% pozzolans is best??? NOBODY! This STILL has nothing to do with the process. Sentence 4. EMC's higher replacement ratio means that the chemistry of the concrete is improved—and improved by a greater extent than just using (say) raw fly ash—nevertheless, at all times ensuring that the resulting concrete conforms to modern "21st Century" performance-requirements.[19][20] Other than finally saying " higher replacement ratio", which is slightly more correct than your previous statements, this is advertising GARBAGE. Reference 19 goes to a PATENT by the company featured prominently in the article! This is GARBAGE. YES, the COMPANY says their stuff is wonderful! GAH! Reference 20 goes to ADVERTISING FLUFF, from the company featured prominently in the article! This STILL, STILL has nothing to do with the process, other than magically claiming, without facts, that "the chemistry of the concrete is improved...", another self-serving statement that someone with the company making the stuff would make. Sentence 5: Put simply: EMC Activation is a water–, cost–, and energy–efficient, zero-emission technology intended primarily (but not exclusively) for the high replacement of Portland cement in concrete.[21] This STILL has nothing to do with the process, and is another unsupported, self-serving statement. Reference 21 to an article written by the OWNER of the company featured prominently in the article! THIS is a great, unbiased, source! Sentence 6: Although EMC Activation is a mechanical process, it results in a compound (typically, a processed pozzolan) which has with no material increase in overall powder fineness.[13] You ALMOST say something, but not quite. You can ALSO say that Portland Cement is a mechanically process, because you mix it and the aggregates in a cement mixer! By itself, it says NOTHING useful about the process. ALSO, the reference goes to an article written by the OWNER of the company featured prominently in this article! Sentence7: As such, whereas grinding techniques elsewhere rely on an increased fineness to achieve the required results (i.e., an increase of particulate surface area), by comparison EMC Activation relies largely on the surface activation of the particles themselves.[13] This is DRIVEL, and says NOTHING. "...surface activation of the particles..." says NOTHING. HOW are the particles activated? This says NOTHING about the process. References the SAME article, above! Sentence 8: In effect, EMC Activation increases a particle's "surface energy and chemical reactivity" using "a large number of impact impulses" as the main basis for the subsequent chemical effects.[22] Again, you ALMOST say something, but not quite. "impact pulses" says, basically NOTHING. ALSO, this is referenced by a PATENT by the company featured prominently in the article! What KIND of pulses? Applied HOW? In fact, you DIRECTLY contradict your statement if the 1st paragraph, "In every case, these raw materials are treated with a process that is entirely mechanical in nature, as opposed to thermal or chemical ..." where you DIRECTLY say that it is NOT a chemical process! Reference 22 goes to an article written by the owner of the company featured prominently in this article. Sentence 9. This is quite distinct from grinding per se. This ALMOST has something to do with the process. You have "impact pulses" that are "quite distict from grinding." Too bad that this is still DRIVEL. Sentence 10: EMC Activation is caused through the generation high-energy particle impacts. This STILL says basically nothing. WHAT kind of impacts? WHAT causes them? WHAT forces are involved? Sentence 11: This leads to deep transformations in a particle's micro-structure in the form of (among others) sub-micro cracks, dislocations and lattice defects. FINALLY! A concrete (pun) statement! You have "impact pulses" that are "quite distict from grinding." that cause "sub-micro cracks, dislocations and lattice defects." You have taken 11 fluffy sentences, to come up with one (1), sentence that says (almost) something. Sentence 12: These significantly increase the reactivity of the necessary pozzolanic reactions that occur when making concrete using EMCs.[23] This is an unsubstantiated claim. HOW does it increase reactivity? This has something to do with the process, ONLY if this statement is substantiated! Is it increased surface area, WHAT??? Reference 23 goes to advertising DRIVEL by the company featured prominently in this article. Sentence 13:More specifically, by the "high energetic mechanical processing" during the EMC Activation process, "the pozzolan particles receive mechanical impulses when non-cenospheres in the form of coarse scoria particles are disintegrated and whereby the surface of a cenosphere grinded particle is activated".[24] This adds NOTHING, that you HAVEN'T already said, PLUS, it's WRONG. "scoria particles" (a fancy way of saying volcanic ash), CAN'T be "disintegrated". THIS is RIDICULOUS! Are you saying that an atomic explosion occurs in this process??? You can make the particles smaller, you can give them surface defects, you CAN'T "disintegrate them". This ALSO DIRECTLY contradicts a previous statement of yours, that "...which has with no material increase in overall powder fineness." IF you DO NOT increase the powder fineness, HOW do you "disintegrate them"???!!! "...surface of a cenosphere grinded particle is activated", this is DRIVEL that says NOTHING. "Activated", what the HECK does that even MEAN? Like in a cell phone plan? Is this just a fancy way of saying you've given the particles surface defects, increasing the surface area? What the HECK ARE you saying, here? Reference 24 goes to a PATENT, by the company featured prominently in this article! Sentence 14: As a technology, EMC Activation is readily and highly scalable, being well-proven to an "industrial scale".[25] This is MORE self-serving DRIVEL someone from the company selling this stuff, would say! It has NOTHING to do with the process! Sentence 15: Fly ash quality can vary tremendously because "variations in the chemical composition of the used coal and frequently changed operating parameters of the boilers cause the formation of crystalline and quasi-crystalline phases, so called scoria".[24] This is WRONG. Scoria is volcanic ash. Fly ash, comes from coal fired electric plants. OH, and this is "referenced" by a PATENT from the company prominently featured in the article! PLUS, this has NOTHING to do with the process. Sentence 16: Other methods developed in order to improve such pozzolanic activity "either cannot provide significant improvement of the fly ash performance as a concrete component, or cannot avoid fluctuations of the fly ash properties and guarantee the constant quality of the final product".[24] This has NOTHING to do with the process! Also referenced by the SAME company patent, above. Sentence 17: By contrast, EMC Activation "solves the said problems".[24] This has NOTHING to do with the process! This is YET MORE self-serving DRIVEL. Solves WHAT problems? HOW? By WHAT mechanism? Also referenced by the SAME company patent, above. No self-serving CRUD here! Sentence 18: In sum, EMC Activation has a three-fold effect on the mineral treated. Fluff that SAYS NOTHING. Sentence 19: As compared to using (say) untreated fly ash, EMC Activation allows a treated fly ash to yield a faster and greater strength-development of the resulting concrete — at higher replacement-ratios. This has NOTHING to do with the PROCESS! It is a self-serving advertising statement. Sentence 20: For example, for untreated (but refined) fly ash, the replacement of Portland cement in concrete is typically about 15-20% in order to meet such requirements.[26] By contrast, using fly ash that has undergone EMC Activation, up to 70% of the Portland cement in concrete can be replaced.[10] FINALLY! A (claimed) fact! YES, a claimed "fact"; reference 10, which is an article written by the OWNER of the company featured prominently in this article! Sentence 21EMC Activation can transform minerals that otherwise have zero or relatively very weak "pozzolanic" characteristics. DRIVEL. Unsubstantiated GARBAGE. By "minerals", what the HECK are you talking about? WHAT "minerals"? Sentence 22: Silica sand is a case in point, which comprises an inert filler within a crystalline structure. Meaningless statement, which has NOTHING to do with the process. Sentence 23: As a result, silica sand has zero pozzolanic activity in its untreated state, yet displays a significant transformation having undergone EMC Activation. This is DRIVEL. "significant transformation". What the HECK does that MEAN? Is it more reactive, less reactive, WHAT??? More surface area? WHAT? Sentence 24: For example, silica sand undergoing EMC Activation has produced results showing that, at 50% Portland cement replacement, the degree of hydration after 1 day was 71% as compared to 45% for a silica sand blend not treated by EMC Activation — and that "even for equal hydration, at higher ages EMC will perform better".[27] Reference 27 goes to an article written by the OWNER of the company prominently featured in this article! Oh, yes, OBVIOUSLY unbiased (sarscasm). Sentence 25: In other words, EMC Activation is able to transform "inert" silica sand into a cementitious material that exhibits "pozzolanic" characteristics. WHERE is the substantiating information about this remarkable fact??? As I have CLEARLY shown, this article is simply a HACK advertising piece, written by someone employed by the company. MOST of the references are either to the company, OR the owner of the company! This article is DRIVEL. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC) This is a page devoted to the "phenomenon" of EMC, an "advanced" cementitious material. Outside of the pages for fly ash and blast furnace slag, the subject of cementious materials is relatively poorly supported on Wikipedia. Yet, their emergence as a distinct and important strand of advanced material science is gaining momentum. Why that is, is a matter of speculation - but as this page makes clear, the identified advantages in terms of concrete performance, married with the environmental savings, perhaps provides some explanation. For these reasons, this page is important to Wiki. What is more, in an effort to "raise the bar" for this important subject, important data and results are set out for the readers' discretion. As the article makes plain, EMC was invented about 20 years ago by Vladimir Ronin, near the Polar Circle in Sweden. Dr. Ronin has had no input into the content being written here, in order to ensure there is no conflict of interest. This said, Dr. Ronin has kindly allowed the use of all of the diagrams and pictures set out on the page. All papers featuring Dr. Ronin are co-authored. Dr. Ronin does not, per se, support the page's entry on Wiki. The page is traducing over 20' years important developments and field-results, into "bitesize" portions for the benefit of the purposive or happenstance reader alike. Its level is both introductory and "advanced". To marshal the most from it, some prior knowledge in the field of civil engineering/material science will likely help. Where prudent, the "significance" of the points made will be explained so that the novice reader is further sated in their knowledge quest. Jono2013 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Request relocation of some material[edit]The "A simplified explanation for the benefits of EMCs (Pozzolanic) chemistry" section would be far better being parted out for enhancement of the Pozzolanic_reaction, Mineral_hydration, and Geopolymer articles, thus tightening up the actual content unique to the EMC materials in the 'Effect of EMCs on a concrete's chemistry and "self-healing"' section. The first two articles linked are underdeveloped and the material in this section seems germane to them. 98.145.148.221 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC) >>>I wrote the section you are referring to, to educate. I wrote it also to prevent idiot remarks being made that the process was "bogus" and there were no explanations of the effects of EMC Activation and therefore it must be ########. No sooner I do this, and then someone else (you) suggests my work is removed to geoploymers? Geopolymers have nothing and zip to do with EMCs. NOTHING. They have little or nothing to do with pozzolanic chemistry. By contrast geoplymers require (if you read some of the literature) 14M strength NaOH. There is NOTHING environmentally friendly about geoplympers in my view. Any idea how caustic 14M NaOH is? Let alone the energy required to produce it? To produce one tonne? By contrast, any idea how many million cubic yards of concrete have been poured using EMCs???? There is a saying "one cannot please all the people all the time". No sooner do I write a section dealing with pozzolanic chemistry, someone else comes up with the opposite idea (of reducing/removing it) no doubt so that someone else can then come back in a few months afterwards and make the entire range of "bogus" accusations all again. Like Groundhog day. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC) The EMC Activation process[edit]The section "The EMC Activation process" has nothing at all to do with the actual process but does an admirable job of promoting the positive effects of the process (which I feel is the kernel of the reason this article is described as overly promotional). Some details added from the patent claims would greatly improve this section. I'm sure this is no trivial task as the process described in the patent is quite involved, but it seems to be able to be simplified to grading (by avg size), classifying (by material) and then precisely re-mixing the materials. I came to this article by way of the Roman concrete->Pozzolana breadcrumb trail and have no vested interest in the subject other than seeing a more thorough explanation of what the process entailed. 98.145.148.221 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC) >> I have added to that section since it was first written last April by others. It states as a distinct para:
>>Hello! Whoever you are, since you never identify yourself, you said: "...KARL below, who I think IS connected to the Portland cement industry. I will not devote hours upon hours to have my work denigrated by vested interests such as KARL (below) whose comments are shocking and of bad faith." On the contrary, it is YOU who obviously is in "bad faith". You have said this lie about me, REPEATEDLY, OVER and OVER and OVER again, in different parts of this thread. I have NO connection with the Portland cement industry. It is, of course, DRAMATICALLY more likely, that YOU are connected with the company selling this stuff! In fact, NO ONE in the Portland cement industry likely even CARES about this process, since it accounts for a miniscule, tiny, unnoticeable, microscopic fraction of 1% of the worldwide cement market. There is a saying, "Put up, or shut up." Put in SOMETHING resembling SCIENCE in this article, or give it up! There is NO SCIENCE in this article. IF this process is MORE than simply increasing the surface area of the particles, then TELL us WHY this is so! (Besides, I think that the Australians beat the Swedes to this idea, anyway (I believe their research precedes the Swedish research. I am not 100% certain about this, but I am unwilling to waste more time, looking it up right now.)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Instead of continuing to mindlessly denigrate me, simply PUT SOME SCIENCE and FACTS in the article! This would be MUCH more productive, than simply CONTINUING MINDLESSLY to attack me, because you don't like that I don't like how this article is written! GEEZ!!! Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC) emc explanation added[edit][BELOW FROM TALK PAGE 213.66.81.80 (talk) AND POSTED HERE ALSO FOR RECORD PURPOSES]
Hello, I am satisfied with your recent changes to the EMC article, provided that the facts stated are referenced. Regards
50.65.16.49 (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
>>Hello! I'm sorry, but this article is just DRIVEL. I am quite knowledgeable about the topic of cements. It is OBVIOUSLY written by the company selling the stuff. The article has been CAREFULLY written to almost COMPLETELY exclude any actual description of the process to make "Energetically Modified Cement", supposedly what the article is about! It has tons of "red herrings", about things OTHER than "Energetically Modified Cement", to try and obscure the fact that probably less than a paragraph of this fairly long article actually describes the "Energetically Modified Cement" process. MOST of this article is inappropriate here. Most of it should be in cement or cement pozzolans articles, or some other cement or concrete related articles, and NOT here! It is only marginally better to keep this self-serving article, rather than deleting it entirely. This article has OBVIOUSLY been written by some staff member of the company selling this stuff (or process). Here is the intro paragraph as written: "Energetically modified cements (EMC) are a class of cementitious materials each made from a raw ingredient that typically is either a pozzolan (e.g. fly ash, volcanic ash, pozzolana), silica sand or blast furnace slag (and their blends). In every case, these raw materials are treated with a patented process that is entirely mechanical in nature, as opposed to thermal or chemical (in this article, "EMC Activation"). This process, together with its effects, were first discovered in 1992 at Luleå University of Technology in the far north of Sweden.[2]" Here is how I would re-write it (but I can't post it, though knowledgeable about cements, I am not very knowledgeable about this particular process. I am using my general knowledge to fill in the blanks (many) in the article): "Energetically modified cements (EMC) are cements and concretes containing materials that have been "energetically modified". Common cement materials, such as Portland Cement itself, Slag Cement itself, sand, pozzolans such as fly ash or volcanic ash, and other common materials, undergo high impact force in a special vibrating mill. While leaving the particle size in the materials unchanged, this creates impact fractures, and other imperfections in the particle surfaces. This vastly increases the surface area of the particles, which causes much greater reactivity of the materials, creating stronger and less expensive concrete. For example, the quantity of the common concrete pozzolan Fly Ash, a waste product of coal burning power plants, can be greatly increased in the cement, if it has been "energetically modified", which decreases the cost, and increases the strength and durability of the finished concrete." My rewrite of the above paragraph, contains almost ALL the sparse facts about the actual process, contained in the lengthy article. I have "filled in" some of the blanks in information in the article with my own knowledge. The people who wrote this article should be ASHAMED of themselves! 71.33.155.41 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Karl71.33.155.41 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC) >>To KARL: I wrote a lot of this. I have no connections. You are to imply "good faith". My concern is that you are obviously connected with the Portland cement industry. The process is the process. It is amply described. You want to debate with me the theoretics of mechano-chemistry, drop your email on my talk page and I will gladly take it with you. Otherwise I think you need to go and read up a whole deal more before debasing this article which has over 20 years research behind it in one of Sweden's premier civil engineering/material science universities. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC) >>Hello! This is from Karl, to whoever you are, since you have not identified yourself. You said: "My concern is that you are obviously connected with the Portland cement industry." I have NO connection with the Portland cement industry whatsoever. You said: "The process is the process. It is amply described." There is virtually NO description of the process in this entire long article. My rewrite of the intro paragraph above, contains virtually ALL of the scant information of the process contained in the overly lengthy article, IE: ""Energetically modified cements (EMC) are cements and concretes containing materials that have been "energetically modified". Common cement materials, such as Portland Cement itself, Slag Cement itself, sand, pozzolans such as fly ash or volcanic ash, and other common materials, undergo high impact force in a special vibrating mill. While leaving the particle size in the materials unchanged, this creates impact fractures, and other imperfections in the particle surfaces. This vastly increases the surface area of the particles, which causes much greater reactivity of the materials, creating stronger and less expensive concrete. For example, the quantity of the common concrete pozzolan Fly Ash, a waste product of coal burning power plants, can be greatly increased in the cement, if it has been "energetically modified", which decreases the cost, and increases the strength and durability of the finished concrete."" This is RICICULOUSLY scanty, for such a long article. I have included EVERY fact about the actual process contained in this long article, in this ONE short paragraph. In FACT, I had to ADD some, based on my own knowledge. You said: "You want to debate with me the theoretics of mechano-chemistry..." This statement is as bad as the article. WHAT is there to debate????????? There is NOT enough actual information in this article, to actually HAVE a debate on. In fact, I can condense the above paragraph I rewrote even MORE, to, "Energetically modified cements take a bunch of stuff that you might make cement or concrete out of, smash it around with high impact force which causes fractures, and the increased surface area makes it stronger than regular cement or concrete." WHAT is there to debate, here?????? Put in some actual FACTS, and if I feel like debating, then, I will. You said: "I think you need to go and read up a whole deal more..." EXACTLY! This article contains SO LITTLE actual information, even YOU are suggesting I read more about it SOMEWHERE ELSE, as this article is USELESS as even a BEGINNING source of information about this process! You said: "...debasing this article which has over 20 years research behind it in one of Sweden's premier civil engineering/material" GREAT! THEN PUT some of this research information IN THE ARTICLE!!! (And if you are implying that I am anti-Swedish; my heritage is 100% Swedish. My grandparents all came from Sweden.) You said: "...debasing this article..." This article is TERRIBLY written, with almost NO information in the article about the actual PROCESS. The article consists mostly of only slightly related pozzolan stuff, and about companies making strong concrete with this process, NOT anything about the actual process! Let me give you an example, since you seem to be having trouble understanding WHY I think this article is terrible. Suppose you had an article called "Making Cakes". 1% of the article would say this: "Cakes are slopped together from flour, and water and some other stuff, then heated in an oven." THEN, 99% of the article would say stuff like this: "This cake won such-and-such an award. The President eats cake. This cake lasted for two weeks before it had to be thrown out. Mixing the ingredients in cake is good. Cake is wonderful!" Are you starting to understand WHY I hate this article??? This article is TERRIBLY written, with almost NO information about the actual process! Describe the actual process in ANY sort of reasonable detail, and my opinion of this article will improve dramatically. UNTIL then, I STILL say this this article is DRIVEL! Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC) >>Hello! You said: "There is an entire f***ing paragraph about the process." Ummm, I have said REPEATEDLY, that there is ONLY one (1) fluffy paragraphs' worth of information about the process contained in the whole, VERY long article. This is LUDICROUSLY small, given the very long length of the article. You said: "Your attacks are a disgrace." I have attacked NOTHING. What I have done, is that I have REPEATEDLY said that the information on the PROCESS needs to be SIGNIFICANTLY increased in the article. It is FLUFFY, with almost NO science to it! PLUS, the article is WRITTEN like a advertising promo piece for a company (presumably the company figured prominently in the article.) Please read the Wikipedia section on "Neutrality" in an article. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Commments made during development of the page[edit]Commments that have still not been dealt with
Is this a real process? If "EMC Activation" is a genuine process, I would expect the article to start by saying what the process involves, and why it improves the resulting cement. As the article stands, it leaves the reader with the impression that the process is totally bogus, like homeopathy. Maproom (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Jono2013 is saying that Vladimir Ronin has given him permission for the pictures but has not edited for COI reasons. The reasoning is really ridiculous. If it is really a "technological marvel" as Jono2013 says then why should not Vladimir Ronin himself edit these. COI comes when a thing is not notable and it is pushed in wikipedia. Now if this stuff is really(?) notable and a "technological marvel" and accepted by worldwide material science community then Vladimir Ronin should make this topic accessible to the wider audience. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand EMC was awarded an award by US Environmental Protection Agency in 2006. I am waiting for details from US EPA and will amend if I get a response. I have also a list of secondary/tertiary articles which I am reviewing, which include significant environmental reports from 2002, by think tank in Geneva Switzerland. So I will be revisiting the enviro section soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I have also noticed that EMC Cement was mentioned on two occasions in 2010 at lectures given by Baron Stern, including at the Robb Lecture at University of Auckland, New Zealand (September 2010, with video). The Robb lecture is an annual event and luminaries have included Richard Feynman. The first was given in June 2010 at Imperial College London in Baron Stern's capacity as a professor of the London School of Economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion page about EMC sparked some lively debate. Two issues worried me. Firstly, one editor appears to comment on a subject they appear to know nothing about and on their profile, appears to be an 18 year old whose main interests are Play Station and computers and not material science. Another commentator appeared to suggest getting a patent is easy. It is not. It takes at least two years and must satisfy the protocol of invention and not just mere development. They also suggested grinding ash with balls is the same as the process invented by Dr Ronin. I think this is an incorrect assertion. Grinding with balls is one thing but surface activation is significantly different. EMC looks interesting and the reduction in CO2 to produce it tonne per tonne in comparison to standard cement warrants serious inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps one day EMC might be the standard and we'll look back at the attempts to have this article removed as the worst example of monocular selective bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.107.52 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
With reference to the above entry by "maproom" (a computer expert):
Intrigued...[edit]I am intrigued by this page. It is touching on so many subjects (really so many), some of which are very "cutting edge" such are mechanical effects. Is there any intention to expand the section about the mechanics of the EMC Activation? This would be fitting given the chemistry section already there is very efficient in telling a complicated subject rather nicely in my p.o.v. Maybe the contributors could consider the question above and write something soon? 2.25.161.201 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Removal of reference to patents[edit]I have removed all reference to word "patent" in the article. It is a "sad" day for Wikipedia when one cannot state a fact of "patent" for fear of being accused of "promotional". Patenting is a reality and if something has been patented then it is a fact. This page has been attacked time and time again from those of that "puritan spirit", to those who have zero knowledge. Enough. As we say in Sweden: this article is "lagom". As it was, there were only two uses of the word "patent" in the entire article. So accusations of "promotional" on that footing was completely hysteria. But so be it. I am not going have this article sitting with a tag which was dealt with in December, only then to reimposed for no reason and despite my many hours spent to successfully resolve the issue before such reimposition --- only then so that people like KARL who is obviously connected with Portland Cement industry can make number of ridiculous accusations. So the tags have been removed too. Lagom. Anyone wants to debate with me mechano-chemistry please go to my talk page leave your email address and I will email you. I was considering writing an entire new page on tribo-chemistry but after this experience I will not. I will not devote hours of time to then have idiot comments made. Mechano-chemistry is real. Just because you have not heard of it, don't doubt it, but instead embrace your education. That is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. It is not just a glorified "who's who" full of A-Z class "celebrities" 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC) >>Hello! Whoever you are, since you have not identified yourself, you said: ..."KARL who is obviously connected with Portland Cement industry can make number of ridiculous accusations." This is an out-and-out lie. Please STOP repeating it multiple times. PLUS, it is irrational. If I was connected with the Portland Cement industry, and wanted to do something, I would REWRITE the article ITSELF, and NOT post comments on a talk page, that almost no one reads! It is, however, MUCH more likely, that YOU are connected with the company pushing this stuff! If you WANT better comments from me, PUT IN some FACTS about the process and some SCIENCE about the process! You say "Mechano-chemistry" over and over and over again like a mantra. Please, then, PUT IN the FACTS and SCIENCE about "Mechano-chemistry", as it relates to this process! SO FAR, all the article says is that you roughen up the surface of the particles, giving it greater surface area, and the concrete is stronger. This ISN'T exactly a ground breaking idea. The idea of greater surface area causing greater reactivity has been around for, what?, 50 years, a CENTURY? How do you think that Fly Ash or Silica Fume in the right amounts, increases compressive strength? The ancient Romans thousands of years ago added volcanic ash for the same reason (though they did not understand the science at the time.) (Plus optimal particle packing, of course.) GIVE SOME FACTS AND SCIENCE!!!71.33.155.41 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Karl PS The reason you have gotten so much flak over this article, is that you have written it exactly like a thinly disguised commercial advertisement. Please read the Wikipedia section on "Neutrality" in an article. If you are NOT employed by the company selling this stuff, you might as well be!71.33.155.41 (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Karl here. Maproom said: "However it is not consistent with the article's claim that EMC uses less energy than portland cement." I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete. This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same. HOWEVER, since most Fly Ash is still thrown away, the actual energy savings are real WHEN looked at as a total system. The Fly Ash will be produced when burning coal for electricity, whether or not it will be used in concrete. If you can use more Fly Ash in concrete (up to the total amount created yearly), you will use less Portland cement. This does save real energy in the system as a whole. Hope this was helpful. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
About legitimate questions ducked by writer of this article (formerly: Continued attack on the page)[edit]The above attacks by Karl are unfounded and written by a person who under the thin veil of a "little knowledge" makes unsupported wild generalizations about a science he obviously does not understand. To write page up and page down like he has done, is an attempt to give some form of an "impression" of knowledge. But he has zero speicalist knowledge. So he sits there and blabbers. This article is NOT about EMC activation. It is about EMCs. Karl talks about "increasing surface area" when mechano-activation is not about that. He ignores science. I am removing the tags. If Karl has constructive comments about writing about mechano-activation, then by all means. But to keep de-facing an article in "ally" with maproom (who has forever been an aggressive skpetik), is not acceptable. Karl is connected to the Portland cement industry. The comments made immediately above, just proves that he is peddling a message for the Portland cement industry: namely that using a waste material, fly ash, which is dumped as a "bi-product" of the energy industry should somehow figure in the the energy deployed in the EMC process. Completely bananas. Karl: please read the underlying science. And have in mind this article is about EMCs not just EMC Activation. You want to dispute mechano-activation, that is your right. But not here. This is not a platform for that. And if you dont understand the science, then even less so. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC) >>Hello! I have absolutely come to conclusion that you work for the company selling this product, the one that you have featured prominently in this article. I have REPEATEDLY stated that one short paragraph's worth of fluffy "explanation" of the process, is WAY too limp for an article of this length! Look at the Portland cement article on Wikipedia. It is FULL of SPECIFIC facts about the PROCESS of making Portland cement. YOUR writing includes NONE of this! You (whoever you are, since you never identify yourself) said: "The above attacks by Karl are unfounded and written by a person who under the thin veil of a "little knowledge" makes unsupported wild generalizations about a science he obviously does not understand." I have a GREAT deal of knowledge of about cements! YOU, unfortunately, simply continue to attack me, RATHER than adding some simple facts about the process, in this article. You said: "Karl talks about "increasing surface area" when mechano-activation is not about that." Are you even on Planet Earth??? This is what YOU said in this "article", NOT me! I simply quoted what YOU wrote in the article! Direct quote from article presumably from YOU: "...that significantly increase reactivity and surface area for the purposes of the necessary pozzolanic reactions.[23]" This is what YOU said, NOT me! DO YOU HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT???!!! You said (in a direct communication to me): "Your edit [here] is original research and highly disputed, and as such may be construed as deliberate trolling by a paid member of the portland cement industry, designed to disparage the technology being discussed of which you have demonstrated you do not have any knowledge" about this simple addition: "This eighteen years worth of production of EMC, represents approximately 0.13% of one year's worldwide production of normal concrete; making EMC a small niche specialty concrete product.[1]" This is NOT original research! I did NOT alter the part about the total amount of EMC cement produced over 18 years, which presumably YOU wrote. 3,500,000,000 cubic yards of concrete are made yearly (fact from the US Government, referenced!). 4,500,000 cubic yards (YOUR number), made over 18 years (YOUR numbers), is 0.13% of one year's worldwide concrete production. THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Your statement is LUDICROUS! You said: "...highly disputed..." The fact that the US GOVERNMENT, says that 3,500,000,000 cubic yards of concrete are made yearly, is a HIGHLY DISPUTED fact???!!! WHAT PLANET do you LIVE ON???!!! Are you intending to call up the US GOVERNMENT, and tell them that they are WRONG???!!! You said: "..namely that using a waste material, fly ash, which is dumped as a "bi-product" of the energy industry should somehow figure in the the energy deployed in the EMC process. Completely bananas." Since Energetically Modified Cement, appears to be NOTHING but Portland Cement (or it's components), "energetically modified", WHERE THEN do the "energy savings" that you keep mentioning in comparison to Portland Cement, COME FROM???!!! My explanation makes sense. IF you disagree with this, please, SPECIFICALLY, say WHERE these magical energy savings come from! You said: "...mechano-activation, that is your right." (Presumably meaning if I want to dispute it.) The terms "mechano" and "mechano-activation" occure ZERO (0) times in the article! You have mentioned this term ONLY on the talk page, NOT in the article. WHY should I debate something NOT mentioned in the article! If "mechano-activation" is a crucial part of Energetically Modified Cements WHY have you NOT included a discussion of this IN THE ARTICLE???!!! You said: "But to keep de-facing an article in "ally" with maproom" I have no idea who maproom is. I simply rationally replied to a statement he said. You said: "But to keep de-facing an article..." Adding one, single, lone, solitary comment, showing the percentage of EMC concrete production, as a percentage of worldwide concrete production, an important fact, is, according to you, DE-FACING the article???!!! How obvious can you BE, in showing that you work for this company! This article should be YANKED, rather than letting it stand as a huge, free ad to the company you work for! Karl (a VERY angry Karl who DOES NOT WORK FOR THE PORTLAND CEMENT INDUSTRY) PS: You said: "...mechano-activation..." You have repeated this OVER and OVER and OVER again like a Holy Mantra, yet you describe NONE of it, as it relates to Energetically Modified Cement. Presumably this is some magical way of saying the process changes or increases an Interatomic bond, such as van der Waals bonds, or hydrogen bonds, or ionic bonds, or covalent bonds. If you actually know ANYTHING (doubtful at this point), then, please, Mr. Smarty-pants, elaborate on HOW the Energetically Modified Cement PROCESS affects ANY of these bonds in a way either differently, OR greater, than Ordinary Portland Cement! C'mon, we're ALL waiting to hear your explanation (as versus the "magical" thinking in the article)! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 71.33.155.41 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
YAWN. You are SO predictable! You (whoever you are, since you NEVER identify yourself in any way) said: "...perfectly obvious you are a paid mouthpiece for the portland cement industry." This is an out-and-out LIE, that you continuously say, RATHER THAN simply INCLUDING the simple, and much needed, science needed to substantiate the major claims made for this process/material. REPEATEDLY, I have pointed out obvious flaws in the article, and asked for MORE SCIENCE in regards to the process. What is your response EVERY SINGLE TIME? You IGNORE my reasonable and legitimate requests, and PERSONALLY attack me, using such words as "idiot", "f***ing", and others. Since my LENGTHY comments about this article, you have NOT improved the explanation of the PROCESS, one bit. It would be FAR EASIER to do this, then you continued attacks against me. You said: "...categorize it as a "specialty" product which you have NO evidence for doing..." If 18 years production of this stuff, accounts for 0.13% of ONE year's worldwide production of concrete, BY DEFINITION, it is a specialty product! Your comments are irrational! Now, at one time, fly ash was a specialty product, but it's use is now widespread, so it has grown out of the specialty product category. EMC has NOT. Your comments SHOW that you almost certainly work for this company! LOTS of things are specialty products! That's NOT a condemnation. You said: "...stop trolling..." You do not seem to understand what "trolling" is. I put in facts, figures, and ask LEGITIMATE questions, that you CONTINUE to duck! This is NOT trolling. I would have stopped after my first comment, if you had simply put in ANY kind of coherent explanation of how this process works, BUT, you would rather continue to mindlessly attack me, RATHER than putting in this simple information, which would almost certainly take LESS time, than your continued unsubstantiated attacks against me. This almost certainly the mark of someone paid by the company, who does NOT want to reveal too much about the product process; but instead, puts in fluffy garbage. You said: "The process is subject of MULTIPLE patents. Yet you imply that means nothing." On the contrary, I read MANY different patents on concrete, cements, etc, etc. You have MIS-STATED the problem I mentioned, which is almost ALL the references you use, point either to the company you feature prominently in this article, OR, it's owner. This is NOT neutral, and is NOT appropriate on Wikipedia. PLUS, patents are POOR as references. References should go to REPUTABLE sources, such as peer reviewed journals, etc. Patents should be a last ditch reference, if nothing else exists, which I doubt. You said: "The effects cannot be attributed merely to grinding per se. You can grind fly ash to the same particle size as your control. Then, you can subject a portion of the control to EMC Activation. And you will see an enormous difference between the two, but the overall fineness has not materially increased." YOU say NOTHING about this, in the actual article! WHERE are your REFERENCES? You CONTINUE to say stuff to me, that YOU REFUSE TO PUT INTO THE ARTICLE! Also, "enormous difference"; WHAT difference? Greater surface area? Some previously unknown reaction, greater reactivity, WHAT??? (AND, BUDDY, I thought of this the FIRST time I read this article, BUT, since it is NOT in the article, I have NOT brought it up, before. BESIDES, the Australians have done similar stuff, BUT, there is NO mention of THEM in this article, ONLY this ONE company, and it's owner!) You previously said this: "scoria particles are disintegrated..." and this: "...which has with no material increase in overall powder fineness." My previous reply stands: "IF you DO NOT increase the powder fineness, HOW do you "disintegrate them"???!!!" On the one hand, you say "disintegrate", implying the particles are reduced in size; on the OTHER hand, you say that there is NO "material increase in overall powder fineness." You are saying TWO MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY things, here! Do you even UNDERSTAND how this process works??? You said: "And please no more ad hominem attacks." You do NOT appear to understand what "ad hominem" MEANS. ANYTHING that you may consider an attack, I have WELL substantiated. This NOT "ad hominem". You said: "Curb your language." AHEM! It is YOU who have called me an "idiot", and used "f***ing", among other, unsubstantiated, ad hominem (correctly used) attacks against me. You are OBVIOUSLY employed by this company! If you are NOT, take OUT the links to the company website! Put IN legitimate links to peer reviewed journals! ADD SOME coherent, SCIENTIFIC, non-contradictory explanation of the process! You have done NONE of these things! HOWEVER, EVERYTHING that you have done, strongly indicates that you work for the company prominently mentioned in the article, where you do NOT want to actually reveal much about the actual process at all, BUT, want the tremendous Wikipedia exposure, to promote this company's product! You said: "...paid mouthpiece for the portland cement industry." THIS is an out-and-out lie. I respond POORLY to being lied about, so I have responded to these unsubstantiated lies. I have NO connection to the Portland cement industry, who presumably could care less about a product, which has, in 18 years, cumulatively amounted to 0.13% of ONE year's worldwide production of concrete! In point of fact, I DON'T particularly care for Portland Cement. It is a POOR material in many respects. The ancient Romans built structures that have lasted for THOUSANDS of years. I DON'T think that there is a Portlant cement structure on the face of the planet, that would last ANYWHERE near as long. This implies that current knowledge of HOW Portland cement actually WORKS, is poor and incomplete. YOUR EMC material is NOTHING but Portland cement! This makes your continued comments against the Portland cement industry, hilariously funny! ALL "Energetically Modified Cement" IS, IS Portland cement!; that you claim has had one or more of it's components (such as "Fly Ash", "Energetically Modified". It's NOTHING but doctored up PORTLAND CEMENT! ALSO, since EMC is NOTHING BUT Portland cement, which has been "ENERGETICALLY Modified"; (Check out the word, ENERGETICALLY, energy has been ADDED to the inherent energy of production of Portland cement.) THIS MEANS that "ENERGETICALLY Modified Cement" must, on a pound for pound basis, use MORE energy in it's production, rather than LESS, as YOU have claimed, in this article! (You have derided my explanation (which, ironically, DEFENDED EMC) of the increased Fly Ash (a waste product), replacing some Portland cement, to reduce energy use in the system as a whole. If this ISN'T where the energy savings come from, where DO they come from??? EMC uses MORE energy per pound of material, NOT LESS, as you claim! I believe, that eventually, BETTER cementitious materials will arise to replace Portland cement (and presumably, EMC, since it's nothing BUT Portland cement). There are a number of possible replacements on the horizon, but nothing appears to have taken off, yet. By the way you have written the article, IE, saying mutually opposing things, and giving fluffy, ridiculous "explanations" of the process, and your comments on this page (ducking EVERY SINGLE technical question I have asked (AND I have asked MANY), while all the time continuing to mindlessly attack me), indicate that your understanding of this process is poor, and that you DON'T really understand how it works, at ALL; OR that you work for the company that you have PROMINENTLY featured in this article! I notice how QUICKLY, you tried to deflect my question about interatomic bonds (such as ionic bonds, etc), into yet ANOTHER personal attack against me, RATHER than JUST ANSWERING THE QUESTION! GOD! This has to be the WORST long article that I have EVER read on Wikipedia! As I said before, there is a saying, "put up, or shut up". Add some science, ANYTHING!; rather than fluffy garbage, with reference links to the company making this stuff, and it's owner. THIS is YOUR ENTIRE "explanation" of the process, for EMC: You said: "impact pulses" that are "quite distict from grinding." that cause "sub-micro cracks, dislocations and lattice defects." THIS IS FLUFFY DRIVEL!!! PUT IN SOME SCIENCE, with legitimate links to peer reviewed journals, and NOT to the company making this stuff, and it's owner!!! GAH!!!!!!! Karl
Further to the above, the only comment of yours that is worth further consideration is your assertion "australians being the first". Please substantiate so I can review your claims. Not only to see if the "australians" have produced EMCs but also if they were "the first". We'll see if this is strictly correct. And if so by all means it is worth considering inclusion. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
>>Hello! You said: "(e.g. your comments about "scoria" taken from a patent that applies to ALL pozzolans -- including VOLCANIC ASH)" Using "scoria" to refer to something OTHER than volcanic ash, is a long discarded, obsolete usage; much as saying "twenty-three skiddo" (a slang term from the 1920's). You said: :...not meet your every whim..." AGAIN, you EVADE actually DESCRIBING the process, OR including much needed, relevant scientific information! You EVADE answering ANY of the legitimate technical questions that I have asked! You said: Nowhere is the word "patent" mentioned." This is WRONG, and presumably a direct LIE, as you continue to claim that you have written all this stuff! Here is the first one: "^ Jump up to: a b c d See, patent abstract for granted patent "PROCESS FOR PRODUCING BLENDED CEMENTS WITH REDUCED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS" (Pub. No.:WO/2004/041746; International Application No.: PCT/SE2003001009; Pub. Date: 21.05.2004; International Filing Date: 16.06.2003)" This PATENT, from the company in the article, is used as a reference, no less than FOUR times! THIS PATENT, from the company in the article, "^ Jump up to: a b c d See, patent abstract for granted patent "METHOD FOR PROCESSING OF POZZOLANS" (Pub. No.:WO/2009/064244; International Application No.: PCT/SE2008051286; Pub. Date: 22.05.2009; International Filing Date: 10.11.2008)" is ALSO referenced FOUR separate times! You said: "NOWHERE in the article is a company mentioned..." AGAIN, since you claim you WROTE all of this, is a direct lie! I have tried to keep the company name out of this, BUT, I see I will have to be more direct. The company is: http://www.emccement.com The person I am referring to is: Vladimir Ronin, who is LISTED on this website, as "Director"! I will list your direct references to this company, and "Director" Vladimir Ronin of this company, here: Reference 2: "Performance of Energetically Modified Cement (EMC) and Energetically Modified Fly Ash (EMFA) as Pozzolan". Justnes, H and Ronin, V SINTEF, Oslo, Norway. Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is co-author of this paper. Reference 7: ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Justnes, H; Elfgren, L; Ronin, V (2005). "Mechanism for performance of energetically modified cement versus corresponding blended cement". Cement and Concrete Research (Elsevier (London) and Pergamon Press (Oxford)) 35 (2): 315–323. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.022. Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is co-author of this paper. Reference 9: ^ Jump up to: a b c Hedlund, H; Ronin, V; Jonasson, J-E; Elfgren, L (1999). Grönare Betong ("Green Cement") 91 (7). Stockholm, Sweden: Förlags AB Bygg & teknik. pp. 12–13. Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is co-author of this paper. Reference 10: ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Ronin, V; Elfgren, L (2010). An Industrially Proven Solution for Sustainable Pavements of High-Volume Pozzolan Concrete – Using Energetically Modified Cement, EMC. Washington DC, United States: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is co-author of this paper. The link that you have provided, ALSO goes to the emccement.com website. Reference 13: ^ Jump up to: a b c Ronin, V.; Jonasson, J.E. (1993). New concrete technology with the use of energetically modified cement (EMC). Proceedings: Nordic Concrete Research Meeting, Göteborg, Sweden. Oslo, Norway: Norsk Betongforening (Nordic concrete research). pp. 53–55. Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is co-author of this paper. Reference 14: ^ EUREKA is the pan-European research & development funding and coordination organization, comprising amongst others, all 27 EU Member States. See: EUREKA. EUREKA Gold Award for EMC Cement. This link takes you to the emccement.com website. Reference 19: ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g EMC Cement BV. Summary of CemPozz® (Fly Ash) Performance in Concrete. EMC Cement BV, 2012. Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is co-author of this paper. This link takes you to the emccement.com website. Reference 20: ^ Jump up to: a b c EMC Cement BV. Summary of CemPozz® (Natural Pozzolan) Performance in Concrete. EMC Cement BV, 2012. Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is co-author of this paper. This link takes you to the emccement.com website. Reference 21: ^ Jump up to: a b c d See, patent abstract for granted patent "PROCESS FOR PRODUCING BLENDED CEMENTS WITH REDUCED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS" (Pub. No.:WO/2004/041746; International Application No.: PCT/SE2003001009; Pub. Date: 21.05.2004; International Filing Date: 16.06.2003) This is a patent applied for by (you guessed it), Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement. Reference 25: ^ Jump up to: a b c Ronin, V; Jonasson, J-E; Hedlund, H (1999). "Ecologically effective performance Portland cement-based binders", proceedings in Sandefjord, Norway 20-24 June 1999. Norway: Norsk Betongforening. pp. 1144–1153. This is a paper co-written by, you guessed it, Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement. Reference 26: ^ EMC Cement BV. EMC Activation Diagram. EMC Cement BV. This is a link that goes to a fluff advertising piece on the emccement.com website. Reference 30: ^ Justnes, H; Dahl, P.A; Ronin, V; Jonasson, J-E; Elfgren, L (2007). "Microstructure and performance of energetically modified cement (EMC) with high filler content". Cement and Concrete Composites (New York: Elsevier Ltd) 27 (7): 533–541. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.03.004. ISSN 0958-9465. This is a paper co-written (GEEZ! This is getting REPETITIVE!) by, golly gee!, Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement. Reference 53: ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Elfgren, L; Justnes, H; Ronin, V (2004). High Performance Concretes With Energetically Modified Cement (EMC). Kassel, Germany: Kassel University Press GmbH. pp. 93–102. Co-written, again, by Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement. Reference 59: ^ Jump up to: a b EMC Cement BV website. EMC Cement BV, 2013. This link, again, goes to the emccement.com website. Reference 61: Jump up to: a b c EMC Cement BV, based upon operational data. For more information, see EMC Cement website, external link section. This again, goes to the emccement website. Reference 62: ^ Jump up to: a b c d Stein, B (2012). A Summary of Technical Evaluations & Analytical Studies of Cempozz® Derived from Californian Natural Pozzolans. San Francisco, United States: Construction Materials Technology Research Associates, LLC. This, yet again, goes to the emccement.com website. Since, presumably, as you claim to have written almost this entire article, you have simply been LYING, to claim that this company is NOT mentioned! In fact, almost EVERY fact that you have referenced in relation to the EMC process in this article, goes to one, or more of the links I have mentioned above. The OTHER reference links in the article, are apparently included mostly as "red herrings", to distract you from the fact that virtually ALL the "information" in this article about EMC, is from Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, OR the emccement.com website. The other reference links, almost exclusively, only confirm standard information commonly known in the Portland cement industry. They DO NOT support statements made about EMC, itself! HOW self-serving can you POSSIBLY BE??? Your picture caption said: "Photographic record taken from an academic paper (2010) written by Ronin and Elfgren. The photo records the large-volume application of EMC made from fly ash onto IH-10 (Interstate Highway), Texas, United States. EMC replaced not less than 50% of the Portland cement in the concrete poured — circa 2.5 times the amount of raw fly ash typically used. The project was approved by TxDOT (Texas, U.S.A) and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (see, accompanying text in this section).[10]" Again, Vladimir Ronin, "Director" of EMC Cement, is referenced, PLUS, guess who DID this project? Emccement, of course! HOW LONG do you think that LIES like you have said here, will go unnoticed??? YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED, ONE SINGLE THING THAT I HAVE SAID IN MY NUMEROUS POSTS! Give it UP! Karl (still a VERY angry Karl) 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
>>Hello! You said: "You are accusing me of lying." NO. I have PROVED ABSOLUTELY that you are lying! Read my exceptionally well documented previous post a second time, if you have trouble accepting that you have been found out, in a big, whopping lie. You said: "NO reference whatsoever on the said webpage to Ronin being a director." This information is contained in NUMEROUS PDF documents on the website. Yous said: "I have asked you to provide substantiation to your (repeated) assertion that the "australians did this first." Where is it?" Boy! THIS is a laugh! You MUST be JOKING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC) You REFUSE to answer ANY of my numerous, pertinent technical questions in my numerous posts about the fluffy, almost science-free stuff you have written, and YOU have the GALL to DEMAND I dig up the Australian research for you??? (Which I read quite a while ago.) Look it up yourself! This article STILL stinks! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
>>Hello1 You said: "'The following are important:'" MY questions about the SCIENCE of this process, are important, too; MUCH more important. YET, you have COMPLETELY ignored them. You said: "'Precisely please." You HAVE NOT responded to ANY of my legitimate questions, in fact, you have VEHEMENTLY said that you WILL NOT; SO I do NOT feel inclined to help you. If you cannot surf the internet, and find PDF documents on a website, I can't help you. IF you want MORE information ABOUT ANYTHING, FIND it OUT YOURSELF, and DON'T bother ME (of ALL people), about it! IF I want rewrite parts of this article, I will, AT THAT TIME, put in MORE than sufficient, neutral, substantial links (UNLIKE the links YOU have provided). You have had AMPLE opportunity, to add the SIMPLEST explanation of this "EMC Process" (Which you have documented almost ONLY with links to this single company, and person. This is NOT neutral, and does NOT follow Wikipedia policy.) You OBVIOUSLY have NO INTEREST, in providing the SLIGHTEST bit of scientific information to support your numerous, fantastic claims, NOR does it seem likely (from the MANY comments you have made) that you are likely to do so in the future. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
UNBELIEVABLE! You said: "Let's get this the right way around. You make an assertion. I ask you to provide details." This is BACKWARDS. You have made NUMEROUS UNSUBSTANTIATED claims in your article. I have asked, REPEATEDLY, for you to provide science to back up these claims, AND to use legitimate links, that DON'T simply go to one company/person. You either IGNORE this, OR flat out refuse. DO your own research YOURSELF. Please don't contact me again on this forum, UNLESS you are willing to back up your FANTASTIC claims for this EMC material, with coherent, RATIONAL science, and neutral, substantial links, that DON'T go to this company/person. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
absorption methods which further confirm that the effects are not attributable to grinding per se.[6]"
213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! 90% of your LONG, LONG response, is simply a series of UNSUBSTANTIATED attacks against me, which I will ignore. The first thing you said that was NOT a direct attack, is this: You said: "a process that consumes 80kWh energy (EMCs) per tonne consumes the same energy as an entirely exothermic process to make Portland cement (2-stage exothermic, at that: Calcination followed by sintering --- two completely separate exothermic processes) that consumes ON AVERAGE 1000kWh per tonne." You have REPEATEDLY said, that EMC is a process ADDED (IE, in addition to), TO the Portland cement/sand/aggregates/fly ash/etc. THEREFORE, on a pound per pound basis, the total energy used MUST BE MORE than Portland cement alone. In other words, say Portland cement require X energy to make. The EMC process adds Y energy on top of this (since EMC is SIMPLY doctored up Portland cement) THEN, EMC MUST USE X PLUS Y amount of energy. IE, MORE energy than Portland cement alone, on a pound for pound basis. This is the simplest of physics, and something that you CANNOT "explain" or wriggle your way out of. Since Portland cement is your starting material, you CANNOT MAGICALLY exclude the energy of production that goes into making it, just because you have added the EMC process on TOP of it. AND, the rational explanation that I have added about energy savings from EMC vs straight Portland cement in the system as a whole coming from replacing SOME Portland cement with Fly Ash, YOU have said was, in some magical way that you will not explain, NOT right, REPEATEDLY. IF MINE IS NOT the correct explanation, then, pray tell, WHERE do these magical energy savings come from??? I have asked this REPEATEDLY, and you have REFUSED to answer this question. You said: "...cannot understand the difference between Portland cement (which is an entirely exothermic process) and EMCs (which is purely mechanical)..." As I have pointed out in GREAT DETAIL in previous posts, you have given NO coherent explanation as to this process whatsoever. You have given fluffy, VAGUE statements, that you refuse to clarify, even after NUMEROUS requests. You say MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY things about the "process", AGAIN which I have pointed out in great detail in previous posts, and AGAIN that you have refused to clarify. GIVE a coherent, RATIONAL explanation of this process, and I will be HAPPY to respond to it in great detail. Maproom said (about the unidentified writer of this article): "...you have repeatedly refused to say what the "energetic modification" process is. You have stated that it is not "grinding with balls", but not what it is. And while no-one reading this article can tell what it is actually about, I think it should have no place in Wikipedia." THANK YOU! YES! I have talked myself BLUE in the face, TRYING to get this person to give ANY kind of coherent, rational explanation for this EMC process, and, EVERY TIME, he either IGNORES my requests, directly REFUSES my requests, talks about something ELSE, or goes on LONG, unsubstantiated personal attacks against me! (""grinding with balls"" would be grinding with a ball mill) The writer (I will use "you" to refer to the writer of this article, below) of this article said: ":: Just one final comment which MIGHT help you. EMCs are PRECISELY about "grinding with balls". BUT NOT in a "Usual" manner." Well, this is ALMOST as much information, as you put into the ENTIRE article! Then you add, "BUT NOT in a "Usual" manner." AGAIN, as you have REPEATEDLY done, this is SO fluffy and vague, as to be totally useless! OK, so WHAT is the difference? In WHAT way is this stuff ADDITIONALLY ground in a way that DOES NOT happen in a conventional ball mill? You said: "I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." HEY, go for IT, BUDDY! I'm waiting! You said: "If you take (say) corn husks and grind them, you are simply making the surface area:volume ratio more "top heavy". That will give a certain QUOTIENT of extra reactivity (think for example, flour bombs). BUT what we are talking about here are REAL, MEASURED, STUDIED gains in reactivity which are OVER AND ABOVE grinding per se. Put simply, there is "grinding and grinding." " Yet AGAIN, this is SO fluffy and vague, as to be totally useless! It says NOTHING! You said: "What seems to be happening in EMCs (and this is so well documented in serious academic texts, that half of it could be enough) are "tribochemical effects"." NO WHERE in the long, long article do you mention ""tribochemical effects"". You said: "The precise mechanism giving rise to the observable effects is not entirely understood although there are several postulates." Yes, I FIGURED that if you actually responded at some point, you would have to 'fess up to this eventually. This is not a condemnation. Portland cement has literally MILLIONS of research studies on it, YET, the mechanisms of it's actions are still poorly and incompletely understood. You said: ..."resultant lowering of the associated Hüttig temperature"..." Presumably this is a sideways reference to the Australian research into extreme low calcination temperature (FAR lower than normal calcination temperatures). The Chinese appear to have done some of this, too. You said: "Elsewhere, the observable tribochemical effects have been attributed also to structure defects and lattice-strain resulting in the "excess" energy being "stored" within the crystalline structures." This does NOT appear to substantiate the strength gains you mention. You say "effects", but, AGAIN, add no explanation. WHAT "effects"? This statement alone doesn't SAY anything! You said: "No matter what the precise cause of the observable chemical effects" AGAIN, you DIRECTLY contradict yourself! In the first paragraph of the CURRENT article, you STILL say "In every case, these raw materials are treated with a process that is entirely mechanical in nature, as opposed to thermal or chemical". You also STILL do NOT say what these "effects" are! You said: "surface metrology methods.", "...EMC Activation's effects, have also deployed advanced nitrogen absorption methods which further confirm that the effects are not attributable to grinding per se." When you say "advanced nitrogen absorption methods", you are, presumably, referring to the simple, and common, BET nitrogen adsorption test. THIS simply gives you the SURFACE AREA (you said: "surface metrology", a FANCY way of saying measuring surface area), something that I have REPEATEDLY talked about. This does NOT tell you about anything OTHER than the simple surface area! It does NOT show or prove any purported "tribochemical effects". YES, as I have REPEATEDLY said, if you INCREASE the surface area, the reactivity will increase. SO WHAT? This is a common and well known effect. HOW is this "effect" that you mention over and over, BUT do NOT explain, NOT just a simple increase in surface area? You have NOT explained this at ALL. You think that by using scientific terminology, that you can flummox people, and get them to back down. WELL, it WON'T work with me! GO FOR IT! You said: "EMCs are ONLY about a STRICTLY mechanical process. No heat (contrast Portland cement). No chemicals (contrast geoploymers which can require upto 14M conc. NaOH). STRICLY mechanical. Relatively tiny amounts of energy required. I mean for ex. the process itseff about 25kWh - i.e. one hour of a low energy incandescent light bulb to produce a entire kilo). That's 40 times less that Portland Cement production." AGAIN, you DIRECTLY contradict yourself! You said: "...STRICTLY mechanical process." and "No matter what the precise cause of the observable chemical effects". THESE are opposing, contradictory statements! Is either right? Neither? Both? You said: "Relatively tiny amounts of energy required. I mean for ex. the process itseff about 25kWh - i.e. one hour of a low energy incandescent light bulb to produce a entire kilo). That's 40 times less that Portland Cement production. Then there's the electricity of the other equipment in a plant set up - so having read around we're looking at about 80kWh at most for an entire tonne." This is SO full of mistakes, I don't know where to start! You said: "...25kWh..." "to produce a entire kilo". SO, to produce a metric ton (presumably you are using metric tons), would require 25,000kWh via your EMC process. You said Portland cement production requires "1000kWh per tonne." SO, your EMC material takes 25 TIMES as much energy to produce, as Portland cement!!! I have said the above, slightly tongue in cheek. Presumably you have made math mistakes in what you said. Please correct them, and I will use the corrected numbers in my calculations. These numbers are SO WRONG, that I can't figure out what you meant. (IE, a 100 watt incandescent light, will, in one hour, use 0.1 kWh of electricity. If you meant to say ton, instead of kilo, 25kWh does not equal 80kW) Please correct your numbers! PLUS, YOU STILL have to add the energy of the production of Portland cement, ON TOP of this, as EMC is just doctored up Portland cement! You said: "EMCs can include activated Portland cement (i.e. portland cement that has been treated with EMC Activation). If you do that, the reactivity of the cement produced literally goes through the roof so you are producing concretes that are extremely niche (called High Performance Concretes - HPCs)" This is an unsupported, fluff, advertising statement, with NO PROOF! You said: "Because it means upto 70% of the portland cement can be replaced in the concrete using fly ash. Because of EMC Activation. If you use simple grinding per se you MIGHT get to 25% replacement (of the portland cement in the concrete) by comparison." This is another unsupported statement. IS there ANY support for this statement, OTHER that the company/person, selling this stuff??? This sounds like advertising hype. You said: "NO Portland cement AT ALL is used to make an EMC." This is NOT ANYWHERE in the article, and is the FIRST TIME you have EVER mentioned this! WHERE is the PROOF for this REMARKABLE statement??? (GOD, NOT the company/person selling this stuff!) You said: "EU/CEN standards locked EMCs well and truly OUT. There is no doubting this. Because an EMC made from fly ash has the potential to take out 60-70% of the Portland cement production." I do not live in Europe. I do not know European cement/concrete standards, so I will not comment on this. GAH! You have DIRECTLY contradicted yourself, AGAIN! You said: "But you will note that an EMC CANNOT replace 100% of the portland cement in concrete." You ALSO said: ""NO Portland cement AT ALL is used to make an EMC."" WHICH is it??? These are MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY statements! ONE of them MUST be WRONG! You said: "And this is WHY the 4.5 million cubic yards of concrete poured using EMCs by 2010, is not only statistically significant, but historically significant." You did NOT say this in the article. A direct comparison, as I have done is STILL important. You said: "PS which I why I take so strong exception to Karl writing on the page that EMCs made from fly ash are "specialty". That's just technically wrong." I stand by my previous statements. If 18 years worth of EMC production, equals ONLY 0.13% of ONE year's worldwide concrete production, BY DEFINITION, it IS a specialty concrete. You said: "A "specialty" concrete is a HPC." WHAT on EARTH, is THIS??? MANY specialty concretes are NOT just HPC's! AGAIN, YOU ARE HURLING UNSUBSTANTIATED INSULTS AT ME! You said: "Ridiculously stupid. Which is why I think Karl..." With logic, and science I have refuted EVERYTHING that you have SAID! If you MUST use the term ""Ridiculously stupid.", SINCE I have refuted (EASILY) EVERYTHING that you have said, I THINK that you have this comment pointed the WRONG WAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You said: "I have had enough of your foul mouth AGAIN." Dear me, aren't WE testy! I have NO idea WHAT you are talking about! Maybe you're not getting enough sleep? You said: "25kWh per TONNE" (presumably for the EMC process) You ALSO said: "...we're looking at about 80kWh at most for an entire tonne."" AGAIN, you have DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF! Which is it, 25kWh, OR 80kWh? You said: "FORTY TIME LESS THAN PORTLAND CEMENT." and "You said Portland cement production requires "1000kWh per tonne."" Let's do some simple math, 40 times 1,000kWh would be 40,000kWh So, EMC SAVES, 40,000kWh??? You say it only uses either 25kWh OR 80kWh (since you have said BOTH). SO, you get almost 40,000kWh of FREE energy in the process? Maybe my comment in another post about this process making an atomic explosion (since you said it can "disintegrate" particles) is correct! Perhaps, however, you have AGAIN made another mistake, and mean that EMC (magically) saves 92.5% of the energy of the production of Portland cement (for your 25kWh number, OR 92% (for your 80kWh number. Of course, I say "magically", because you LEAVE OUT the energy of the Portland cement that you use in your product! EMC is SIMPLY doctored up Portland cement! If you USE Portland cement in your product, you MUST include the energy for this, also! YOU CONSISTENTLY refuse to do this! You said: "An EMC made from fly ash is NEVER going to produce a specialty concrete. END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!" WHEN EMC rises to a level of production that is larger than an almost immeasurable amount of the total concrete production in the world, THEN it will no longer be a "specialty" cement. Adding fly ash was once made a specialty cement, but now it is common. It is no longer a specialty cement. I DO notice, however, that you have NOT responded to ANY of the NUMEROUS refutations that I have made to incorrect, and contradictory statements you have made. Please, continue with your "science". I have ENJOYED refuting ALL of your numerous mistakes. THANK YOU! Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You said: "And: EMCs made from fly ash" "REPLACED with a cementitious material (IE, Fly ASH-Karl) that has been made using an entirely mechanical process" You are NOW claiming that you MAKE fly ash, with this process?????????? Ummm, Fly Ash is made as a by-product of coal fired electric production plants. Coal is burned, Fly Ash is a waste product (a similar material would be soot, which most people are familiar with). Producing Fly Ash, requires a certain amount of energy that is embodied in it. By previous comments you have made, you THEN, only AFTER the Fly Ash is actually made, IE, only AFTER the energy has been invested in it, by burning the coal, only THEN do you put it through your EMC process. The Fly Ash you use in EMC, takes energy to make! You do NOT include this in your calculations! The Portland cement you use in EMC, takes energy to make! You do NOT include this in your calculations! ALL that you show, is the ADDITIONAL energy that the EMC process ADDS to the materials that you use. You MUST include the energy of production of ALL the components that make up EMC, NOT just the ADDITIONAL energy of the process! YOU REFUSE to do this! Now, since Fly Ash is a waste product, and since most of it is thrown away, you save energy ONLY in the system AS A WHOLE. IE, since the Fly Ash will be produced to burn coal for electricity whether or not it is used in cement, THIS energy for Fly Ash production will be used regardless. THEREFORE, if you can replace some Portland cement with Fly Ash, you save energy in the SYSTEM as a WHOLE. I have stated this MANY TIMES of this talk page! EVERY TIME I have said this, you have SAID that this is WRONG, and that the energy savings come from somewhere else. WHERE, pray tell, do these MAGICAL energy savings come from, then? I have given a logical, rational, scientific explanation for energy savings from this process, that you irrationally say is WRONG, YET, you REFUSE to say WHERE the energy savings come from! You said: "EMCs made from fly ash apparently can REPLACE up to 70% of the Portland cement in concrete." Yes, you have been repeating this, recently. Of course, you ONLY back it up, with information from the company/person selling this stuff! OBVIOUSLY, this is a TREMENDOUS conflict of interest! PUT IN some INDEPENDENT research, backing up these fantastic claims! Otherwise, you're NOT going to get a lot of people believing these wild claims. You said: "Are you now clear we are talking about replacement and NOT addition??" I have said this myself, OVER and OVER and OVER again! I have said, REPEATEDLY, replacing Portland cement with Fly Ash. When I say "addition", I am talking about addition of ENERGY used in the EMC process, NOT addition of Fly Ash! DON'T you actually READ anything that I say? How many MORE times, and ways, must I REPEAT this? GEEZ! Please continue with your "science". THANK YOU! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
>>Hello! I have REFUTED every "scientific" argument that you have made. You DO NOT respond to my refutations, because they are correct. I am here to discuss the article, AND the supposed "science" of the article. PLEASE, then, CONTINUE with your "science". I have ENJOYED refuting it! THANK YOU! Karl PS- You said: "I mean for ex. the process itseff about 25kWh - i.e. one hour of a low energy incandescent light bulb to produce a entire kilo)." In reply to my comments about this, you said: "I have not made a single mistake. I said 25kWh in the context of a TONNE - it was obvious because I then said keeping a 25 Watts bulb burning for an hour to make one KILO." If you look above, NOWHERE did you mention a 25 watt bulb! The ONLY figure you mention, is 25kWh! You have made YET ANOTHER mistake! You said: "I have not made a single mistake." That, indeed, is true. You have made MANY, MANY mistakes. PLEASE, keep this "science" coming! I REALLY enjoy refuting it! THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 71.33.155.41 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! Oh, deary me! You have AGAIN ducked any actual discussion of the science of this process! And I was having such fun easily disproving your "science" "facts"! Please, DO continue with your "science" explanations! I do SO enjoy refuting them! THANK YOU! Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Previously I (Karl), said: "Please don't contact me again on this forum, UNLESS you are willing to back up your FANTASTIC claims for this EMC material, with coherent, RATIONAL science, and neutral, substantial links, that DON'T go to this company/person." NOTHING has changed since I posted this. I am willing to discuss: 1. ANYTHING that ACTUALLY appears in the current article, OR a previous edit of this article. 2. Science, or purported science, as it pertains to this EMC process, even if it does NOT appear in the article. I feel NO obligation, to discuss further, ANYTHING that appears SOLELY on the talk page. I have ALREADY probably put in OVER 20 hours of my precious time on this. I AM willing to discuss ANYTHING that appears in the article, OR science, or purported science, regarding this process. NOT anything else. I DON'T have the time. I CERTAINLY DON'T have time, to do RESEARCH for YOU. DO it YOURSELF. ALL of things that you REPEATEDLY post, are EITHER continued, unsubstantiated attacks against me, OR things that I have ALREADY answered (USUALLY, MORE than once!), in MANY previous posts! PLEASE READ them. You, of course, continue to DUCK actual discussion of the article, or the science of the process, either to things that I have ALREADY answered, OR, as "red herrings" to DEFLECT the talk AWAY from the article, OR science behind the article, with OTHER things NOT germane to the science. Well, I WON'T be suckered into this! I have ALREADY answered these questions. If you DON'T believe me, READ my previous posts! You said: "You are deploying diversionary and wildly inaccurate TLDR misinformation/assertions using the taktik "throw enough skit and it sticks"." THIS is a direct LIE. PLEASE READ my previous posts! EVERYTHING I have said about the science of the process, EVERY time I have refuted something that you have said, I have BACKED UP with LOGIC, and SCIENCE. The SAME cannot be said of YOU. You HAVE NOT refuted ONE science thing that I have said! You said: And then you say I do not give science?????? I have REFUTED all the "science", that you have mentioned in the talk page, AND article, in DEPTH. PLEASE READ my previous posts to SEE that this is true! As to you saying "give science", for example, you can say that water is H2O, hydrogen and oxygen. That is science. BUT, what does it have to do with this process??? You have done a LOT of this kind of thing. ANYTHING that you have purported about this PROCESS, I have REFUTED. PLEASE READ my LENGTHY, previous posts! On the OTHER hand, YOU have NOT refuted even ONE science thing that I have said! You said: "Further, you are making statements you KNOW are bogus.: THIS, AGAIN, is simply an OUTRIGHT LIE. PLEASE READ my previous lengthy posts. With EVERYTHING I have said, I have used science, and logic, PLUS I have written in an easy-to-understand fashion that ANYONE can understand (AGAIN, something that CANNOT be said of you!). I notice that when you call my statements about science "bogus", that you DO NOT LIST A SINGLE EXAMPLE! This is, AGAIN, NOTHING but an unsubstantiated attack! IF you believe I have made a science mistake somewhere, and you want to challenge it, GO FOR IT! I am WAITING! BUT, instead of JUST saying it's wrong, GIVE SOME SORT OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION of WHY it is wrong! PLEASE continue with your "science". I have SO enjoyed refuting it! THANK YOU! HAVE a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! Maproom said: "Ok, here is a simple question. I believe that the biggest energy input to portland cement is in heating lime, to drive off carbon dioxide and make it more reactive, before mixing it with other materials. Does the manufacture of EMC also involve heating lime to drive off carbon dioxide? Maproom" Just in case you haven't read some of my previous posts, EMC is simply doctored up Portland cement, so nothing changes about the process. The EMC process, of course, ADDS ADDITIONAL energy on top of this. My previous explanation about the Fly Ash replacing some of the Portland cement, is the only logical way to claim savings of energy in this process, since Fly Ash is a waste product that is mostly thrown away (the claimed writer of this article has said that this is WRONG, BUT, characteristically, REFUSES to say WHY it is wrong, OR to offer some alternative explanation). Hope this was helpful. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I hope this helps. Any further questions I will answer and try not to "overwhelm" you. 213.66.81.80 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk Page Formatting[edit]Would all posters please try to keep with the format policy for wiki talk pages Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. It would make following the discussion much easier, as well as trying to have more focused discussion per section heading (see WP:TALK). XFEM Skier (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
XFEM Skier said: "...the way the sources are written (obscuring some of the facts)... YES, EXACTLY, thank you! I really, really, really wish that this article had better sources/references. XFEM Skier said: "By mechanically grinding it in a specific way allows replacement rates for the pozzolans to increase thereby reducing the amount of Portland cement needed." Yes, that is a portion of what is CLAIMED. HOWEVER, any references showing this in this article, go to ONE company/person. This is inappropriate on Wikipedia. The writer of this article, REFUSES to add references to explain this EMC process, to sources other than this. (Yes, there are other references, BUT, they are used primarily to "reference" simple, well known facts in the Portland cement industry, and NOT to reference the actual EMC process.) Neutral, substantial references need to be added to support the numerous, fantastic claims in this article. XFEM Skier said: "Cement can be either or both Portland cement or the pozzolans?" Many, many, many books have been written about this stuff. Portland cement, is a class of cements, generally with similar composition, and similar production processes. (There is a good "Portland cement" article on Wikipedia that explains this in much more depth.) Because EMC is BASED on Portland cement, it probably falls under the Portland cement category. IE, it is a TYPE of Portland cement. There are MANY other types of cements. ALSO, sometimes, other materials can have some cement-like properties, such as Class C Fly Ash, which is a pozzolan. It contains a fair amount of Calcium Oxide in it, which gives it some cement-like properties, by itself. On the other hand, Class F Fly Ash, doesn't have much in the way of cement-like properties, because it has much less Calcium Oxide in it. SO, confusingly, ONE Fly Ash is somewhat like a cement, BUT, another Fly Ash isn't! So, sometimes, it is difficult to say where the Portland cement ends, and a cement-like property of the right pozzolan begins. This is an ENORMOUSLY complex topic! I hope this has helped. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! The (still) inidentified person who claims to have written this article said: "Let's be clear: Karl is making wild assertions." This is flat out wrong. I have backed up ALL my arguments with science and logic, something that YOU have not done. You said: "It is about EMC's from thier discovery, lab results -- and importantly fiedl usage reports." and "All of it referenced."" AND all the links YOU provide "proving" this, go to ONE company/person! ADD neutral, substantial references to others, preferably peer reviewed journals, DIRECTLY REFERENCING EMC, and you'll have a LOT better chance of convincing people that this isn't just a lot of HOOEY. You have made FANTASTIC claims for this stuff! You have INCREDIBLY WEAK "references", "supporting" your wild claims. You said: "Regarding your comment (IE, replying to XFEM Skier- Karl): I wrote a fairly detailed response to Maproom above which covers it" YES, AND I DEBUNKED all of it, in DETAIL. PLEASE continue with your "science". I have ENJOYED debunking ALL of it! THANK YOU! Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
XFEM Skier said: "I am overwhelm here but not by the technical aspects of it. But by the insesent argueing without purpose that is going on here..." I am sorry about this. If you actually slog through everything that has been written on the talk page, you will realize that the purported writer of this article is very slippery, and knows just enough to snow even very bright, technically oriented people. Cements and concretes, are a SURPRISINGLY complex topic! They have complex chemistry's that even now are poorly understood. Something I don't think most people really ever think about, or realize. I know a LOT about cements, so I KNOW that he's mostly just saying a bunch of unsubstantiated garbage, which, at GREAT personal expense to myself, both time-wise, AND in terms of my mood, I have debunked in GREAT detail, using science and logic. XFEM Skier said: "...without purpose..." I KNOW, that to someone, even someone very bright, WITHOUT a lot of specific knowledge of the chemistry and physics of cements and concretes, that this might SEEM the case; BUT, I GUARANTEE you, this is NOT the case! I have made MANY rebuttals of incorrect "science" by this person, BUT, because the subject is SO complex, no one else really seems to understand. It is MOST disheartening! I wish someone with a great deal of knowledge of cements, NOT associated with the company/person I have mentioned in another thread, would stumble across this thread. He would INSTANTLY see the writer of this article for what he/she is; and presumably could help me out here. XFEM Skier said: "Note also that my comment was supporting your (IE, the unidentified person claiming to have written this article) assertion that there was energy savings by using EMC." Yes, I have ALSO said this. BUT, he has REPEATEDLY said that my explanation of Fly Ash replacing some Portland cement is WRONG. YET, he will NOT say WHAT is wrong with my explanation, NOR will he offer an alternative explanation. Hope this was helpful. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Ego[edit]Karl Contact Ronin directly. There is his email. Google search. Luleå University: [email protected]
They are all part of the GLOBAL conspiracy to create a science that doesn't exist! And MORE THAN TWENTY years ago they all sat there thinking "You know what, I bet in 20 years there is going to be a wikipedia thing on an internet. So we need to prepare now so we can get this hoax well and truly ready to publish on this free encylopedia thing in 20 years time." When the internet was still a wet dream! Amazing. These people are not just hoaxers, they actually started the hoax knowing there was going to be a wikipedia 20 years later! Imagine that! They set this up over 20 years ago waiting for a knight like Karl to expose all these dreadful academic hoaxers who have got away with it for over two decades! Hej Karl! The WORLD was waiting for you to do this massive expose. I mean, what ARE the chances of a "hoax science" being exposed on Wikipedia? Do you see a bunch of high level experts rushing to join you Karl? But hej buddy (since you insist on calling me "buddy")! You have made me feel so much better that I now know I was dreaming all this "science". And thank god you have saved me from my silly little "dream" where I dared to believe I understood the science. All those years I wasted learning! Wow! It was just a dream. Such a relief to know from you it's all ########. All that learning I made. Just years down the avlopp. I'll sleep much better for this. But in the meantime you made a number of bogus statements. You assert what is not available on the EMC website, namely Ronin is a "director" (your words precisely) of the company. How do you know this? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Best of luck Karl! Cheers! 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! Previously, as I said: "Previously I (Karl), said: "Please don't contact me again on this forum, UNLESS you are willing to back up your FANTASTIC claims for this EMC material, with coherent, RATIONAL science, and neutral, substantial links, that DON'T go to this company/person." NOTHING has changed since I posted this. I am willing to discuss: 1. ANYTHING that ACTUALLY appears in the current article, OR a previous edit of this article. 2. Science, or purported science, as it pertains to this EMC process, even if it does NOT appear in the article. I feel NO obligation, to discuss further, ANYTHING that appears SOLELY on the talk page. I have ALREADY probably put in OVER 20 hours of my precious time on this. I AM willing to discuss ANYTHING that appears in the article, OR science, or purported science, regarding this process. NOT anything else. I DON'T have the time. I CERTAINLY DON'T have time, to do RESEARCH for YOU. DO it YOURSELF. ALL of things that you REPEATEDLY post, are EITHER continued, unsubstantiated attacks against me, OR things that I have ALREADY answered (USUALLY, MORE than once!), in MANY previous posts! PLEASE READ them. You, of course, continue to DUCK actual discussion of the article, or the science of the process, either to things that I have ALREADY answered, OR, as "red herrings" to DEFLECT the talk AWAY from the article, OR science behind the article, with OTHER things NOT germane to the science. Well, I WON'T be suckered into this! I have ALREADY answered these questions. If you DON'T believe me, READ my previous posts!" PLEASE, though, DO continue your "science" explanations! I have SO enjoyed refuting them! Karl PS- ALL the people who you have mentioned in your UNBELIEVABLE, BIZARRE, long, worldwide conspiracy rant, DID NOT write ANY of this article on Wikipedia. YOU DID! The fact that I have REFUTED EVERYTHING YOU HAVE said, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with them. I have refuted ONLY what YOU have written on Wikipedia, NOT what THEY have written OUTSIDE of Wikipedia (which would CERTAINLY be an inappropriate thing to do on Wikipedia, anyway!). PLEASE DO, though, continue with your "science". I do SO enjoy DEBUNKING it! THANK YOU! Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You said: "Like I said, do you see any high level knowledge material scientist disputing the science?" I, PERSONALLY, HAVE refuted your "science", over and over and over! I DO NOT NEED anyone else to do this for me! I am MORE than capable of doing this myself! AND, I notice, you have NOT challenged even ONE of my refutations of your BAD science. PLEASE, then, CONTINUE with your "science". I do SO enjoy refuting it! THANK YOU. HAVE a NICE DAY. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Portland Cement an EMC?[edit]If the grinding process is applied to Portland cement is it also an EMC? XFEM Skier (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you[edit]Hello! I have realized that the discussion in this article has gotten a bit complex, out of the reach of many who come to Wikipedia. (I mean no offense to any readers with more knowledge of this topic.) I apologize for this. I will give one, IMPORTANT, example below, to show you HOW this person INTENTIONALLY uses scientific terms, and FAKE science, to try and FOOL you into believing that what he says, is valid. I am going to quote this person VERBATIM, so I cannot be accused of quoting out of context. PLEASE don't be put off by the jargon! I will make ALL of this "scientific" fluff, SIMPLE! PLEASE bear with me! Beginning of verbatim quote********** "The effects observed by EMC Activation cannot be attributed to grinding per se, which of itself, simply causes an increase in the number of particles and therefore an increase of surface area/volume.[21] Rather, it is thought that the full effects of EMC Activation ultimately take their roots in mechanochemistry of the advanced material sciences field (that is also referred to as "tribochemistry", with reference to tribology).[22] As such, one formal definition of "tribo/mechano-chemistry" states that it "is a branch of chemistry dealing with the chemical and physicochemical changes of matter due to the influence of mechanical energy".[22] Many of the effects of tribo-chemistry occur on a nano-scale and arguably were first observed by Peter Adolf Thiessen in the late 1960s stemming from his work on the "tribochemical reactions produced in ball mills".[22] The precise mechanism giving rise to the observable effects is not entirely understood although there are several postulates. For example one theory considers the effects as being at least partially attributable to a resultant lowering of the associated Hüttig temperature (after the work of Professor G. F. Hüttig at Leipzig from about 1937 onwards).[23] Elsewhere, the observable tribochemical effects have been attributed also to structure defects and lattice-strain resulting in the "excess" energy being "stored" within the crystalline structures.[24] No matter what the precise cause of the observable chemical effects, EMC Activation causes changes to the surfaces of the particles that is beyond grinding per se.[6] In common with most studies pertaining to tribochemical effects, the physical transformations are (in part) observable using a variety of surface metrology methods. Studies carried-out jointly with SINTEF, investigating the cause for EMC Activation's effects, have also deployed advanced nitrogen absorption methods which further confirm that the effects are not attributable to grinding per se.[6]" End of verbatim quote************ OK, he says "EMC Activation cannot be attributed to grinding per se..." Now, in the cement industry, materials are ground in common mills, like a ball mill. MANY people, have a mill in there homes that they are already familiar with, a flour sifter, which is a type of mill. (BE AWARE, he uses the MEANINGLESS term "Activation", whenever he writes. This term means NOTHING, as he has NEVER explained what he means by it, but it sure sounds fancy, doesn't it? This term is NOT used in the Portland cement industry.) He says "EMC Activation ultimately take their roots in mechanochemistry of the advanced material sciences field (that is also referred to as "tribochemistry"..." GOODNESS, gracious! MY, that SOUNDS all scientific, doesn't it? SIMPLY, what he has said SO FAR, is that normal ball grinding (as in Portland cement production), doesn't "activate" (a meaningless term, he has apparently invented) cement, BUT the EMC process, does through "tribochemistry".) OK, DON'T worry! I will explain this ALL simply! (DON'T worry about the term "tribochemistry", it is simply a "red herring", meant to sound scientific, that I will amply show is MEANINGLESS in the way he has written about it. (Whenever I write "tribochemistry", just think "rubber ducky", or any other term, if it makes it easier. In the way he has written about it, the term is MEANINGLESS, anyway.) Then he says: "...first observed by Peter Adolf Thiessen in the late 1960s stemming from his work on the "tribochemical reactions produced in ball mills" This SIMPLY says, that "tribochemical" reactions are seen in ball mills. Firstly, he has gotten his information, from a HALF CENTURY OLD book! This process, is PRESUMABLY, cutting edge. You would presumably be using books, NOT more than 5, maybe 10 years old, to support this cutting edge research, NOT a half century old book! Secondly, he has ALREADY contradicted himself! He has said that normal grinding (presumably normal, ball grinding used in the Portland cement industry), DOESN'T cause "tribochemistry" effects. BUT, what he just said quoted from a book that SAYS "tribochemistry" effects are seen in a ball mill! THEN, he continues with a lot of "scientific" sounding stuff, that I have already refuted elsewhere. DON'T worry about it, it is just MORE "red herrings" meant to distract you from the fact, that what he says is scientific nonsense! In the next paragraph, he says, "EMC Activation causes changes to the surfaces of the particles that is beyond grinding per se." BUT, as I have just shown, he has DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED himself on this point, already! To recap and SIMPLY EXPLAIN, all of the above he has said SIMPLY, SO FAR, is that this magical EMC process, ACTIVATES (a term with NO meaning), cement particles UNLIKE in a normal mill (presumably a ball mill) via "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky), where he has ALREADY contradicted himself! THEN he says, "...surface metrology..." MAN, that SURE sounds scientific, doesn't it? Now, "...surface metrology...", is SIMPLY an obtuse, pompous way of SIMPLY saying "measuring surface area". NOW, this is am important point, that I must explain SIMPLY. Surface area is the keystone point of all of this, so an explanation is in order. Cut out a 1 inch x 1 inch piece of onion, and put it on a table. It will cover 1 square inch of table surface. TAKE the piece of onion, and peel it in two. Lay it back down on the table. It now covers 2 square inches of table surface, EVEN THOUGH, it STILL weighs the same! TAKE the 2 pieces of onion, peel BOTH of them in two, put them back down on the table, and it now covers 4 square inches of the table, EVEN THOUGH, it STILL weighs the same! What you have JUST DONE, it to INCREASE the surface area of the onion, similar to the surface area increase when things are ground in a mill. At home, when you sift four in a flour sifter, you have INCREASED the surface area of the flour. If you ever grind Chuck into hamburger, you have INCREASED the surface area! (This explains WHY ground meat spoils faster than meat that isn't ground). He then says, "...deployed advanced nitrogen absorption methods..." BOY, that REALLY sounds scientific! HOWEVER, this is the simple, common, widely used, BET nitrogen absorption test, that MEASURES SURFACE AREA! SO, all he has SAID, is that they measured the surface area! Then he continues: "deployed advanced nitrogen absorption methods which further confirm that the effects are not attributable to grinding per se." BUT, this DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what he said, earlier! He said: "EMC Activation cannot be attributed to grinding per se, which of itself, simply causes an increase in the number of particles and therefore an increase of surface area..." He DIRECTLY says that "Activation" (meaningless term) is NOT a surface area increase. BUT, he has just used a test, that ONLY measures surface area, as PROOF of "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky), effects! THIS IS SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE! Let's SIMPLY recap, SO FAR, he has pompously and verbosely said ONLY this: that this magical EMC process, ACTIVATES (a term with NO meaning), cement particles UNLIKE in a normal mill (presumably a ball mill) via "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky) effects, AFTER QUOTING a book that SAYS "tribochemistry" effects occur in ball mills (DIRECT CONTRADICTION)! This, then creates (I've give him the benefit of the doubt, since he DOESN'T say if the test showed an increase OR decrease, in the surface area!) an increase in surface area, which HE, HIMSELF said ISN'T PROOF of a "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky), effect, as PROOF, that this IS a "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky), effect (DIRECT CONTRADICTION)! THIS IS SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE! SIMPLY: You grind flour in a flour sifter. The surface area increases. The increase in surface area ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DOESN'T PROVE a "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky), effect! You grind Chuck in a meat grinder. The surface area increases. The increase in surface area ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DOESN'T PROVE a "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky), effect! You grind cement (or it's components) in the "special" grinding method of EMC (since this person has REPEATEDLY REFUSED to explain the difference between this, and a normal ball mill). The surface area increases. The increase in surface area ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DOESN'T PROVE a "tribochemistry" (rubber ducky), effect! NOW, I have gone to GREAT LENGTHS, to CLEARLY and SIMPLY show how this person uses supposed "science", to LIE, and try to FOOL people. What he has done, is NOTHING MORE, than a complex LIE, and FAKE science, that he was banking on the fact that NO ONE would catch him in at it! WELL, he was WRONG. PLEASE BE AWARE, that this person LIES like this ALL the TIME. I have CAUGHT, and EXPOSED him in previous lies. PLEASE READ my PREVIOUS POSTS. I have DEBUNKED ALL the FAKE science he has posted! PLEASE READ my PREVIOUS POSTS. NOW, this is DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON who has claimed to write this article: If you believe that you can POKE HOLES in ANYTHING I have written above, GO FOR IT! PLEASE include MORE of your "science". I have SO enjoyed DEBUNKING it! To everyone, else, I hope this has been helpful! Karl (Uncle Karl) 71.33.155.41 (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! GOODNESS, ME! The claimed writer of this article has ALREADY responded to this post! He said: "Karl: You are such and expert and according to you I am obviously such a liar and bad scientist blah blah yadda yadda (heard it all before from you), maybe can you explain how, in your "theory", a finished compound that is made 100% from fly ash, or 100% from Volcanic ash, or 100% from silica sand (all in the article) can be considered "doctored up Portland cement" (your words)? Even better: Please fee free to provide a single paper that confirms this so I can examine it and if necessary verify directly with the authors. Just one paper - that's all. Thanks! Best of luck with today's challenge! 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)" Ha, ha, ha! You are SO FUNNY! I NOTICE that you have NOT CHALLENGED even ONE of my statements, DEBUNKING your FAKE science! PLEASE, DO continue with your "science"! I do SO ENJOY DEBUNKING IT! THANK YOU! HAVE a NICE DAY! Karl PS- You said: "maybe can you explain how, in your "theory", a finished compound that is made 100% from fly ash, or 100% from Volcanic ash, or 100% from silica sand (all in the article) can be considered "doctored up Portland cement" (your words)?" You ALSO said (direct quote from a previous post): "But you will note that an EMC CANNOT replace 100% of the portland cement in concrete." You have, YET AGAIN, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF! YOU, YOURSELF, said that you CANNOT replace 100% of the Portland cement! You said: "Best of luck with today's challenge!" WHAT "challenge"? I DEBUNKED this, ALMOST as fast as I could type! Ha, ha, ha! You are SO FUNNY! PLEASE, CONTINUE with your "science"! I have SO enjoyed DEBUNKING IT! Karl PPS- You said: "...according to you I am obviously such a liar..." Using science, and logic, I have PROVED that you have lied over and over again! The SIMPLE solution for this, of course, is for you to SIMPLY STOP LYING about EMC! As soon as you stop lying, I will stop pointing it out! You said "...and bad scientist..." This is INCORRECT. I did NOT say this. I have NEVER called you a "scientist", NOR will I EVER call you a "scientist". PLEASE, keep YOUR "science" coming! THANK YOU! HAVE a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 71.33.155.41 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC) 71.33.155.41 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! The person who has claimed to write this article, said THIS: You said: "Another TLDR. It would be much easier if you simply admitted you have nothing new to say, and that you cannot think of a single substantive question (novice or expert) despite my indicated willingness to "take the Pepsi Challenge". 213.66.81.80 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)" You MUST NEED SPECTACLES! I have ANSWERED this TWICE already! IF YOU KEEP ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS, YOU WILL GET THE SAME RESPONSES! I said: "Hello! My name is "Karl". YOU have NEVER IDENTIFIED yourself in any way. You have refuted NOTHING. You said THIS: ""I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." As they say, the PROOF is in the pudding. You talk an ENORMOUS amount, BUT, you DO NOT DEFEND any FAKE science of yours, that I have DEBUNKED. PLEASE TRY REFUTING the section I wrote: "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" GO FOR IT! PLEASE, continue with your "science". I do SO enjoy debunking it. THANK YOU. HAVE A NICE DAY. Karl" PLEASE, DO continue with your "science"! I so enjoy refuting it! THANK YOU! HAVE A NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! The writer of this article has said this: "I'll take the Pepsi Challenge.", (meaning he will ACTUALLY answer a question, after DUCKING, question after question). oooooooooooooo
"I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo YOU (the claimed write of this article), has REPEATEDLY said that this is WRONG, BUT has NOT said why. OK, here's your "Pepsi challenge" question: SINCE you have REPEATEDLY said, this this is WRONG, where then, DO, the energy savings in the EMC cement/concrete process, COME FROM??? LET'S hear WHAT you have to say! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Ego #2[edit]Karl: You are such an expert and according to you I am obviously such a liar and bad scientist blah blah yadda yadda (heard it all before from you), maybe can you explain how, in your "theory", a finished compound that is made 100% from fly ash, or 100% from Volcanic ash, or 100% from silica sand (all in the article) can be considered "doctored up Portland cement" (your words)? Even better: Please fee free to provide a single paper that confirms this so I can examine it and if necessary verify directly with the authors. Just one paper - that's all. Thanks! Best of luck with today's challenge! 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! You said: "I note no answer to this challenge (apart from the above utter gobbledygook)." I DEBUNKED this, ALREADY, under the Section of this Talk Page, entitled "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" I put my response THERE, because THAT was what you were obviously referencing. FOR YOUR BENEFIT, as you appear either NOT to have read it, or not understood it, HERE is my rebuttal AGAIN: Karl (ME!) said this under the Section of this Talk Page, entitled "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you": You said: "maybe can you explain how, in your "theory", a finished compound that is made 100% from fly ash, or 100% from Volcanic ash, or 100% from silica sand (all in the article) can be considered "doctored up Portland cement" (your words)?" You ALSO said (direct quote from a previous post): "But you will note that an EMC CANNOT replace 100% of the portland cement in concrete." You have, YET AGAIN, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF! YOU, YOURSELF, said that you CANNOT replace 100% of the Portland cement! You said: "Best of luck with today's challenge!" WHAT "challenge"? I DEBUNKED this, ALMOST as fast as I could type!" (Please read my full comments under the Section of this Talk Page, entitled "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you". This was just enough of my previous comments, to, AGAIN, DEBUNK your FAKE science. To elaborate, your comments are PATENTLY ABSURD! I have CAUGHT YOU, AGAIN, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING yourself, showing that BOTH statements can't POSSIBLY be right; and YET you try to ridiculously claim, that it means nothing! On the CONTRARY, ONE of the statements has to be FLAT OUT WRONG. YOU CANNOT both say, SIMULTANEOUSLY, that you CAN'T replace 100% of the Portland cement by EMC, and THEN ALSO claim, that you CAN replace 100% of the Portland cement by EMC! I have used your OWN "science" statements, to show this! ONE, or BOTH, of these statements MUST BE WRONG! I DO notice, though, that you CONTINUE to duck actual discussion of the SCIENCE. PLUS, you have NOT challenged OR rebutted, a SINGLE thing I have said, DEBUNKING your FAKE science! You said (in reference to what I wrote above), "...gobbledygook..." On the CONTRARY, I write in an easy-to-understand style, that, HOPEFULLY, ANYONE can understand. It is YOU that uses "...gobbledygook...". You said (in reference to what I wrote above), "...gobbledygook...". PLEASE READ the Section I have written on this talk page entitled, ""Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you", ...if you to want to see ACTUAL "gobbledygook", DEBUNKED in DETAIL. PLUS, you have NOT challenged OR rebutted, a SINGLE thing I have said, DEBUNKING your FAKE science! Please, DO continue with YOUR "science" I have SO enjoyed REFUTING it ALL! THANK YOU! Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Ego #3[edit]Karl: What's with the "uncle Milty" thing? Thanks! 213.66.81.80 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! You said: "Uncle Milty has been a fierce and vocal opponent of this page" I have NO idea WHAT ON EARTH you are talking about! As far as I am aware, "Uncle Milty" is SIMPLY what Milton Berle, the famous comedian called himself, BACK in the days of live television. There is a FAMOUS story, as HOW this came to be. One night on the show, producers had mistakenly estimated the time the show would run, and Berle ran out of material, with something like 6 or 7 minutes to run. On LIVE TV, this is, of course, an ETERNITY, and somewhere DURING this time, with stuff he had to ad-lib on the spot, he CAME UP with the term, "Uncle Milty", which STUCK, and followed him the rest of his life. The ONLY reasons I said "Uncle Karl", is, 1. YES, I am indeed an Uncle! 2. I was simply trying to lighten up the heavy tone of this Talk Page a little, and sound friendly to OTHER readers. I have NO IDEA who this OTHER "Uncle Milty" is, NOR do I recall, EVER seeing his name on this talk page! In FACT, I have DONE a search on the ENTIRE talk page, and the ONLY reference to "Uncle Milty", is YOU. IF, as you claim, "Uncle Milty has been a fierce and vocal opponent of this page" (meaning the article), you would EXPECT HIM to comment HEAVILY on this Talk Page. In FACT, your CLAIM is irrational! IF I were "Uncle Milty" (whoever THAT is), I would simply identify myself as such. There would be NO REASON to hide my identity! HOWEVER, I notice that YOU have never identified YOURSELF. My REAL name is KARL. THIS is the name that goes on every check I write, THIS is the name on EVERY document I sign, THIS is the name my friends and relatives use to address me. WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME? What is YOUR ASSOCIATION, with the company SELLING this stuff? You said: "This makes Wikipedia look ridiculous when these people are then allowed to spoil the mainpage." The ONLY comment which I included in the main body of the article, was a (much needed) DIRECT reference to the amount of EMC concrete produced, VERSUS the total amount of worldwide concrete production; a fact that you have now REMOVED. It is YOU, by your FAKE science, REPEATED lies I have caught you in, and exposed, and your continuing EVASIVE refusal to answer the SIMPLEST facts about "EMC", who are NOT helping Wikipedia. This has NOTHING to do with my scientific rebuttal of RIDICULOUS, CONTRADICTORY things, and FAKE science, that you CONTINUE to claim! You said: "Basically that I am perpetrating a lie and the science is bogus." Using science, and logic, I have CAUGHT, and EXPOSED you in LIES, REPEATEDLY. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS. This statement, "...the science is bogus.", is WRONG. WHAT I have said is that the science AS YOU HAVE EXPLAINED and CLAIMED it, is FAKE, and WRONG. I have IN GREAT DETAIL, showed this. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS, particularly THIS Section of the Talk Page I wrote: "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you". AMAZINGLY, I am STILL willing to believe that there MAY be some grain of truth SOMEWHERE in here, if you would JUST put in a coherent, RATIONAL, explanation of the EMC process. Something that you have REPEATEDLY REFUSED to do! You have NOT challenged, even ONE of my rebuttals of YOUR FAKE science! You said: "...accused of being (not even) a scientist." This is NOT an accusation, BUT a substantiated FACT. I have REBUTTED, DEBUNKED, and DISPROVED EVERY FAKE science thing that you have said, WITHOUT challenge OR counter-rebuttal from YOU. A SCIENTIST, on the other hand, would have either: 1. Gotten his science facts right the first time around. OR 2. Easily REBUTTED anything that I said disproving his science facts. YOU have done NEITHER. You have entitled this section of the talk page, "Feeding the Ego #3" (PLUS #1 and #2), as an obvious reference to me. AGAIN, as I have REBUTTED, DEBUNKED, and DISPROVED EVERY FAKE science thing that you have said, WITHOUT challenge OR counter-rebuttal from YOU, I THINK that you have this comment POINTED the WRONG WAY! PLEASE, DO keep your "science" coming! I have SO enjoyed DEBUNKING all of it! THANK YOU! Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I notice, YET AGAIN, that you DUCK discussion of the SCIENCE, and TRY to deflect it off onto this RIDICULOUS point about someone called "Uncle Milty", that I have NEVER heard of, and that has NEVER posted on this talk page! This Milton Berle story about how he came to be called "Uncle Milty", is known to MILLIONS of people! He told this story on talk show appearances FOR DECADES. The fact that I know it, MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! (OTHER, than maybe, making an indirect reference to my age!) If there IS, INDEED, a user called "Uncle Milty" (who DOES NOT contribute to this Talk Page, and who you have NOT EVEN PROVED EXISTS!), I have NO IDEA, WHY he chose that name. Maybe it's as simple as his name is MILTON. There are about 28,000 references to "Uncle Milty" on Google! (Half to one spelling, "Milty", half to the OTHER spelling, "Miltie".) Your "claiming" this fact is "obscure", JUST BECAUSE YOU don't know it, is RIDICULOUS! HOW, the HECK, should I KNOW WHY this person calls himself "Uncle Milty"???????????????? ASK HIM YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I NOTICE, that YOU DO NOT IDENTIFY yourself in ANY way. NOR, will you SAY WHAT your relationship is to the company SELLING this stuff! You have NOT replied to ANY important thing that I have said, BUT, continue to put in "red herrings", to DEFLECT the conversation AWAY from the EMC process. AGAIN, this ABSURD NONSENSE is just you DESPERATELY, TRYING to deflect the discussion AWAY from the article, and AWAY from the science! PLEASE, DO continue WITH your "science" (INSTEAD of ABSURD "red herrings") I have SO ENJOYED DEBUNKING THEM! THANK YOU. Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! AGAIN, you DUCK talking about the EMC article, OR the science. AS USUAL, YOU have this wrong, yet AGAIN. You said: "You mean you looked up "Uncle Milty" on the internet before commenting above or is it something you knew anyhow before you commented above?", implying I have magically written this OUT of order! THIS, AGAIN, is one of your LIES! The "Uncle Milty" references happened IN THIS order: 1. YOU mentioned "Uncle Milty" FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME on this Talk Page. 2. I told the story of how Milton Berle, got this name. The Milton Berle story I mentioned, AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, is from a talk show I watched MANY years ago, where he talked about it. 3. YOU THEN replied, saying, "You seem to know an awful lot about why someone might want to call themselves "Uncle Milty" including for whatever obscure reason." 4. AT THAT POINT, I THEN looked up the information about this Milton Berle story FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE on GOOGLE, just a few minutes ago, to SHOW that this is a WIDELY known fact, not "obscure", as you claimed! 5. You ONLY THEN, said THIS: "You mean you looked up "Uncle Milty" on the internet before commenting above or is it something you knew anyhow before you commented above?" IMPLYING, I got the order wrong! ON THE CONTRARY, as USUAL, it is YOU who have your facts WRONG! The ORDER of my statements is correct, and RATIONAL. It is, AGAIN, YOU who have LIED about it! THIS IS SIMPLY ANOTHER, "red herring", to DEFLECT the talk AWAY from actual SCIENCE. I have ALREADY, said my REAL name is Karl. Let's suppose (INCORRECTLY, but for the sake of argument), that my REAL NAME, is "Fred", instead. ALL THE REBUTTALS I have made of YOUR "science", are STILL valid. You have NOT challenged, OR rebutted them! THIS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE as to the VALIDITY of my REBUTTAL of your FAKE science. OR, suppose (INCORRECTLY, but for the sake of argument), that my REAL NAME, is "Mark", instead. ALL THE REBUTTALS I have made of YOUR "science", are STILL valid. You have NOT challenged, OR rebutted them! THIS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE as to the VALIDITY of my REBUTTAL of your FAKE science. OR, suppose (INCORRECTLY, but for the sake of argument), that I use NO NAME at ALL, LIKE YOU DO! ALL THE REBUTTALS I have made of YOUR "science", are STILL valid. You have NOT challenged, OR rebutted them! THIS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE as to the VALIDITY of my REBUTTAL of your FAKE science. ALSO, as I have PREVIOUSLY stated, MY HERITAGE is 100% Swedish (all my grandparents came from Sweden). "Karl", is CERTAINLY a common Swedish name. "Milton", is NOT. KARL, is my true, and real name! WHAT IS YOURS????? ALL your posts are UNIDENTIFIED! WHAT is your connection, with the company SELLING this stuff??????? AS I SAID, this is ONLY YOUR WILD, DESPERATE, ATTEMPT to DEFLECT the conversation AWAY from the article, and AWAY from actual science. PLEASE, DO, continue with YOUR SCIENCE! I have SO enjoyed refuting it! (To everyone else: PLEASE read this section I have written: ""Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you"" THANK YOU! Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! You said: "I asked whether as a fact whether you looked up "Uncle Milty" on the internet before commenting above or is it something you knew anyhow before you commented above? Because I'm confused (again)." It is YOU who is INTENTIONALLY being OBTUSE. For the THIRD TIME, NOW. I GOT this Milton Berle story, from a talk show, MANY years ago! PLEASE READ WHAT I HAVE SAID. It is just a fact I happened to remember. AGAIN, this is simply a DESPERATE attempt on YOUR part, to DEFLECT the talk away from the actual SCIENCE! You said: "...how you can be trusted with much greater complexities such as the SCIENCE of EMCs" AS USUAL, it is YOU who have gotten your facts wrong! My posts about your RIDICULOUS "red herring" about Milton Berle, of all things!, HAS been completely logical, and rational. AGAIN, it is YOU who have gotten your facts WRONG! THE SCIENCE, is the SCIENCE. You POMPOUSLY BOASTED (in a previous post): "I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." I replied: "HEY, go for IT, BUDDY! I'm waiting!" SINCE THIS POST OF YOURS, I HAVE HEARD NOTHING from YOU! YOU HAVE NOT challenged OR refuted, ANY of my rebuttals of your FAKE "science". I have REFUTED ALL your FAKE science. Please, everyone else, read this section I have written, "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" PLEASE, then, CONTINUE with YOUR "science"! I have SO enjoyed refuting it! THANK YOU! HAVE a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I have REPEATEDLY refuted, IN DETAIL, ALL this "red herring" GARBAGE, of NOTHING but UNSUBSTANTIATED, WILD claims you have made against me; about, of ALL things, Milton Berle/Uncle Milty. I CERTAINLY DON'T need to do so AGAIN. AGAIN, You POMPOUSLY BOASTED (in a previous post): "I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." I replied: "HEY, go for IT, BUDDY! I'm waiting!" SINCE THIS POST OF YOURS, I HAVE HEARD NOTHING from YOU!" I have REFUTED your "science" repeatedly. You CLAIM, you could "...literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." WELL, BIG MOUTH, GO FOR IT! LET'S GET BACK TO THE SCIENCE, WHICH you have gone to EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS to avoid! C'mon! Let's hear it! HOW is even ONE of my refutations of your FAKE science wrong? I'm waiting! C'mon, are you AFRAID? Let's hear it! I have REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED your FAKE science, and you claim that you could "...literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." WELL, "rip" away! GO FOR IT! LET'S HEAR it! WHY don't you START HERE: this section I have written, "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" It is simplified enough, that maybe even YOU could understand it! C'mon! I'm waiting! GO FOR IT! You seem to have PLENTY of time to post about Milton Berle, WHY NOT post about the SCIENCE, which is a LOT more important, than Milton Berle??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC) I have SO enjoyed REFUTING your "science" C'mon, are you AFRAID? Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! OBVIOUSLY, you have NOT understood what I have written, EVEN THOUGH, I have written it in VERY simple language, that ANYONE can understand. Here it is, AGAIN: "Hello! I have REPEATEDLY refuted, IN DETAIL, ALL this "red herring" GARBAGE, of NOTHING but UNSUBSTANTIATED, WILD claims you have made against me; about, of ALL things, Milton Berle/Uncle Milty. I CERTAINLY DON'T need to do so AGAIN. AGAIN, You POMPOUSLY BOASTED (in a previous post): "I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." I replied: "HEY, go for IT, BUDDY! I'm waiting!" SINCE THIS POST OF YOURS, I HAVE HEARD NOTHING from YOU!" I have REFUTED your "science" repeatedly. You CLAIM, you could "...literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." WELL, BIG MOUTH, GO FOR IT! LET'S GET BACK TO THE SCIENCE, WHICH you have gone to EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS to avoid! C'mon! Let's hear it! HOW is even ONE of my refutations of your FAKE science wrong? I'm waiting! C'mon, are you AFRAID? Let's hear it! I have REPEATEDLY DEBUNKED your FAKE science, and you claim that you could "...literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." WELL, "rip" away! GO FOR IT! LET'S HEAR it! WHY don't you START HERE: this section I have written, "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" It is simplified enough, that maybe even YOU could understand it! C'mon! I'm waiting! GO FOR IT! You seem to have PLENTY of time to post about Milton Berle, WHY NOT post about the SCIENCE, which is a LOT more important, than Milton Berle??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.155.41 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC) I have SO enjoyed REFUTING your "science" C'mon, are you AFRAID?" Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! You said: "...ad nauseum about "Milton Berle" is you..." YOU are the one that claimed that knowledge that I had about Milton Berle (OF ALL THINGS!) somehow proved something. I have DEBUNKED your LUDICROUS assertions, OVER, and OVER. I DO NOT need to do so AGAIN. This is JUST a "red herring" You, YET AGAIN, have ducked any discussion of the actual science. Please, continue with your "science". I do SO ENJOY debunking it! THANK YOU! Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Ego #4[edit]Milty/Karl One must differentiate the right to be a self-opinionated nutbag who has such hubris to actually be delusional to the point of believing anyone gives a toss for nonsense -v- fact. I simply needed to clarify who you are and that you're happy to make points that are bogus and then not explain (such as your claim that it is stated on the "company website"that Ronin is a "director", when it isn't. And making bogus claims about "Australians did it first", etc. etc., etc.). Now you've confirmed that you're researching "stuff" you come across on the internet "on the fly", have no grounding at all, let alone any expertise. Very Uncle Milty.
Hello! You said: "You throw in terms such as "Class C fly ash" but then omit to state that Class C is out of spec for most DOTs." You have, INTENTIONALLY, quoted me out of context. I wrote this, in answer to this question by XFEM Skier: XFEM Skier said: "Cement can be either or both Portland cement or the pozzolans?" To which I (partly), said this (and this is my ONLY mention of Class C Fly Ash on the entire talk page): "ALSO, sometimes, other materials can have some cement-like properties, such as Class C Fly Ash, which is a pozzolan. It contains a fair amount of Calcium Oxide in it, which gives it some cement-like properties, by itself." This statement of mine, OF COURSE, is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CORRECT. YOU HAVE INTENTIONALLY quoted me out of context. I was simply answering a question, from someone who is NOT in the Portland cement industry, in the most appropriate way. Adding the EXTRANEOUS stuff YOU mentioned, would NOT have been appropriate. If you consider THIS, a "refutation" of something that I have said, BOY, do you EVEN LIVE on Planet Earth??? You have refuted NOTHING. OF COURSE, I NOTICE that you cleverly chose a comment I made to SOMEONE ELSE, to "refute", INSTEAD of you "refuting" a comment I made directly about YOUR FAKE "science". PLEASE TRY REFUTING the section I wrote: "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" AGAIN, You POMPOUSLY BOASTED (in a previous post): "I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." ARE YOU AFRAID to PUBLICLY counter-refute ANYTHING that I have said, DEBUNKING your FAKE science, after the statement you made: "...rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl."? You have made a BIG claim. GO FOR IT! C'mon! LET'S HEAR IT! REFUTE, ANYTHING that I have said, DEBUNKING your FAKE science. GO FOR IT! I'm WAITING! PLEASE, KEEP your "science", coming! I do SO enjoy DEBUNKING it! THANK YOU! Have a NICE DAY! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! My name is "Karl". YOU have NEVER IDENTIFIED yourself in any way. You have refuted NOTHING. You said THIS: ""I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." As they say, the PROOF is in the pudding. You talk an ENORMOUS amount, BUT, you DO NOT DEFEND any FAKE science of yours, that I have DEBUNKED. PLEASE TRY REFUTING the section I wrote: "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" GO FOR IT! PLEASE, continue with your "science". I do SO enjoy debunking it. THANK YOU. HAVE A NICE DAY. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Ego #5[edit]Milty/Karl: I simply want to know what level of knowledge you would see yourself as having. Novice or expert?
But answer your TLDRs? No. I told you. You dont get to talk skit and then have me argue till I'm blue in the cheeks like I'm your puppet. I dont do bullying. But I bet you like being a master of puppets don't you Milty? Uncle Milty. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! Perhaps you have not read my previous post, ALREADY answering this. Here it is AGAIN. "Hello! My name is "Karl". YOU have NEVER IDENTIFIED yourself in any way. You have refuted NOTHING. You said THIS: ""I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl." As they say, the PROOF is in the pudding. You talk an ENORMOUS amount, BUT, you DO NOT DEFEND any FAKE science of yours, that I have DEBUNKED. PLEASE TRY REFUTING the section I wrote: "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" GO FOR IT! PLEASE, continue with your "science". I do SO enjoy debunking it. THANK YOU. HAVE A NICE DAY. Karl" YES, PLEASE continue with your "science"! I DO so ENJOY refuting it! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Ego #6[edit]Milty: Another TLDR. It would be much easier if you simply admitted you have nothing new to say, and that you cannot think of a single substantive question (novice or expert) despite my indicated willingness to "take the Pepsi Challenge". 213.66.81.80 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Really? You think? Wow. I'll take the Pepsi Challenge. You won't. End of. Have a nice life. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Plus, I have asked MANY important questions ALREADY, which you have REPEATEDLY DUCKED. ALL RIGHT, I will POST a question for your, AGAIN, at the bottom of the "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you" section. ONE you have repeatedly ducked! LET'S HEAR YOUR ANSWER. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Really? You think (broken record playing in background)? I said I am not interested in your TLDRs - that I do not responded to bullying - yes? But I did ask you to give me one question, after you first indicating whether you considered yourself an expert (or not), so I could calibrate my response. I would not want to bamboozle just as I dont want a repeat of last last time I assumed someone was not an expert, only then for that person to then claim they are. It's not complicated. I'm just being considerate. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! I have POSTED my question, in the place I said I would. PLEASE, ANSWER IT IN DETAIL! I am WAITING! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Since you have claimed, apparently, NOT to be able to find WHERE I posted the question, EVEN though I DIRECTLY said WHERE I WOULD POST it, I will POST IT a SECOND time here. FOR THE SECOND TIME, I have ALREADY SAID: "Hello! The writer of this article has said this: "I'll take the Pepsi Challenge.", (meaning he will ACTUALLY answer a question, after DUCKING, question after question).
I replied: I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete. This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same. HOWEVER, since most Fly Ash is still thrown away, the actual energy savings are real WHEN looked at as a total system. The Fly Ash will be produced when burning coal for electricity, whether or not it will be used in concrete. If you can use more Fly Ash in concrete (up to the total amount created yearly), you will use less Portland cement. This does save real energy in the system as a whole.
LET'S hear WHAT you have to say! Karl" YES, PLEASE, answer this question! I have DEBUNKED all your FAKE "science", so far! I imagine, that I will be able to do it again! I'm WAITING! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Baby #1[edit]Milty: Maybe the entire concept of replacing Portland cement in concrete (to save energy and CO2 emissions) is so confusing? Or maybe the concept of "concrete" versus a "cement" is so confusing? Or that Portland cement can be replaced is so confusing? Let's take these important baby steps together so you "get" the basics straight first - yes? Don't want any nasty trip-overs, during baby's first steps lol. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! YOU have, OF COURSE just DUCKED the ACTUAL question completely! FOR the THIRD TIME, here it is: "Hello! Since you have claimed, apparently, NOT to be able to find WHERE I posted the question, EVEN though I DIRECTLY said WHERE I WOULD POST it, I will POST IT a SECOND time here. FOR THE SECOND TIME, I have ALREADY SAID: "Hello! The writer of this article has said this: "I'll take the Pepsi Challenge.", (meaning he will ACTUALLY answer a question, after DUCKING, question after question)
I replied: I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete. This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same. HOWEVER, since most Fly Ash is still thrown away, the actual energy savings are real WHEN looked at as a total system. The Fly Ash will be produced when burning coal for electricity, whether or not it will be used in concrete. If you can use more Fly Ash in concrete (up to the total amount created yearly), you will use less Portland cement. This does save real energy in the system as a whole.
LET'S hear WHAT you have to say! Karl" YES, PLEASE, answer this question! I have DEBUNKED all your FAKE "science", so far! I imagine, that I will be able to do it again! I'm WAITING! Karl" YES, and DON'T DUCK the question, yet AGAIN! Karl PS- The above discussion, with Maproom, is ELSEWHERE on this thread, that occurred DAYS ago, on March 12th. It is now March 23rd. (Just search the Talk Page on "MAPROOM", and after a couple of times, you will find the original discussion with him), to set up my question:, so don't try to pretend that this is something NEW to you! I gave this explanation a week-and-a-half, ago! PLUS, you have READ IT before, as you CONTINUED to say it was "wrong", in other posts, WHILE giving NO explanation! Besides, YOUR "answer" just PARROTS what I have said, AFTER you repeatedly have SAID that my answer of March 12th, was "WRONG". You said: "...'replacing Portland cement in concrete (to save energy and CO2 emissions..." You have SIMPLY PARROTED my answer about this, of March 12th (it is now March 23rd), that I repeated on this page, to set-up my REAL question. CLAIMING in some magical way, that you have ANSWERED my question. YOU OBVIOUSLY have not. YOU CANNOT both say, that my answer of March 12th was WRONG, and then, MAGICALLY turn around 180 degrees, and then AGREE with what I said, WHILE ALL THE TIME PRETENDING that I didn't know this, in the first place! If my answer of March 12th was (according to you), WRONG the last week-and-a-half, WHY is my answer RIGHT, now? WELL, it is because you have CAVED, and are TRYING to hide the fact, that you EVER said my answer of March 12th was WRONG. GOTCHA! PLEASE INCLUDE MORE of YOUR SCIENCE! I have SO enjoyed DEBUNKING IT! Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 71.33.155.41 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Baby #2[edit]Milty: Do I take it you now understand the concept of replacing Portland cement in concrete and hence the implications for reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions in order to produce a unit volume of concrete? No TLDR's please. Just a straight forward Yes or No. Tack! 213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC) I prove, AGAIN, that the claimed writer of this article CONTINUES to TRY TO FOOL YOU![edit]Hello! I prove, AGAIN, that the claimed writer of this article CONTINUES to TRY TO FOOL YOU! (I CERTAINLY thought that this was worth repeating.) The person who has claimed to have written this article, FINALLY said that he would "take the Pepsi challenge" (IE, actually answer a question), AFTER repeatedly ducking science questions about the EMC process. SO, I QUOTED this EARLIER discussion with MAPROOM (DAYS ago, on March 12th. It is now March 23rd. Just search the Talk Page on "MAPROOM", and after a couple of times, you will find the original discussion with him), to set up my question:
I said, "I believe that what is meant, is that since you can (supposedly) greatly increase the amount of Fly Ash in the concrete, which is a waste product of coal burning electric production, you do not have to use as much Portland cement, saving energy; as the Fly Ash's "energy" of production, is allocated to the production of electricity already, so the Fly Ash's energy of production is "free", when added to concrete." "This, of course, is slight of hand. The actual energy invested in production of either product would presumably be about the same. HOWEVER, since most Fly Ash is still thrown away, the actual energy savings are real WHEN looked at as a total system. The Fly Ash will be produced when burning coal for electricity, whether or not it will be used in concrete. If you can use more Fly Ash in concrete (up to the total amount created yearly), you will use less Portland cement. This does save real energy in the system as a whole."
His reply: "Maybe the entire concept of replacing Portland cement in concrete (to save energy and CO2 emissions) is so confusing?: ALL HE has done, AGAIN, is to DIRECTLY CONTRADICT himself! He has ONLY PARROTED what I have WRITTEN, DAYS ago, AFTER he has REPEATEDLY said in other posts, that what I have written, was WRONG! UNBELIEVABLE! SINCE he has CLAIMED REPEATEDLY, that my EXPLANATION of DAYS AGO was WRONG, and THEN, just PARROTS it BACK to me, as an "explanation", as how I am WRONG, he has ONLY CAVED, and admitted that I was right, ALL ALONG! DON'T believe this person! I have refuted ALL his science in previous posts! Please read my section: "Uncle Karl gives you a SIMPLE, easy-to-understand explanation of HOW the claimed writer of this "article", uses FAKE science, to try and FOOL you", as ONE example. To the person who has claimed to have written this article: you have PROVED over and over again, that you have NO intention, of ACTUALLY giving any coherent, RATIONAL explanation of this process! To JUST PARROT BACK to me MY OWN (MUCH BETTER, I might add), explanation, AGREEING WITH ME, is, a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of what you have REPEATEDLY said, that MY PREVIOUS EXPLANATION of DAYS ago, was WRONG! PLEASE, continue with your "science". I have SO enjoyed DEBUNKING it! (AS I DID JUST NOW. YOU have CAVED, and NOW agree with me; AFTER saying REPEATEDLY in other posts, that my PREVIOUS explanation of DAYS ago, was WRONG.) Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Feeding the Baby #3[edit]Look, I do not know how much of your gobbledygook you actually read back to yourself. But it just goes on and on. You say:
This is completely contradictory. How can it possibly be (sic) "sleight of hand"? Since when does one burn coal expressly to make a waste product? It is just utter gobbledygook. And yet I have then had to endure days upon day of this endless personal attacks by you because I CANNOT understand your logic. You have accused me of lying, or not being a scientist, and basically of being stupid. I ask you to post me one decent question - and all I get is TLDRs again. This is the "classic" case of a Portland cement "spook" that peddles this nonsense and won't stop. This has gone on for nearly a week. And you won't stop. I said it before, I say it again: it is all too odd and pesistent 213.66.81.80 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC) |
Let's reign in the acrimony[edit]
Wow, gentlemen, where to start? I made a real effort to read and digest this talk page in detail, but gave up about half way down and skimmed the remainder. To be perfectly clear, the difficulty lays not with the technical complexity of the subject matter being discussed, but with editing style and approach to discussion of both of the two IP editors battling this issue out -- both of whom, it is increasingly evident, could use some education as to the Wikipedia approach to consensus building and proper form. After days of vigorous posting, all you have accomplished is to grow this talk page to several times the length of the article between just the two of you -- though, to be fair, the length is artificially inflated by the fact that both of you are using a "wall of text" approach to your postings, never applying the slightest bit of indentation or other formatting conventions, nor so much as a paragraph structure, with the net result being that keeping the arguments of the two editors straight as they lob accusations and quote one-another at length is a nightmare of a chore. This is bad enough style on its own, but the poor formatting is also married to screaming violations of WP:Civility, one of our pillar policies here at Wikipedia; not a post is made a this point that doesn't drip with sarcasm, the belittling of the "opponent's" perspectives (and clearly you do regard eachother as opponents on this issue and not fellow contributors) and constant accusations suggesting nefarious ulterior motives. Th principle of civility is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community, and this situation has already been reported to WP:ANI, so I feel compelled to tell you that if you continue in this fashion, you're likely to both end up with a topic ban on the subject of this article (Note that I am not an administrator myself, so I am not threatening repercussions so much as predicting them).
Now, as to the content itself and the substance of the overall debate, such as it is, I do tend to agree that this article is heavy with promotional tone in both the assertions being made and the quality of the language used. It is also completely dependent upon primary sources, with, as best I can tell, not a single secondary source, which for any Wikipedia article, let alone one which is of such nature and length and which makes contentious claims, is a major problem. If "Karl" was a more experienced editor, he could easily have cited WP:GNG, WP:Weight, and WP:OR, amongst other valid policy reasons for scaling back the improperly sourced and interpreted claims in this article -- or even asking the question of whether it belongs on Wikipedia -- and have begun to make changes with the backing of policy and, if necessary, other editors familiar with it. Instead he has leaned on the less central issues of WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI and engaged in juvenile mud-slinging with the other IP. In short, guys, you both have a lot to learn about our priorities on this project -- and hopefully, whatever your impetus for coming here, you'll have time to learn it. But if you don't scale back the disrespectful language and start analyzing this page from the perspective of policy rather than your personal perspectives and mutual suspicion of one-another, both of you are going to end up not editing here, and no one's purposes will be served, though it would be a great relief to the eyes of anyone who has to read this talk page thence-forth.
My editing time is limited at present, but I will try to check in here regularly over next few days to try to parse the many contentious claims being made in the article itself, mediate some compromise, and bring the article more into line with Wikipedia standards, provided you can both embrace civility and approach this situation as one for policy arguments, not personal ones. And on a side note, please, no more single spaced posts and try to learn to use the indent and section functions appropriately? Snow (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Snow: I welcome your response, but let's make sure that a potential COI Portland cement "spook" doesn't get to wag the dog here. I have NOT posted walls of text. There is nothing promotional about the page. It has been edited for "promotionalism" about 10 times by different editors. It is instead written with absolut precision. And I have nothing to do with EMC other than trying to make a great page and TRY to explain highly complex science. And please read my last post immediately above. It says it all. Believe me. I have 35 years knowledge and experience in materials science. I can take the Pepsi challenge om my knowledge. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- With respect to you and the other editors who have worked on this article, it does read as promotional to me, excessively emphasizing the virtues of material in question and in many places utilizing glowing language that sometimes reads more like phrasing that is appropriate to a promotional document than the neutral encyclopedic tone we need here. Bear in mind I say this as an editor who is previously uninvolved in this article and who is not particularly eager to give fuel to the histrionics of the other IP editor. There's also the fact that the developer of this product seems to have had some degree of interaction with editors on this page and while this is not explicitly forbidden by policy, especially if it leads to a fuller and yet still neutral description of the article's subject, you do have to understand that its often taken as a red flag as regards neutrality and necessitates some extra scrutiny. However, if you are sincere in wanting to work through discussing the content in an empirical fashion, and I have no reason to believe you are not, then I'm sure we can come to balanced approach which will serve the article well. On a separate point, though, please stop denigrating the other IP's motives. The truth is we do not know what they are and it's considered uncivil on Wikipedia to speculate on such at length unless you have some evidence of a COI beyond that "he seems to be in their pocket; you are asking for the benefit of the doubt in your own neutrality, so it behooves you to grant the same to other editors, even when you are on the opposite side of an issue. In any event, Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that an editor's motives are not relevant in terms of content discussion -- only the value of their policy arguments should be weighed in such circumstances. Snow (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have many major misapprehension. bUt i want to deal with one right away. Under NO circumstances has Ronin had anything to do with the page, or anyone from LTU. NO ONE. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Because the article's creator, Jono2013, with whom you seem to sympathize on every major point, and whose intolerance of criticism to the article you share, notes above that Dr. Ronin owns the bulk of the diagrams and images being used on this page and has granted permission for their use here, and the licensing details for those files reflect as much. So clearly there has been some degree of contact between him and that editor at the least. And given than Jono2013 has absolutely no editorial activity on this project aside from Dr. Ronin's article and this one, it would seem his purposes for being here are fairly narrow. Do note that I made the effort to point out that there is not necessarily anything untoward at work here, even if Dr. Ronin were directly involved (which, I'm also not suggesting); I only pointed out that the situation bears additional scrutiny, especially in the context that every other editor currently involved here aside from yourself seems to have some varying perception that the page is promotional in tone and/or makes many inadequately sourced claims. In any event, it's clear Dr. Ronin has at least been consulted about this page, if only to secure those materials (and if not, they are a copy violation and need to be removed immediately). Snow (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Probably worth noting that there was a sockpuppetry investigation about Jono2013 and 213.66.81.80. here XFEM Skier (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, that's pretty much the direction my suspicions were heading in, but I was reserving comment until I had a chance to investigate; thank you for bringing the SPI to our attention and saving me the trouble of looking for it. It looks to me as if the best course of action here may be to kick this issue back to ANI, which, given the circumstances and his long-standing sockpuppetry, numerous and incessant violations of WP:Civility and general inability to work with other editors here within the framework of policy, should result in a topic ban. After which we can debate the future of the article itself. My personal preference, despite some reasonable appeals for deletion, is to keep it, regardless of the promotional intent behind its creation, if at all possible (though a thorough review of the claims and sources present will be necessary to establish that it is). But we will need more neutral editors to take custody of it, trim the promotional fat and instill in it a more encyclopedic and informative tone. Snow (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Probably worth noting that there was a sockpuppetry investigation about Jono2013 and 213.66.81.80. here XFEM Skier (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Because the article's creator, Jono2013, with whom you seem to sympathize on every major point, and whose intolerance of criticism to the article you share, notes above that Dr. Ronin owns the bulk of the diagrams and images being used on this page and has granted permission for their use here, and the licensing details for those files reflect as much. So clearly there has been some degree of contact between him and that editor at the least. And given than Jono2013 has absolutely no editorial activity on this project aside from Dr. Ronin's article and this one, it would seem his purposes for being here are fairly narrow. Do note that I made the effort to point out that there is not necessarily anything untoward at work here, even if Dr. Ronin were directly involved (which, I'm also not suggesting); I only pointed out that the situation bears additional scrutiny, especially in the context that every other editor currently involved here aside from yourself seems to have some varying perception that the page is promotional in tone and/or makes many inadequately sourced claims. In any event, it's clear Dr. Ronin has at least been consulted about this page, if only to secure those materials (and if not, they are a copy violation and need to be removed immediately). Snow (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- And one more thing: it might help you to read the two Afds before commenting on sources. Just because a technology was discovered in one university does not mean it cannot be included in Wikipedia. The policy you refer regarding divergence of sources goes to notability. COI goes to author of the Wikipedia page. The fact that there are 4.5 million cubic years of concrete cast in Texas is all you need to know on that score. Because it is all TXDOT. I hope this is the end of that and no more "snap" judgment over an article which has taken hundreds of hours to write with scientific accuracy. I hope this helps 213.66.81.80 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, unfortunately, without valid secondary sourcing, AfD is going to remain an issue with the article indefinitely, due to WP:GNG, amongst other issues. No, of course a technology being developed in one location doesn't preclude it from inclusion on Wikipedia. However, improper sourcing very easily can. Primary sources are not prohibited for all purposes, but they are inappropriate as the sole basis for an article, especially one of this size. They are also precluded if their use involve any kind of editorial synthesis and they have to be given through scrutiny in cases where promotional claims may be at work. Snow (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- And it's not true to say I have not indented. The contentious user keeps ####### with the order of my posts a re-pasting them here there and everywhere. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- And one more thing: I do expect you to back up what is meant by the article having "contentious claims" (as you assert) so that I can explain each and every aspect you think might be. Because there's nothing contentious at all. Except, of course, unless one is allied to the Portland cement industry. Then the article is very very contentious. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your post does not bode well. It completely fails to address the requirement of reliably published third party sources. Concrete covering everything from the Rio Grande to Lake Superior matters naught if no reliable sources have discussed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- As TRPoD has already alluded to, there is already contention here. I think you may be confusing contention as you understand it within your professional circles with how it operates here at Wikipedia. You have made claims in your edits and the veracity of some of those claims has been questioned by another editor. Ergo they are contentious edits; one editor's reservations are all that required to classify them so. The onus is now upon you to defend the verifiability of those claims with valid sourcing. If you cannot do so, policy requires that they be removed. Each such claim is assessed independently and, in this case, that's going to be a laborious task, so it's not going to do any of us any favours if you don't familiarize yourself with Wikipedia standards on such matters so you can defend your contributions on that basis rather than what you believe to be true.Snow (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I said at the 2nd AfD:
"Delete as promotional article for borderline notable subject."
- I tried to rewrite it to decrease the apparently unjustified claims for the novelty and effectiveness of the process, and remove very peripheral material, such as illustrations that did not illuminate the subject, including a picture of a cement laying machine--that happened to be laying EMC, but could just as well have been any form of cement at all, & a picture of sn area where the raw ingredient is found, or a picture of the university where the discovery was made--all of these represent promotional fluff intended to build up an article without contributing information. I tried to cut back on the technical detail, such as multiple micrographs of the material. Overcoverage of a technical subject is promotional, not informative for a general encyclopedia. Including everything that can be found is usually a promotional technique, and usually a giveaway of intent .
- The changes i made were reverted. I concluded that the person writing the page was exhibiting ownership to the extent that . y an appropriate non-promotional article can not be written without discarding this over-detailed article and starting over, as shown by the reverting of even minor changes. I think that deletion is our only practical response to an over-enthusiastic editor who wants to include content beyond the proper reach of an encyclopedia, and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Despite extensive prior discussion, there were then and there are are still no general tertiary sources, just a large number of technical reports and conferences and reports of scattered individual projects using them. . Sources are needed placing this in context of the general subject of cement--none have been added. If the subject were as important as claimed, there would be ,ultiple good such sources, and the ed. involved has had every opportunity and every reason to look for them. Some apparent general sources are there, used uncritically, e.g. "he need for the Portland cement industry to move towards greater sustainability, together with the industry's potential for an adverse impact on climate change, was acknowledged by the industry itself in 2002, via a series of independent studies commissioned via the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) — in which EMC Activation was discussed as a possible route for mitigating the environmental effects of the Portland cement industry." . I do not know the meaning of this--was it discussed, and rejected? was it discussed as one of the minor possibilities that would have some sort of borderline effect? Emphasizing the general problems that a technology or product is intended to solve, with specifically demonstrating that the product does in fact in the real world applications make a significant difference is another standard promotional technique.
- The article also fails NPOV. It presents the advantages of this material. It give no comparative discussion, and the only sources are from its advocates.I have no way of knowing if the subject is as important as claimed. This is exactly characteristic of promotional writing. I intended to propose a topic ban on everyone previously editing the article to permit neutral editing. An ed. who insists on including multiple illustration not relevant to the special nature of this material is too much involved to be editing the article: the evidence is in the arguments here --and see the footnote to the article, explaining why the references show the importance--if they did, the text itself would make it obvious) .
- The ed. involved claims expertise. If he is an expert, let him find proper tertiary sources. A true expert would know them immediately--if they existed. The reason we do not accept claims of expertise here as a justification for special editing prerogatives is perfectly shown by the argumentation in the AfD, in this discussion, in this article, in the failure to find better sources, and in the attack on everyone who proposes changes. All we get is repeated claims about the subject and denunciations of other editors. (I didn't proceed further at the time, as I don't like working against stubborn opposition, especially without support from someone prepared to deal with the technical issues. Now that I see my suspicions about the claims are in fact confirmed by someone who apparently knows the technical issues, that's another matter.)
- I don't think the content problems will be resolved here, because the owning editor has no intention of resolving them. An editor who insists they are the only one who understands the matter can not work within WP, which is a cooperative process. AfD 3 would seem the appropriate course, though a topic ban would be an alternative, and perhaps both are needed. These are apparently the only ways to permit a proper article to be written. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- DGG: I am not going to suckered into accusations of being uncooperative and I have not attacked everyone who proposes changes. Read my talk page. I discussed with FeddHuxtable about his writing the lede. You made a lot of comments in both Afds. You were a minority and you have always been "anti". You were one of four who wanted it deleted as past of the minority that was outnumbered about 10 to one. I have not said I am the only one who understands it. I have said, I have seen no material scientist who understands the various aspects, dispute it. And there is a spectrum of difference.
- I would be pleased for the logic of your assertion that KARL "apparently knows the technical issues". Does it not matter in your thinking that to accuse a science of being FAKE is so very serious?
- On that point, one simple fact alone is enough to dispose of this. 4.5 million cubic years poured by 2010 in TXDOT projects is NEVER ever fake. Because it is all in spec. Every single drop. If this does not make the penny hit home, then you must admit you are so intransigent that there is no point debating.
- Why not go to the Geopolymer_cement page which does need serious work? Or, perhaps you will say that Geopolymer cement is more "noteable" because ...... whatever DGG. The most advanced alternative cementitious material commonly understood is now going to get deleted because..... 20 years' lab and millions of cubic years field results. Can you name anything else that comes close. Because I cannot. Yet "delete" it because of your opinion. Wow. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum to previous:
- I would respectfully suggest that the following posts are by those who do know their subjects? (posted in collapsed section above and drowned-out by Karls irregular edit style). Both by IPs in the UK - one in London, the other in a place called Kendal in the northern England. I responded to the second one, not in writing, but by writing, by including the section on tribochemistry in the "activation" section (which DGG's vote for expert Karl refers to as "Rubber Ducky").
- Lively Discussion
- The discussion page about EMC sparked some lively debate. Two issues worried me. Firstly, one editor appears to comment on a subject they appear to know nothing about and on their profile, appears to be an 18 year old whose main interests are Play Station and computers and not material science. Another commentator appeared to suggest getting a patent is easy. It is not. It takes at least two years and must satisfy the protocol of invention and not just mere development. They also suggested grinding ash with balls is the same as the process invented by Dr Ronin. I think this is an incorrect assertion. Grinding with balls is one thing but surface activation is significantly different. EMC looks interesting and the reduction in CO2 to produce it tonne per tonne in comparison to standard cement warrants serious inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps one day EMC might be the standard and we'll look back at the attempts to have this article removed as the worst example of monocular selective bias.
- 86.144.107.52 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Intrigued
- I am intrigued by this page. It is touching on so many subjects (really so many), some of which are very "cutting edge" such are mechanical effects. Is there any intention to expand the section about the mechanics of the EMC Activation? This would be fitting given the chemistry section already there is very efficient in telling a complicated subject rather nicely in my p.o.v.
- Maybe the contributors could consider the question above and write something soon?
- 2.25.161.201 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2014
- None of which is the least bit relevant to a policy discussion here. On Wikipedia we do not report what our editors think, feel, or even know for a fact to be be true. We report what reliable sources say on the matter, and as accurately as possible, even when those sources make claims that we disagree with or fail to make the points we want them to. We are certainly not here to compare purported credentials amongst IP editors. Nor are editors barred from editing or commenting upon subjects for which they are not accredited, nor indeed for being young or liking playstation... You have been asked many times now to keep this discussion focused upon policy and not what you perceive the facility or motives of the involved editors to be, and to familiarize yourself, at least in a rudimentary way, with said policies and the editing processes they describe to facilitate that discussion. I don't know how I feel about DGG's AfD suggestion, but I do know that every time you post I become a little more convinced that you lack the neutrality and editorial perspective necessary to be involved in this article. Snow (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Let's be clear Snow. I am pointing out aspects which might be useful for consideration. Not engaging with you in so so can chide me.
- May be we should we go to arbcom? For very clear guidance. And it is not as if I asked. I even asked TRPoD before xmas about balancing important issues of Original Research - and did he have the courtesy to offer me guidance? No. He does not offer guidance, or a "helping hand". My posts are on his talk page before xmas. A matter of RECORD. So let's not get the "cannot collaborate" sticker on top of everything else "larded up".
- I would really like to have a debate at Arbcom how it is someone can make bogus comments. Grave ones about serious science being FAKE and how you (for example) "get swept away" into deleting the article. Maybe we all need to learn when an editor should exercise self restraint. Especially in expert subjects. I really would. Dont you want to know? Don't you think it is important? How a single purpose account can make claims science is FAKE and you (for example) get "swept away" by it all?
- Or am over-simplifying? Why not ask Karl a "technical question". Let's see the response. I'm more than happy to take the Pepsi challenge. And so is he apparently. So what is everyone waiting for? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you confusing issues here. The key issues is that most readers/editors are believe that this looks like a promotional article that is not allowed on WP. That is issue number one with the article. I am all for getting the science right but the article reads like ad copy not a wikipedia article. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello! To anyone who wants to ask me technical questions about anything, I will be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. I do not, however, want to "butt" into the discussion here. Thank you. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- we are not here to discuss the product. we are here to compile what the reliably published third party sources have stated about the subject and present it in an appropriately encyclopedic manner representing all major academic viewpoints about the subject. Anything that is not directly related to that purpose must stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Go for it Karl... 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Why this article should be rewritten or merged with the Portland cement article[edit]
Hello!
Snow Rise said: :...one editor has more relevant arguments..." I am flattered that anyone has even noticed. I was going to write something longer, but since almost the entire Talk Page that I was going to reference has been deleted, my response will be shorter. (Yes I am sorry, but, as several have pointed out, I am a novice editing Wikipedia. My entire writing on Wikipedia, the last several years, including posts to the the single talk page I previously contributed to, probably did not amount to even half of an 8 1/2 x ll inch page, until this. I have made, apparently, many formatting errors.)
Here is what I consider the main problems with this article:
- 1. The article gives no coherent, rational explanation of the EMC process, something crucially needed. (If you look at previous edits of the Talk Page, before it's deletion in the History section, I have repeatedly asked (as have other users) the person claiming to have written this, to put in such an explanation, unsuccessfully.)
- 2. Links are very weak. Links that reference well known facts about cements, are probably adequate. However, almost all the links actually "proving" the EMC process, go only to one company/person, that is featured prominently in the article. This is, of course, inappropriate. In science you need outside confirmation of any research, especially of something that makes as many fantastic claims, as EMC does. (For those with knowledge of cements and concretes, the claims ARE indeed fantastic. For the casual reader, this is probably not as apparent.)
- 3. Important facts are left out, (such as #1, above), trivial facts are talked about at length, facts about subjects only weakly associated with EMC, are talked about at length, etc. The length of the article should probably be reduced by 2/3's, or be made a sub-section of the existing article on Portland cement, since EMC is a type of Portland cement (a topic I again talked about at length, on the now deleted Talk Page, and which the claimed writer has both confirmed, and then denied.)
- 4. The article still reads like a thinly disguised commercial advertisement. The fact that almost all the links "proving" the EMC process, go to one company/person, featured prominently in the article, does not promote the neutral objectivity of Wikipedia. (Again, I talked about this at length, on the now deleted Talk Page.)
- 5. The article is very poorly written. Some sections barely mention what the title of the section suggests they should. The article is arranged in no coherent order. It's just a mess! Contrast this with the well written article on Portland cement, on Wikipedia.
Again, on the now deleted Talk Page, I refuted numerous, wrong scientific claims the writer made, at great length, in simple language that anyone can understand. If you are interested in this, please go the History section of the Talk Page, to see this. Since he has claimed to have written almost the entire article, this does not bode well for the accuracy of the science in the article.
I do not claim to be a Saint, or an angel. I have been angered by many unsubstantiated accusations he has made about me (such as those in his comments above). I have let my temper get the best of me, sometimes. However, I have always done my best to keep the conversation primarily about the science, or the article. I have not always succeeded. Again, I am sorry for this.
Hopefully, this has been helpful to you. I welcome, neutral, unbiased input on anything that I have said.
Thank you.
Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- EMC is quite notable, and deserving of its own article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Aunva6: Please provide some reliably published third party sources that will demonstrate that it is "quite notable, and deserving of its own article". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)\
- ok, you're right. i should have given a source. [1] and [2]. scholarly articles.-- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your second link does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XFEM Skier (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- oh, i didn't even try it out, lol. here's another from ebsco [3] -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Part of the concern over references is that Ronin one of the authors of that paper is the inventor and really the majority of sources on EMC come from him. While the one you gave is a peer reviewed journal a number of them are not. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- oh, i didn't even try it out, lol. here's another from ebsco [3] -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your second link does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XFEM Skier (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- ok, you're right. i should have given a source. [1] and [2]. scholarly articles.-- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Aunva6: Please provide some reliably published third party sources that will demonstrate that it is "quite notable, and deserving of its own article". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)\
What do you expect? Ronin discovered the process. He is the "doyenne" of EMCs. And many of the "Ronin" sources are co-written among others by Lennart Elfgren who is a very noted academic on bridge construction (among others), and with Justnes of SINTEF. But there are not only secondary sources, but tertiary source. There are source dealing with the noted environmetal benefits, which as been wiped in 2 minutes. This is not just about the process of EMCs it is about 20 years of the subject. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I expect that vibrant research topics have numerous papers about the subject that are not tied to the original author especially if it is 20 year old. This is pretty much how research is judged in academia. XFEM Skier (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I did not "delete" a talk page--I removed a lengthy comment that was a. too personal and b. totally not organized according to talk page guidelines. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello!
- I believe that there is a simple misunderstanding, here. Nowhere did I say, that you, Drmies, deleted the talk page. From the edit history, you seem to have deleted a single comment/section. However,if you look at the "Contents" area at the top of the page, it shows 23 different sections. Now, only two sections remain, "22 Let's reign in the acrimony", and "23 Why this article should be rewritten or merged with the Portland cement article". I do not know where the other 20 sections went. I simply commented on their absence.
- Hope this was helpful.
- Karl
- PS- I'm afraid my inexperience at editing here shows again. Next to this comment above, "No one is going to read or pay attention to any of this. Start fresh and concise below", is a [show] button. If it is not clicked, though, the Talk Page will only show sections starting with Section 22. I did not notice this button, before. Sorry for my mistake. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
ok, i used the highlight function of my browser's pagesearch, and there are not that many refs that have the same source, going by the citation information, the most is a dozen by the cemconres, and only 5 by ronin. that isn't to say that it doesn't need a rewrite, but the reasoning is different. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Advert banner[edit]
The issue is not the publisher of the information. Elsevier and other academic journal publishers are not the issue. The issue is that all sources on EMC are from LTU and more specifically the author Ronin. He is the inventor and appears to be the owner of the company that makes it although I don't have a solid source on the matter (LinkedIn is not a reliable source). I can find no other sources that use the term "energetically modified cement" or "EMC". So I have replaced the banner. Feel free to discuss if you disagree, but in general the sources of the meat of the article are from one author and he is associated with the product. That plus the prose leads me to feel that the banner is appropriate. XFEM Skier (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- umm... what? they are not, from what I can see. [4] is a secondary source, it cites other research. there are plenty of DOT resources, and several other academic sources, not from LTU. there is even one from egypt, of all places. i think you're over generalizing. perhaps some of the ronin authored ones are used a tad too much, but there are plenty of other sources that are not even swiss, nor affiliated with LTU or ronin. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- And most of those sources do not talk about EMC. All the fantastic claims are based on Ronin work. A lot of the other sources simply say things like we need to get better about CO2 and concrete. If you look closely at most of the claims they fall to Ronin sources from what I remember, I tried to read a few of the non-Ronin sources and they don't support much of what is said on he talk page or in the article. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- perhaps. this stuff DOES exist, and is common enough that mn/dot stated in a fly ash base test, that fly ash modified cement can't be used for roads due to durability concerns, but where to find the sources, is the real hard part. it's a shame, this wasn't too badly written, but i guess it wasn't sourced well enough. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, my perspective, gentlemen, is that this is one of those situations where we aren't going to make much progress focusing on a broad categorization of the sources. If we're going to preserve this article using the current content, it's going to be a section-by-section, source-by-source, claim-by-claim process. An alternative approach suggested by several editors -- reducing the article to as stub and starting over, evaluating which sources are really appropriate in policy terms and what weight they give to particular claims as we go -- is also possibility. I usually loath that approach, but I have to admit that I am slowly being won over to the idea that, in this particular case, it may be the more expedient, clean, and stable solution. Well, aside from the fact that one specific editor is likely to go super nova if we opt for that route; still we have to consider the proposal on its own merits, and not allow our approach to be dictated by such attitudes. We have an admin observing now, so if necessary, that factor will be removed. Snow (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- perhaps. this stuff DOES exist, and is common enough that mn/dot stated in a fly ash base test, that fly ash modified cement can't be used for roads due to durability concerns, but where to find the sources, is the real hard part. it's a shame, this wasn't too badly written, but i guess it wasn't sourced well enough. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- And most of those sources do not talk about EMC. All the fantastic claims are based on Ronin work. A lot of the other sources simply say things like we need to get better about CO2 and concrete. If you look closely at most of the claims they fall to Ronin sources from what I remember, I tried to read a few of the non-Ronin sources and they don't support much of what is said on he talk page or in the article. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
XFM Skier: What do you mean "fantastic claims"? Will you curb pejorative language? 4.5 MILLION cubic yards for TXDOT? I spent an hour writing to you last week. I thought you said you were an expert???? How can you possibly use a pejorative term like "fantastic" when 4.5 million have been cast in spec for a formal DOT? Do you understand the meaning of the word "in spec"? Have you EVER worked on a real U.S. civil engineering project ? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- How many times, by how many parties, and over how long a period of time do you need to be told that an editor's technical expertise (and especially your personal assessment of a lack thereof) has ZERO bearing on whether they are allowed to comment on the quality of sources before you accept it as a reality? Because that point has been stressed to you perhaps dozens of times by many different editors over the course of nearly a year. Your continuing to make these comments (and in a combative, patronizing and altogether uncivil tone, no less) is winning no one over to your way of thinking. All it serves is to underscore how you have proven, after all this time, incapable of adjusting in the slightest to the rules of argumentation and decorum that this project operates by and that you believe your "superior" perspective should be weighted heavier than all others. But it won't; point in fact, after all of the bridges you have burned here, there's certainly not another editor present whose opinion on matters of content, policy and process are going to weighted lower -- I feel very confident saying that.
- Now, an admin has already "suggested" to you that you back away from this topic, and who knows why I keep trying to stop you from digging your own grave here, but I'm going to give you one last good-faith effort of a warning -- keep ignoring civility standards refusing to learn and operate by our content evaluation standards and that suggestion is certain to turn into a formal topic ban, from one administrator or another. Stop bringing red herrings and arguments from authority into this discussion. It is getting us nowhere. Of course, your purposes in these comments is perfectly obviously obstruction of efforts at changing the article which you do not care for, and it's clear you were given a wide berth by editors trying to clean this article up who didn't feel they had the energy to grapple with you over every little element, so you can be forgiven for developing the perception that this kind of behaviour would serve your ends. But that time is done; you can trust me on that. Editors have taken an interest now who have reviewed the breadth of your behaviour and hostility towards policy, including editors and administrators who concentrate their efforts on Wikipedia upon violation of policy and habitually unruly parties. They won't go away just because this article isn't worth bickering over to them; they're involved because of you, not any attachment to the subject matter. So keep it up, if you like, but remember that you'll have no one to blame but yourself when end up unable to contribute to this article, or possibly the project, at all. Snow (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- So from what you write, the pejorative term "fantastic" means nothing in your lexicon of adjudication and can be used without qualification. I do not assume XFM skier has no expertise. He told me he had expertise and that is why I am flabbergasted. I am allowed to state that aren't I? I mean this is a debate - or are you suggesting I am censored?
- XFM Skier stated he has expertise. I didn't say that. He did. Now either he does or he doesn't. But to claim one has it and then not to have it, is not something I understand. What does 4.5 million cubic yards of concrete poured 'in spec' for TXDOT mean (for a hint see next section)?
- BTW, I find the word "digging of graves" sinister and ask you to refrain from such language. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are you really going to try to pretend that this was not meant to denigrate his expertise and question his right to contribute?:
- "I thought you said you were an expert???? ... Do you understand the meaning of the word "in spec"? Have you EVER worked on a real U.S. civil engineering project ?"'
- And it is hardly as if this is an isolated incident. You have hundreds of talk contributions which utilize exactly this kind of vitriolic, disparaging language over the last year. It is, in fact, the defining trait of your editorial style in discussion and your regard for other editors when their opinions differ from yours. Nor is it the case that you have not been informed that this is inappropriate -- many editors in fact have stressed this point to at great length. Not that anyone should have to tell you not to talk to others in that fashion, least of all when you are trying to collaborate with a large group of people.
- And "digging your own grave" is a common English idiom; it means simply that you are working against your own interests. It has no sinister connotations whatsoever -- it is used when you are suggesting someone is acting as their own biggest obstacle. Normally I'd pass on comment on such a misinterpretation by a non-native English speakers on such a matter, but I don't really think this is a comprehension issue for you, and I'll not have you turn this into the newest entry in your habitual efforts to cast yourself as the victim on the most asinine of pretexts after being called out for uncivil behaviour. That behaviour is well-catalogued at this point too. Snow (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not English. I'm Swedish. So you can keep you common English idiom where it belongs. I am not going engage in your ad hominem attacks on me (for ex. by generalizations, --> no way have I "hundreds"). If you are alluding to Jono2013 then I am not Jono2013 and I consider this conversation over and nothing to do with you. He did not have anything like my technical knowledge and lived in ENGLAND. Further, I have important business trip which will take me away for a month in the far east on Monday, and I do not have all the time in the world right now - and these 'personalized exchanges you insist on are not anywhere near a priority. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Egregious Deletions on the Page[edit]
I have written large sections of this page. 22,000 bytes were wiped in 2 mins, including because a picture, an important picture, was "unreferenced". Well, it only became "un-referenced" because of previous edits made beforehand by another non expert who removed all the captions under the picture.
So a non expert removes, for another to further remove the entire picture. But guess, what the reference IS there! But of course, the non expert who removed 22,000 bytes does not have the expertise to see it.
And this is what happens. Absolute madness and vandalism. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- like I said, just relax, let other editors handle it, but i'll take a look. images don't need a source, anyways. keep in mind, wikipedia is, for the vast majority, not written by experts. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I hope this helps:
- UNTREATED "Class F" fly ash is NOT precluded from for ex. TXDOT. But all "Class C" fly ash IS precluded from TXDOT specs (and a lot of other US DOTs) because of its high Calcium Oxide content.
- So, an EMC made from "Class F" is "In spec" if the concrete it produces meets stipulated performance characteristics AND provided that the DOT has 'changed its rules to ALLOW the EMC to be part of its project specifications.
- So, that means not only does the cement produce a concrete that performs as required, but what is more, the DOT is SO convinced of it, it actually changes it rules.
- Because of EMC Activation (now deleted in 2 minutes flat as part of the 22,000 vandalism), the EMC made from "Class F" Fly ash is able to replace UPWARDS of 2.5 times the amount of raw fly ash. Indeed, so much so, that Portland cement becomes the minority cemntitious material in the concrete.
- And yet XFM Skier uses the word "fantastic", when as I explained to him last weekend, it is all "in spec". TXDOT spec. Wow. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Read the TXDOT fly ash spec for you. ([5]). It says that you can grind fly ash with cement. It specifies nothing about EMC activation or even mechanical activation that other papers refer to. Note that 4.5 million cu yd of concrete could be somewhere like 26 miles of 3 lane (each direction) highway, depending on slab thickness, while that is not nothing. I am pretty sure Texas has a few more miles of highway then that. Additionally there is no source that is truly peer reviewed even about its industrial use. XFEM Skier (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry this is long, but I am trying to meet your comments.
- First: I beg your pardon? 26 miles? The entire Hoover dam was less than 4.5 million cubic yards. The dam was 3.3 million and with the rest, 4.3 million, that "would pave a standard highway 16 feet wide, from San Francisco to New York City". See, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/damfaqs.html
- "How much concrete is in the dam?
- Three and one-quarter million cubic yards. There are 4,360,000 cubic yards of concrete in the dam, powerplant and appurtenant works. This much concrete would build a monument 100 feet square and 2-1/2 miles high; would rise higher than the 1,250-foot-tall Empire State Building if placed on an ordinary city block; or would pave a standard highway 16 feet wide, from San Francisco to New York City."
- And you are right, the TXDOT doc you refer says nothing about EMC Activation expressly because it is an open standard. But page 4.4 says it all, to a certain degree. You need also to see the amendments made to 1993 specs re section 421 in 2004, which I was given at a lecture in 2006 whereby it was said that EMC had caused the said changes. There, you must replace OPC by at least 33% (i,e., that is NOT ground raw fly ash - which at best gives 25% and even then one is likely cheating by adding calcium oxide or heavy amounts of admixtures). But (significantly) it allows upto 50% Portland cement replacement.
- But the replacement ratio actually has been improved since to 70% and what is more significant, the doc link I sent you confirms conformity with 120 grade GGBFS. And you know the price of 120 grade GGBFS? Here it is again: http://www.emccement.com/pdf/EMC_Technical_Info_CemPozz_FA_ex.pdf
- So you get replacements using an SCM which correlates with 120 grade GGBFS (but using fly ash) Do you see the significance?
- And the same document you see some of the actual TXDOT project records - confirming what? Yes! In spec. Look at the 7D and 28D strength developments...
- Peer reviewed? The hard facts are if your pour does not meet up, it is rejected. Period. But, you can read more here: http://www.emccement.com/pdf/EMC_InFocus_ex.pdf - and no it is not "peer reviewed" but it is published in the U.S. premier flagship publication for the U.S National Ready Mix Association. And it is discussing the (then) 3 years experience of TXDOT applications.
- But what I find also significant are the results from natural pozzolans, because for California the implications could be tremendous - because while it lacks fly ash (because of hydro power etc), it is nevertheless "overwhelmed" with Natural Pozzolans, whereas its limestone reserves for Portland cement production are depleting - yes?
213.66.81.80 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your fixation on some concrete poured in Texas is bizarre and has no relevance as to whether this article meets the requirements for existing at all or on what content is or is not appropriate for the article. Please do us all (including yourself) a favor and drop it and stick to content from reliably published third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
See next section 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Response to TRPoD[edit]
This is written largely in response to TKProD, and I do not have the time to keep "on and on" because I am going away on business to the far east for a month. So, I hope what follows will be carefully considered:
Let's keep language unbiased and clinical. Words like "fixation" and "bizarre", give the impression of strong bias. And no I will not "drop it" because it it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck... and I will explain why.
- Do you have a third party academic reference to include an "orange" on Wikipedia. Or maybe "Enskede" in Stockholm for example? Or maybe you need primary secondary and tertiary sources (many times over) to include (say) a knife? Can you imagine:
- Academics in northern Sweden have finally confirmed what we have all known for hundreds of years: the existence of the knife. But closes source to the discovery state that this cannot be added to Wikipedia until this has been independently verified and then that independent verification published in another publication AND THEN in a third publication. So until then although it is a knife but we cannot officially confirm its existence for the purposes of Wikipedia"
- In other words, Do you need a primary secondary, tertiary source to confirm the existence of things before it can be included onto Wikipedia? The TXDOT documents show EMCs are real. Period.
- Or is this a "notability" debate? Because that is done with. 2 Afds, 10 to 1 in favor, proves it. The sources were discussed there. Or is this an AfD "by the back door"?
- Indeed, what exactly is this debate about? Is it about whether the science is FAKE and REFUTED. Are you giving succor to KARL? Because if you are, then to claim (as he did) the science is FAKE and REFUTED (in CAPS many times over) requires evidence. STRONG evidence.
If you are going to de-bunk legitimate serious, credible, proven science, that has been used to cast more concrete (by 2010) than the entire Hoover dam, in official TXDOT projects THEN, you need evidence, really strong evidence to claim that such science is FAKE and REFUTED. Period. How do Americans say it "the proof is in the pudding". Put it simply: field results ARE the pudding.
Which is precisely why Karl changed the final section of the Article from:
- By September 2010, over 4,500,000 cu yd (3,440,496 m3) of concrete made from EMC had been poured in such large scale projects.[10] To place this into context, that is more than the entire construction of the Hoover Dam, its associated power plants and appurtenant works, where a total of 4,360,000 cu yd (3,333,459 m3) of concrete was poured — enough to pave a standard U.S. highway, 16 feet (4.9 m) wide, from San Francisco to New York City.[69]
To this biased BS:
- By 2010 the 18 years cumulative total of EMC concrete made was over 4,500,000 cu yd (3,440,496 m3). The US Government puts worldwide concrete production at 3,500,000,000 cubic yards yearly.[60] This eighteen years worth of production of EMC, represents, then, approximately 0.13% of one year's worldwide production of normal concrete; making EMC a small niche specialty concrete product.
Deliberately, so that people would MISS the significance.
In the meantime, 22,000 bytes were removed last night, some which comprises not only secondary but tertiary sources. So if your secondary and tertiary sources are so important to you, you know where to go? Or is this to become a case of "ever decreasing circles" to "game the system"?? You tell me. Or, maybe it's okay to remove tertiary and secondary sources in 2 minutes flat when there's a discussion going on precisely because on that topic?
I note that I took 2.5 months off from this page. I hoped you were going to respond to my request for assistance that I posted way before xmas. You didn't. Upon my return, I started improving the section on EMC Activation to meet a talk page comment to add extra detail. I started that on March 1. The VERY NEXT day, the attacks on the page (by Karl) started, that culminated in the above dreadful edit that is technically wrong anyhow. And for an encyclopedia to be technically WRONG is just cardinal sin #1.
Simply: One cannot "cheat" science, and the proof of that is "in the pudding". TXDOT pudding. 4.5 million cubic yard of TXDOT pudding
And that is why as a court would say, Karl has "failed to prove any aspects" of his wild claims. Because the onus is, and should have always been, on him when he was attacking an article that had been through 2 AFds precisely on the notability point. And won ---- TEN to ONE. As a matter of record.
213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes we DO require and have third party sources for both Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit). And the fact that the articles for the various Enskede articles might not currently is 1) a factor that Wikipedia considers inhabited geographic areas inherently notable 2) a sign that the various Enskede need some TLC and not a sign that other articles should be created or maintained without third party sources because the Enskede articles dont have good sourcing (yet) . (The specific Orange and Enskede pages do not have sources of any kind because they are not "articles" they are navigation pages that help guide readers to the topic they are seeking)
- If you look and read our various content policies, you will see over and over that the mere existence of something and or our personal knowledge of something does not matter and content created by the creator matters very little. What matters to Wikipedia is what third party sources have said about the subject. No matter how much cement has been laid in Texas, its completely irrelevant to anything within Wikipedia until a third party has documented it.
- I hope you enjoy your next 2.5 months away from Wikipedia, and what looks like your longer stay away from concrete related topics. When you come back I hope that you are willing to attempt to understand and follow Wikipedia's content and behavior guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the second AfD. There is all the arguments of secondary and tertiary sources discussed. And the field results are TXDOT records, which shows it has been documented. By LAW it has to be documented. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Can provide links to that documentation. All I see is un-reviewed promotional documents from the company to back up this claim. Yes I am aware that TXDOT has records of concrete pours, but saying there are records and providing links to those records are different thing. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- TXDOT documents about a concrete pour, in my opinion would be fine. They are legal contract documents, and would actually be a record of an engineer documenting someone else placing concrete in general. There would be things like bill of ladings and stuff that while sort of primary are generally accurate and would support the claims in my opinion. Maybe other disagree, but the key is that someone other then the company would be saying this happened. TXDOT has not horse in this race, they want good concrete cheaply and not much more. XFEM Skier (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes you are right, in simple terms, TXDOT wants concrete that performs to be in spec - no idea about price. This may further assist you:
- Bill of ladings are not required for legal compliance at all - rather mix specifications and various other requirements such as "slump". I believe the the final pages of [[6]], at pp11-14, (14-16 of the pdf) covers recordal information for official legal purposes for the sake of TXDOT legal compliance:
- Record the mix-design specs (stated in sacks, or SK), with slump, air entrainment requirements etc, and records the actual test 7D and 28D and records the required 7D and 28D. As you may know, these test have to be independent labs.
- The final page says in one column "Testing Soon Oct 2010" approx 150,000 cubic yards. This makes it clear everything was tested for conformity.
- See also here: US Federal Highways Administration (USFWA) discussion (scroll to bottom): [[7]]. See also reference to Klemens, T. 2004. "Another Mix Option: Portland Cement Substitute Yields Economic, Environmental, and Durability Benefits." The Concrete Producer, January 2004 (Klemens was referenced in the article)
- See invite to USFHWA presentation, written by USFHWA: [[8]]
- I hope this assists. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Another thing I forgot to add in my observations of the records - the name of the concrete contractor is also recorded (first column). As you will see, there are many concrete contrators. This is because a cement supplier does not directly contract with the instigating project holder, rather it supplies to the various independent third party organisations who are responsible for the pours. That is further third party verification, because the contractor is independent to the cement producer. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I hope this helps:
- XFM Skier: these not promotional documents. I suggest we "cut away" the "fancy covers", and deal with the substantives.
- (i) They comprise technical documents (confirming conformity using independent lab testing). That's clear I think.
- (ii) Second, the TXDOT records are private (no doubt used by permission - but you should email the company and check if you wish) that are not publicly available.
- As you hopefully have seen, the other link I sent you was the Concrete Infocus article written by Ronin and Elfgren (Elfgren is a leading civil engineer/material science academic who specialize in bridges).
- Wikimedes: It is not required to have ALL information referenced in an article to have "reliable secondary sources". We are not dealing with a notability issue. Only when there is a notability issue is there a requirement to consider if there are such additional sources (but even then one has to look at the entirety of the article). As I keep saying notability was covered in both Afds. But even then, interpretations differed wildly. Indeed, one person's interpretation of being able to meet "notability" was to require 1000 citations --- and that was quickly dispensed with. And the consensus over both Afds was that this is "notable". The decision for inclusion was approx. 10 to 1.
- Rather, what we are talking about here is whether the claims made in the article are referenceable. And every sentence is referenced (or was lol).
- "Notability" and inclusion of a reference into an article are two entirely separate considerations. The former is much more stringent. As I said, the consensus over both Afds was that this was "notable". The decision for inclusion was approx. 10 to 1.
- 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Energetically modified cement vs. Mechanically activated cements[edit]
I wonder if one of the issues with the promotional part comes from the fact that EMC is a brand name and that research not directly associated with LTU or the company actually refer to it as mechanical activation (doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.05.005 & doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.019). It seems to be sort of like the Kleenex vs facial tissues issue and might be part of why it seems extra promotional. XFEM Skier (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there:
- From what I read the brand name is "Cempozz". But I think what you have said is a VERY valid point - because I have never understood where the "promotional" items are on the page. It is literally being stated as cold facts. There are several items which do not help, but history is history. They are in my view:
- The effects are so "remarkable" to the first-time reader it seems "fantastic". Even you said it yourself :)
- a general "armchair lawyer belief" that a novice thinks they know what a cement is, when often they cant even distinguish between a cement and a concrete. This means that what is a complex subject is not seen as one and therefore deletions are made without any care for destroying precision.
- Ronin is not only inventor but "doyenne". He is the world-leading authority. Which is why it is good he has never been involved here. And by the way this means his work qualifies under the special exception of being able to rely on his work as reference on wikipedia. TRPoD has missed that rule.
- The main research is all LTU - but not surprising because of extreme cold weather and annual temperature ranges in the year, with high high diurnal ranges in the summer.
- The company is named after it. But what can you do except make no mention of the company, no mention of commercialization etc??? I even removed any reference that a patent had been granted.
- The Term is academically accepted for over 20 years. You are right, it is mechanical activation --- or much precisely "tribo-chemical". Which is why I am this is huge pity the entire section on EMC Activation has been wiped because tat was developed over several months to meet concerns/desires of readers.
- The real point is this is now in its third decade. The main research is done proven, tried and test. The next "phase" is therefore the field results - and making new discoveries on a Global scale along the way.
- This is way I was very pleased with Jono2013's work on the self-healing insert, which until recently featured preeminently on the page, and then because of all this fandango, was reduced and marginalized and then entirely removed. Why? Because not only does it make the reader think "wow I never knew it" but it captures what is the "next wave" of research.
- Hence this page was really "cutting edge". You only have to look at the recent publications from the Japanese Concrete Institute for confirmation. And this was a very exciting project to work on because on the whole material sciences in Wikipedia is crap.
- But all the skit I have have to take over this past month - ever since I modified the page to include more info on EMC Activation? Well, it has killed it for me. I am now the second author being "driven off".
- This is in the third decade. No one was sitting round thinking "Oh I must come up with a name that is going to be acceptable on Wikipedia". In 1992, everything was "ping-pong" dial-ups let alone Wikipedia was a wet dream. Besides which Wikipedia must reflect reality and not the other way around cause an effect whereby reality is shifted so that it's needs come first.
- It is what it is and its EMC. I would think that at the rate they were pouring in Texas, the total pour is now in excess of 10 million maybe closer to 15 million cubic yards. Who knows because I only have the info I can get off the web. But it is a remarkable achievement in cement technology terms.
- Kind regards :213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- PS: This is the only cementitious material that has the potential to be the real "game changer" in 200 years since Portland cement and why Jono2013 was passionate because I think he saw Lord Stern discuss it at a lecture in London at the London School of Economics. I am guessing, as Jono2013 never told me just where and how he ever heard of it, and I was stupid for not asking when we met in Stockholm --- but that is the only "London" connection from what I see. But that reference to Stern has been removed too. And then you get people again questioning third party reference etc., all again. It just never stops.
- It is what it is according to Ronin, but it seems to be not that when referred to by other people. Exactly what shows it further reaches is the same thing that shows that EMC is not the name others call it. A scholarly search for "energetically modified cement" returns only sources by Ronin. A regular web search does pretty much the same. Hence why there are skeptics among us. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well here's the point - one can call it what you want - you can give it a brand name, you can give it another name - you can call it "activated fly ash" but the simple point is that it was discovered in 1992 in Sweden. The Hasanbeigi reference is basically a re-hash of this [of this here] and at page two you will what is mentioned. The other two methods under the "mechanical activation" (ultrasonic commutation and plasma commutation) are not EMCs. The Kumar reference cited by you is there too. But the Kumar paper is 15 years later, and essentially dodging the bullet, by using a term which deflects from the fact that what they have done is make EMC using GGBFS (and of course there are good reasons for such deflection e.g. "academic" kudos of giving the impression one has done something different. But of course, this does not mean it has any real credibility as such). I think it would be accurate to say in the article that for example, studies elsewhere have also synthesized EMCs but anything more than that, I think would be hard to justify and may be disputed by Kumar for his own reasons (e.g. Kudos).
- For ex, there is work at LTU on mechanical activation of other compounds, in this case the is there is no claim to it being an EMC, the point being that it is quite obvious why not - here were a looking at the mechanical of Haematite: [[9]]. This confirms tribochemical effects which was denounced as FAKE etc. etc. (in caps) and "rubber ducky" by user:71.33.155.41 in his TLDRs.
- Now, I was the only one "joining the dots" and asserting "mechano-activation" for what it is. You look at Kumar, it would not say it, nor any of Ronin's work. You have to have more of a "helicopter view" to see things for what they are, and then try not to foul the OR rule. Which is why the section on Tribochemistry was very carefully and precisely worded - because I thought about it for 2.5 months before finally committing to it in a way that I felt made sense to give an "underlying tour" of the more fundamentalist science. But all these "cares" and careful considerations, have been deleted anyhow. As part of the 32,000 bytes wiped in 2 mins because everyone is convinced it is "promotional". And as a result the EMC Activation section has been entirely deleted. And that is why the "joy" of making this a great science page is gone for me.
This entire page is much more specialist that people recognize and as a result, Im not sure any page covering any such subject belongs here. I used to be a firm advocate of improving Wikipedia with this content. But I am thinking the science is too special and "wowwing" to be here. I mean one person on the AfD compared it to "cold fusion". And until Wikipedia becomes more receptive to "interesting science" then I do wonder if is the right place. One user implored Jono2013 to not pursue it, and write a blog instead. Despite many hours of work, in believing otherwise, sadly I wonder if that user was right.
You design bridges - yes?
Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- If other high activation grinding methods are not EMC then EMC is just a commerical product and not really a class of materials. That is like saying the Kleenex is a class of paper products when it is really just a name associated with a class of paper products called facial tissues. So either this article is about science i.e. high activation grinding of cementious materials or is about a commerical product. It cannot really be both as you insist is has to be.
- I don't design bridges. I do computational modeling of fracture as my user page very clearly says. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Rewording for clarity[edit]
The original sentence: Using pozzolans in concrete provides a number of chemical pathways whereby porous (reactive) Portlandite is transformed into a number of hard and impermeable (relatively non-reactive) compounds, rather than producing the porous and soft relatively reactive calcium carbonate produced using ordinary concrete.[13]
Suggested edit: Pozzolan containing concrete differs from ordinary concrete in that it enables porous (reactive) Portlandite to be transformed into a number of hard and impermeable (relatively non-reactive) compounds. Whereas, the Portlandite in concrete that does not include pozzolans is transformed into calcium carbonate, which is soft and relatively more reactive.[13]Cafezz (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like a reasonable change to me, though, syntactically/grammatically the first clause needs to read as either "Pozzolan-containing concrete differs" or "Concrete containing pozzolan differs"; I strongly favour the second version for clarity. Snow (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments, and Request for Brief Summary[edit]
I see that there is yet another thread at WP:ANI about this article. On the one hand, it is true that this article has an overly promotional tone. On the other hand, the amount of anger and hostility both in support of the article content and against the article content is absurd and excessive. Dial it down.
Can each of the posters who have provided walls of text provide a 'one-or-two-paragraph summary of their case and what they want done to fix the article? If the same wall-of-text posters provide wall-of-text summaries again, I will assume that they have no case and are merely ranting.
I will comment that, in my opinion, there are only reasons why this exaggerated drama has continued so long. First, the article doesn't get a lot of attention. If it got more attention, after this many threads at the noticeboards, someone would file an ArbCom case. Second, the other reason why this drama has continued is that the current ArbCom is problematically stalled on two other cases that generated too many dramafests.
Keep the summaries of the issues short. Dial down both the level and the amount of rhetoric. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- i think it's being resolved fairly adequately, going section by section. the 213 ip user was topic-banned. the other has toned it down, and the troubles with drama seem to be over. (we can hope, at least). i think the root issue, however, is the sources, as explained above. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello!
- Robert McClenon said: "...provide a 'one-or-two-paragraph summary..."
- I did this, way back at the beginning of the heated debate; which I placed on the Talk Page. (I figured out the process weeks ago, probably the day after I read the article here.) I, cannot, though, write anything for the article itself, because I can't find #@$%!% proper sources.
- I have found primary research papers from: India, 2 Czech papers (in English), 1 from the middle east (in English), another from eastern Europe (in English), (surprisingly, none from the US, yet). None of these can be used as references on Wikipedia. I found another Ronin, et al, paper he presented at a symposium, but, this again, is primary research, and I can't use it (this is actually annoying, as, surprisingly, it gave the clearest explanation of the process out of the papers I have read). The only peer reviewed source that exists so far, is one of the Ronin papers already referenced in the article.
- "Mechanical activation" or "Mechanically activated" appears to be winning the race as to what researchers have called it; but I don't think that there is a consensus name, yet, for this process.
- Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- technically, some primary sources are OK, but anything contentious needs secondary sources. the exact language is "reliable sources". secondary sources are always preferred, however. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. Eventually we are going to need some decent secondary sources for the sake of WP:Notability itself or it will likely not survive its next AfD. For the present time though, with regards to putting the article into shape, primary sources will suffice so long as any claims they support very strictly avoid any kind of synthesis. Finding that line here is going to be difficult with the vagueries of the present sources, and significant portions of the article will probably have to be removed for the present time because they were added by an editor making no attempt to make them consistent with WP:V, but primary sources, especially of the peer-review variety, can support anything non-controversial that involves no synthesis. Snow (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- technically, some primary sources are OK, but anything contentious needs secondary sources. the exact language is "reliable sources". secondary sources are always preferred, however. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello!
- Snow said: :...non-controversial that involves no synthesis...
- Boy, I don't know if that is possible. While I could write a section on the Talk Page, explaining the process, I would mostly quote primary sources, AND, would have to draw conclusions, to boot, to make it understandable. Because of my previous heated debate, I am most reluctant to do this, as I would likely be considered the least: objective, neutral, or unbiased editor here.
- In order to be helpful to others, if there is general consensus on this, I would be willing to write an explanation of the process, that I would ONLY post on the Talk Page. I guarantee, it would not be up to Wikipedia standards in any way, shape, or form. It would only be an explanation of the process, as I understand it, as a helpful aid to other editors. It would be up to other, more neutral, editors', to use it as they saw fit. To either ignore it, rewrite parts or all of it in proper Wikipedia form, or whatever else.
- Here is the link to the Ronin symposium paper, "High Performance Concretes with Energetically Modified Cement (EMC)". Be warned, it links to the 850 page .pdf compilation of all the papers at the symposium, which may take quite a while to download, if you are in the US. It is the only link that I have been able to find on the web. The paper starts on page 93. The first few sections give a partial, but mostly understandable, explanation of the process:
- Here is a link to a Hungarian research paper, "Fly ash based road construction binder". (You will need a program that can open a DOC file, such as Microsoft Word):
- http://hulladekonline.hu/files/58
- I'm sorry, not realizing that I might need to post links to primary sources, I did not bookmark anything else. I considered these 2 of the most important papers, though. I would have to redo my lengthy searches, again, to find the other papers. If there is great demand for it, I might. It is very time consuming, though.
- Hope this was helpful. Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Karl -- I for one would certainly not mind seeing your interpretation of the process. I have to say --between the nature of the subject, the number of sources involved in the current version, and wording of the article as it stands -- that parsing all of these sources for consistency (without synthesis) with the claims being made is enough to challenge even veteran editors used to evaluating sources for reliability. Luckily, for the present time we have multiple eyes here and I think we can reasonably distill between us the most that can be said in a verifiable manner about the process. Just do me a favour (and I suggest this for all editors as we pursue drafting here on the talk page), and use some [bracketed comments to note when and where you are drawing conclusions not directly made in the sources]? That way we can all be explicitly clear about what is sourceable and not as we proceed with altering the article itself. Snow (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello!
- I believe there is (barely), a modest consensus asking me to explain the process. Robert McClenon and you (Snow) have directly asked me. Maproom, in more than one post, has asked for someone to explain the process. Since I am "someone", this is modest support.
- Snow said: "...use some [bracketed comments to note when and where you are drawing conclusions not directly made in the sources]?"
- I had just intended to wing my explanation from the research I have read. I could've done this in less than an hour. IF, I do as you ask, it will take considerably longer. If I have to dredge up a bunch of research, showing where I have and haven't drawn conclusions, this will take much, much longer.
- I will think about it. I will post something one way or the other. If I do as you suggest, I may not respond back for several days. Maybe I can come up with a middle-of-the-road approach, that won't take quite so long.
- By the way, in this time, if there are others that would either like me to post my explanation, OR, would like me NOT to post my explanation, please let me know. I have already made far too many mistakes on Wikipedia. If the consensus runs against the explanation, I will not post.
- Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
As requested, Karl explains the EMC process, as he understands it. This will ONLY be posted on the Talk Page, as a possible aid to the editors' working on the article.[edit]
Hello!
Here is my explanation of the EMC process, as I have been asked by several to provide. As I have been involved in a hot debate on EMC, other than possibly myself, I do not believe that a single other editor believes that I can objectively comment on EMC. Take everything that I say, with a grain of salt, then. I have ONLY posted this on the Talk Page. I will not post this into the article itself. I will leave that up to demonstrated neutral editors, if they think that any bits of it are worthwhile. Please, editors, do not put any part of this into the article itself, without appropriate sourcing, rewriting, removing conclusions, etc. Please feel free to ignore it completely, if you believe it is incorrect.
I am not posting this to have another scientific debate, which I definitely do not intend to get involved in. I am doing it solely as a possible aid to others editing this article. I have written this for their benefit. I have already had a hot debate on the science of this process, and gotten in trouble. I will not do that again. If you disagree with my science explanation, rather than a rebuttal, simply post your alternate explanation of the process on this talk page. The other editors, can then freely choose what they think is appropriate to add to the article, from both (or one, or neither) explanations. I will not respond to critique's of my explanation of the science.
First, the ultra-simple explanation: Energetically Modified Cement (EMC), is a process of grinding cement, or related materials, in a special mill. (Wait for the other shoe to drop.)
THIS is the entire process. There is nothing else. Really! It is fantastically simple. All the technical talk, has been about HOW this extraordinarily simple process, can have such profound effects on cements/concretes.
Second, here is a Wikipedia style rewrite (Note: This is not Wikipedia sourced properly, conclusions are drawn, etc. I have done this this as a straight shot explanation, without comments, to make it easier to understand; and easier to understand the process itself. In this explanation, I have drawn conclusions, and done other non-Wikipedia things. As written, it does not meet Wikipedia standards whatsoever. I will duplicate this explanation further below, with appropriate comments and criticisms interspersed.):
- Begin Explanation:
Mechanically Activated Cement (MAC), is a process of grinding Fly Ash in a special mill, to be added to cements and concretes, to enhance the properties, or lower the cost, of the final concrete. Other materials, such as Portland Cement, Slag Cement, fine sand, silica fume and other pozzolans, and other materials, may also be ground in this special way; but the composition, and extremely low cost of Fly Ash, makes it particularly suited to this process. (Portland cement or Slag cement is the "glue" in concrete. It must be mixed with aggregates such as gravel and sand, water, and small amounts of other additives, to make concrete).
Most MAC is done on Fly Ash. Fly Ash is a pozzolan, and waste product similar to soot, that is still primarily thrown away, from coal fired electric plants. Coal is burned at high temperatures. The resulting smoke, rises up a flue. This smoke consists of molten microscopic particles from the high temperatures, that then form into tiny spheres due to surface tension, much like soap bubbles do. The spheres are composed mostly of silicon dioxide (similar to sand), and a variety of other oxides. A fraction of the microscopic spheres are like soap bubbles, with a hollow center, called cenospheres. The remaining spheres, are solid.
Finally, the particles all harden into a glass like state, ending up looking much like smooth, microscopic billiard balls. The particles are removed by an electrostatic precipitator (similar in principle, to some home air cleaners). This Fly Ash waste product is mostly thrown away, but some is used as an inexpensive additive to cements and concretes.
Portland Cement is mostly ground in normal ball mills, or other common mills. MAC uses special mills, such as vibrating mills, planetary mills, or counter-rotating mills. These mills cause intense impacts of the particles with either other particles or grinding balls. In the case of Fly Ash, with it's microscopic spheres, this is like throwing billiard balls at high speed at each other. This causes cracks, impact craters, and numerous other imperfections in the microscopic spheres. Instead of a smooth, non-reactive microscopic billiard ball, you now have solid microscopic spheres that resemble the moon. The hollow spheres crack, much like cracking an egg, leaving fragments similar to broken eggshell. Most normal mills, just make smaller, microscopic billiard balls, so don't increase the reactivity of the particles as much.
Because it is much more reactive, the amount of MAC Fly Ash added to cements and concretes, can be greatly increased over what can normally be added, without decreasing the final strength of the concrete. This allows a reduction in the amount of Portland cement (which requires a great deal of energy to make) used in the concrete. Because the Fly Ash must be made, anyway, in burning coal for electricity, this saves energy; as the Fly Ash would normally be thrown away. As Fly Ash, being a waste product, is very inexpensive, this also reduces the cost of the final concrete. If normal Fly Ash added to concrete is replaced one-to-one with MAC Fly Ash, the strength of the final concrete increases. Concrete can then be used, in applications that it previously could not. Using the MAC process, low strength concretes (suitable for low use areas such as home patios) can be made, using nothing more that the right type of MAC Fly Ash, lime, water, and minor additives, with no Portland cement used at all. This MAC low strength concrete, is similar in strength to low end cinder block.
Other cement materials can be used, but Fly Ash is particularly suited to the MAC process. Depending on the material being ground, and the specific grinding mill used, MAC materials can be made in anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, of grinding. Additional grinding over this optimum time, causes the particles to again start assuming a more microscopic billiard ball shape, ruining the MAC effect.
- End explanation.
This, then, is my explanation of the process.
I am now reposting this explanation below, with added commentary in brackets, [ ].
- Begin Explanation:
Mechanically Activated Cement (MAC)
- [This is contentious, already. I have changed the name of the process. Only Ronin, and his associates, call this process Energetically Modified Cement, most others so far (like the Hungarians), call it either Mechanically Activated, or Mechanical Activation.]
, is a process of grinding Fly Ash in a special mill,
- [This is referenced in the Ronin symposium paper, but, this is a primary source, original research. The Hungarian paper says "vibrating mill", but, this is again a primary source.]
to be added to cements and concretes, to enhance the properties, or lower the cost, of the final concrete. Other materials, such as Portland Cement, Slag Cement, fine sand, silica fume and other pozzolans, and other materials, may also be ground in this special way;
- [These materials are referenced in Ronin papers. Not all are mentioned in every paper, but they are all mentioned at one time or another. Ronin's symposium paper is probably is enough to reference this, but it's primary research.]
but the composition, and extremely low cost of Fly Ash, makes it particularly suited to this process.
- [This is out and out original research on my part. I know the materials, and I know that this must be true, but, I have not seen it anywhere mentioned in relation to EMC/MAC, and doubt I will. It is crucial to knowing how the process works, though!]
(Portland cement or Slag cement is the "glue" in concrete. It must be mixed with aggregates such as gravel and sand, water, and small amounts of other additives, to make concrete).
- [This is very widely known, I don't think that it has to be referenced here. This section is necessary, though, so that a lay person can understand later sections, below.]
Most MAC is done on Fly Ash.
- [This is original research on my part, based on the fact, that EMC/MAC research is overwhelmingly done on Fly Ash, and not much on the other materials it could be applied to (silica fume is an exception). There is no primary or secondary source likely to say this.]
Fly Ash is a pozzolan, and waste product similar to soot, that is still primarily thrown away, from coal fired electric plants. Coal is burned at high temperatures. The resulting smoke, rises up a flue.
- [This is widely known. The Wikipedia article on Fly Ash, probably has secondary sources that could be used.]
This smoke consists of molten microscopic particles from the high temperatures, that then form into tiny spheres due to surface tension, much like soap bubbles do. The spheres are composed mostly of silicon dioxide (similar to sand), and a variety of other oxides. A fraction of the microscopic spheres are like soap bubbles, with a hollow center, called cenospheres. The remaining spheres, are solid.
- [Most of this is widely known. Again, the Fly Ash article on Wikipedia, may have secondary sources to use.]
Finally, the particles all harden into a glass like state, ending up looking much like smooth, microscopic billiard balls. The particles are removed by an electrostatic precipitator (similar in principle, to some home air cleaners). This Fly Ash waste product is mostly thrown away, but some is used as an inexpensive additive to cements and concretes.
- [This is widely known. The Wikipedia article on Fly Ash, probably has secondary sources that could be used.]
Portland Cement is mostly ground in normal ball mills, or other common mills.
- [This is widely known, and probably does not need to be referenced.]
MAC uses special mills, such as vibrating mills, planetary mills, or counter-rotating mills. [Ronin, in his symposium paper, mentions vibrating mills, and planetary mills. The Hungarians, mention a vibrating mill. I added counter-rotating mills, because of my knowledge. I have drawn a conclusion, that I cannot reference with primary or secondary sources.]
Portland Cement is mostly ground in normal ball mills, or other common mills. MAC uses special mills, such as vibrating mills, planetary mills, or counter-rotating mills. These mills cause intense impacts of the particles with either other particles or grinding balls. This causes cracks, impact craters, and numerous other imperfections in the microscopic spheres. Instead of a smooth, non-reactive microscopic billiard ball, you now have solid microscopic spheres that resemble the moon. The hollow spheres crack, much like cracking an egg, leaving fragments similar to broken eggshell. Most normal mills, just make smaller, microscopic billiard balls, so don't increase the reactivity of the particles as much.
- [Only this line, "This causes cracks, impact craters, and numerous other imperfections in the microscopic spheres.", is referenced in Ronin's papers. The rest, is from my personal knowledge. While I could, given time, track down supporting references to this, I will not be able to find a reference to this, as it relates to the EMC/MAC process. This, then, makes it original research on my part; as I have drawn a conclusion. Also, planetary mills work somewhat differently. It is a ball mill, but not a normal ball mill. I did not think that it was important enough to go into greater detail on this point.]
The Fly Ash surface area greatly increases, making the MAC Fly Ash much more reactive when added to cements and concretes.
- [This is referenced in both the Ronin symposium paper, and the Hungarian research. But, this is primary research.]
Because it is much more reactive, the amount of MAC Fly Ash added to cements and concretes, can be greatly increased over what can normally be added, without decreasing the final strength of the concrete. This allows a reduction in the amount of Portland cement (which requires a great deal of energy to make) used in the concrete. Because the Fly Ash must be made, anyway, in burning coal for electricity, this saves energy; as the Fly Ash would normally be thrown away. As Fly Ash, being a waste product, is very inexpensive, this also reduces the cost of the final concrete. If normal Fly Ash added to concrete is replaced one-to-one with MAC Fly Ash, the strength of the final concrete increases. Concrete can then be used, in applications that it previously could not. Using the MAC process, low strength concretes (suitable for low use areas such as home patios) can be made, using nothing more that the right type of MAC Fly Ash, lime, water, and minor additives, with no Portland cement used at all. This MAC low strength concrete, is similar in strength to low end cinder block.
- [Conclusions are thrown around everywhere, here. Some of it can be referenced in the Ronin symposium paper, and the Hungarian paper, both primary research, but the rest, is drawing conclusions, that cannot be primary or secondary sourced as regards EMC/MAC. This is also stuff that is important!]
Other cement materials can be used, but Fly Ash is particularly suited to the MAC process. Depending on the material being ground, and the specific grinding mill used, MAC materials can be made in anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, of grinding. Additional grinding over this optimum time, causes the particles to again start assuming a more microscopic billiard ball shape, ruining the MAC effect.
- [Again, I am drawing conclusions, here. The 10 minutes to an hour, thing, is based on research using small laboratory mills, using a pound or two of material. The times would likely be different if you were grinding tons of Fly Ash. I know I read in a paper about over grinding. I don't remember if it was the Hungarian paper, or not. In any case, it was again primary research.]
- End explanation.
Here is the link to the Ronin symposium paper, "High Performance Concretes with Energetically Modified Cement (EMC)". Be warned, it links to the 850 page .pdf compilation of all the papers at the symposium, which may take quite a while to download, if you are in the US. It is the only link that I have been able to find on the web. The paper starts on page 93. The first few sections give a partial, but mostly understandable, explanation of the process:
http://www.upress.uni-kassel.de/katalog/Download.php?ISBN=978-3-89958-086-0&type=pdf-f
Here is a link to a Hungarian research paper, "Fly ash based road construction binder". (You will need a program that can open a DOC file, such as Microsoft Word): http://hulladekonline.hu/files/58
I have spent many, many hours searching, and have found no secondary sources for EMC, except for the Ronin paper, already referenced in the EMC article. I have found only a handful of research papers on this not connected with Ronin, his associates and his university. If you search for "Portland cement", on Google, you come up with more than a million hits. Searches on "energetically modified cement", mostly come up, again, with references to Ronin, or his associates. Not realizing I might have to provide links to primary sources, I only have the two sources above. I could redo my searches, to find the handful of other research papers, but it would take quite a while. I think the ones that I used, should be enough.
It is possible, that this article should be reduced to a stub, as almost nothing about this, can be properly sourced. However, the neutral editors who have worked on the article, have improved it quite a bit, already, so maybe just leaving as is, might be better or more realistic.
I hope this was helpful.
Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Karl; appreciate that must have taken some time. The funny thing is, for all the previous drama, when it comes down to it, your interpretation of the process' strengths, especially as regards efficiency and cost of the final product, very much jibe with many of the claims previously made by the other IP. Sourcing remains an issue for many of these claims, but in this case I do favour a little bit of forgiveness of dependence upon primary sources. So long as we can first remove the over-inflating promotional tone. Looking at the article as it is lain out at present, the most obvious format change called for is to remove a number of the sections (not the content itself, per say, but the headers which divide them up unnecessarily into sections that scream promotional document talking points). To my mind, this article should be able to be reduced to three sections: the lead, a "Production" section describing the milling process and its material/cost saving benefits, and an "Applications" section, describing the physical advantages of the resulting product, which uses it is best suited to and a much-reduced section on projects to which it has been applied (assuming A)its role a distinct product warrants it as per WP:weight, B) the projects themselves are noteworthy, and C) it is all immaculately sourced, which...we'll have to see how that turns out). Frankly, though it is, as you yourself admit, quite informal and not necessarily formatted for encyclopedic tone, I think your plain-language explanation is still in most places better suited to our purposes than the current version of the article, which uses highly insular and in-accessible language and employs a lot of vague claims and caveats which reflect upon a degree of original research. As no one else seems to be leaping at the task, and since you are refraining so as not to give the impression of lack of neutrality after the previous arguments, I will take a stab at doing a rewrite at some point over the next week. I'll post a draft here when I get to it. Snow (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just wanted to tuck in my thanks to Karl for sharing this as well. Havent had time to consider it in detail but appreciate the effort! Is there a way to make the layout of this "better" tho? Idk what that might mean, exactly, lol, but maybe somehow cleaving it out into a ... you know what, never mind. more trouble than it's worth. ciao! Azx2 04:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello!
- Snow said: "The funny thing is, for all the previous drama, when it comes down to it, your interpretation of the process' strengths, especially as regards efficiency and cost of the final product, very much jibe with many of the claims previously made by the other IP."
- Something that I think was missed in the conflict between him and I, was that I wasn't saying that the process itself was wrong, just that HIS description of how the process worked, was wrong. These are indeed, two different things. Also, since, I have read other supporting research, with no connection with Ronin, lending credence for some of these claims. I tried to tone down the claims, getting rid of unsourced ones, leaving more realistic claims based on the research I read.
- Snow said: "I think your plain-language explanation is still in most places better suited to our purposes than the current version of the article"
- I truly, truly, truly, hate "scientese", where scientists use as many multi-syllable scientific words as possible, to describe something. I have read thousands of research abstracts and papers, full of this jargon (on a variety of topics), so I am used to it. There is far too much of this stuff on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for everyone, not just scientists. I have sacrificed some accuracy (hopefully not much), to explain things clearly, in a way that most lay people should be able to understand; not just scientists!
- Snow said: "As no one else seems to be leaping at the task, and since you are refraining so as not to give the impression of lack of neutrality after the previous arguments, I will take a stab at doing a rewrite at some point over the next week."
- I appreciate this. I had thought some other editors would join in, but that hasn't been the case. I had debated jumping in myself, but your kind offer has put that out of my head. Also, selfishly, I don't want to risk getting into an edit war, if a certain unnamed IP might return anonymously via an unblocked IP address. Your ideas about re-formatting the article, sound good to me.
- Thank you! Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I actually don't mind "scientese" so much; to some degree it's simply unavoidable in articles within the domain of the physical sciences. The problem here is that the text we have at present isn't even particularly good empirical/technical language; it's not just that the information was presented in technical parlance, it also just is not organized well for encyclopedic purposes. On the other hand, you are correct in that we are meant to work towards general accessibility here as much as is possible while balancing this priority against accuracy and, most importantly, consistency with sources, and Jono/213 was explicitly clear a number of times that he was writing the article in such a way as to cater to experts in the field - indeed, I would say, to defend his strong stance on the process against the empirical scrutiny of other experts. That's not exactly dishonest -- I believe he very much knows the subject, believes in the material's advantages and wanted to advocate for it in a way that would stand up to inquiry. The problem is that this project is not the forum to do that and between those three factors -- inaccessible language, improper organization, and a promotional approach -- combined with inadequate sourcing, we end up with something very far away from encyclopedic tone even where the claims themselves may be entirely honest and correct. But we've gone on at some length about how the content got to be flawed and its time to look foreward at how to salvage it. And having begun to draft something today, I'm wondering whether this is the right place for all of it. One thing that I uncovered while looking at the article and Jono/213's history is that this material was all originally to be found at Cement; the afore-mentioned editor tried to introduce the subject there, but he was running up against the same kind of resistance to the promotional/un-encyclopedic tone there that he ultimately faced here and, apparently, rather than square off against the editors on that page, he simply created this article. But the truth is, I'm not sure that we should be maintaining that approach, for two reasons. First, I'm not sure the subject is distinct or robust enough, relative to the parent subject, to warrant an independent article. Second, even if it did, I'm doubtful with the sourcing that we have that it could pass muster on WP:GNG and survive another AfD without the continued process shenanigans that were at work before. If I can parse the material we have now down to a solid five paragraphs, I may take the draft to Talk:cement and explain to the editors there that have attempted to correct the issues that kept them from accepting the addition of the subject as previously written, and merge the content into its own section there. It may very well be an uphill battle, but it could end up being the best approach regardless. Mind you, I'm not exactly eager to go to the mat on this one, but after all of the effort to clear up the discussion here, I feel it would be inappropriate to just let the article linger in limbo now. Snow (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello! Wow, Snow, that's a lot.
- I thought that I would do a point by point reply, but I think that I'll do this instead. I'll list the 5 major ways that I believe the EMC article can go, in order of my personal preference, with comments:
- 1. Your original suggestion of pretty much a complete rewrite of the article, is first on my list. This appeals to my scientific side. A coherent, comprehensible explanation of this process, is sorely needed in the article. Unfortunately, a future editor can come along, and, legitimately, gut almost the whole article, as nothing can be properly sourced, per Wikipedia guidelines. Then, all this work would be for nothing. (If you choose to rewrite this article, I will probably be willing to track down some primary research, in order to source this as well as possible.)
- 2. Reduce the article to just a stub. This is probably the closest to the Wikipedia guidelines. There is just enough about EMC, so that a page on it is not unreasonable. Because it can't be sourced properly, only a brief explanation would exist.
- 3. Delete the article entirely. Because the article, can't be sourced properly, this is also legitimate, and follows Wikipedia guidelines.
- 4. My fourth choice, is to just leave the article the way it currently is. A number of neutral editors, have greatly shortened this article, improving it some, recently. Leaving it alone, is easiest to do, and certainly appeals to my lazy side.
- 5. Have this article as a subsection in the Cement article. This was your second thought. My take on it, is slightly different, because EMC can be a subsection of several different articles; it can be put as a subsection on either of these three: A. the Portland cement article, B., the Cement article, or C. the Pozzolan article. Practically speaking, it belongs within the Portland Cement article, because 99.9% of EMC, so far, has been done in pours of Portland Cement/Concrete. Strictly scientifically, it belongs within the Cement article, because it can, indeed, be used in low strength concrete, without Portland cement, even though this does not appear to have been done, outside of research studies. Again, practically speaking, since 99% of EMC appears to have been applied solely to Fly Ash, it should be in the Pozzolan article. This is, indeed, a problem. Which article should it be a subsection of?
- A second, larger problem with making EMC a subsection of another article, is that, especially in the Portland Cement and Cement articles, there are presumably "guardian" editors, watching over those pages. I suspect, that some of them will not like a poorly sourced section making bold claims, for a little known process. Only ONE secondary source exists for this! If I endorsed this idea, I would feel obligated to defend (amazingly) EMC on whatever page it would be a subsection of. For reasons I mentioned in my post above, I would be cut to shreds by any editor watching over any of these articles. And, indeed, they would be right. I could not provide proper sources for almost any of this.
- Therefore, I don't endorse this idea, and would not be able to help you out if you choose to put it as a subsection of the Cement (or, indeed, any other) article. I would sit on the sidelines only as a silent observer, out of the crossfire. In attempting to add EMC as a subsection of another article, I see only conflict, and a poor outcome. Any of the other first three possibilities that I mentioned, would be fine with me. Each of the first three, have valid reasons supporting them.
- Anyway, I hope that this has been helpful, in at least a small way. Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Ronin did NOT invent this process. Ronin, et al, claimed inventing the EMC process in 1992. Here is an entire book, preceding Ronin's claim by 2 years. "Mechanical Activation of Minerals by Grinding: Pulverizing and Morphology of Particles, A. Zoltan Juhász, Z. Juhász (Dr), Ludmilla Opoczky, Ellis Horwood, 1990 - Ore-dressing - 234 pages" This appears to have been first published in English, in Australia, in 1990. Also, published in Hungary, in 1990: "A.Z Juhasz and L. Opoczky, Mechanical activation of minerals by grinding: Pulverizing and morphology of particles. Akademia Kiado, Budapest, 1990." It wasn't published in the U.S. until later, 1994. Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have access to that book and that paper, or only the synopsis and abstract respectively? They may just be more primary sourcing, but at least they are independent of the bulk of the primary sources we already have. As to the quandry of whether to merge the article, or leave it independent, I can't dismiss your concerns entirely, but I think perhaps you are being a bit fatalistic about it; there may be resistance to the material but not necessarily. Even if there is, material can be introduced from primary sources, provided no synthesis is at work. Worst case scenario, everything but the bare-bones directly-attributeable claims are removed (which frankly, is the way it needs to be regardless). From my perspective the merger is kind of weekly mandated by policy; there's just enough sourcing to justify preserving some measure of this content, though we won't know how much until we parse it down for only reasonably well-supported claims, but the article itself is probably not passing muster for GNG, and so whatever is preserved should be maintained elsewhere. Of the three articles you've mentioned, Cement (which does have a "green cement" section) seems the appropriate candidate to me, as the process is not by definition restricted to Portland cement, though Pozzolan (or perhaps better yet Pozzolanic activity, though this article is itself supported only by primary sources) would suit too. Regardless, whether a short/stub article or a subsection elsewhere, I think we need to change the reference term to "mechanically activated cement" rather than "energetically modified cement"; the former being the more plainly worded term that is used by those researching the material in general as opposed to the latter, which is used by Ronin et al for their comparatively narrower research and product development. In any event, sorry I have not gotten around to the draft just yet; I will do my best to get it done tomorrow. Snow (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello!
- Snow said: "Do you have access to that book and that paper, or only the synopsis and abstract respectively?" I believe it is just the book; published in native Hungarian, and in English in Australia, in the same year, 1990. I'm sorry, I don't have the book or synopsis. I was lucky to even have found the book existed at all. The 1990 edition, used, is on sale on Amazon.com for $150US (no synopsis, Amazon lists it at 544 pages, instead of 234 pages. One of the page counts must be wrong.). I am beginning to think that EMC came out of Hungary; or at least Eastern Europe.
- Snow said: "I think we need to change the reference term to "mechanically activated cement" rather than "energetically modified cement"" I agree. I have not found any mention of "energetically modified cement", other than Ronin and his associates. It is obviously a trade name, though they try to claim it isn't. Mechanical Activation, so far, is probably used somewhat more than Mechanically Activated. Either is probably OK.
- I will leave it up to your judgement, as the best place to permanently place this information. If you post the draft here, I will try to add some kind of references, but, as mentioned, they will almost certainly be all primary sources. I will try not to edit any of it, except for pointing out if I think any science is seriously wrong.
- Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be obliged for it; I've got a good command of micro-physics and materials science in general, but this particular subject is quite novel to me and, though I intend to take the draft slowly to avoid any unwarranted leaps with the claims, a second pair of eyes will be good in that regard. Just an FYI though; urgent events on my end here have confounded my schedule a bit, and it may now be yet one more day before I can do the draft in it's entirety, though I will try to get part of it up tomorrow as planned. My apologies for the delay; I know we all want to get this sorted as quickly as possible before the traffic here diminishes and it becomes more difficult to do this with the benefit of collaborative efforts. Snow (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I might be able to get ahold of that book this summer, it's at the sci/eng library of the main campus of my uni, which is closer to my home. I just don't know if I can check out books from there, as I attend a satellite campus... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- That would be great if you could, Aunva. We'll just proceed without it for now and consider anything we can glean from it a bonus if/when you can get a hold of it. I'm keen on finding out what we can get out of it as it's the only source we have that may, from the description, have secondary source potential. In my experience, satellite schools typically do grant you check-out privileges at the parent campus, but it's by no means a universal. Snow (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I might be able to get ahold of that book this summer, it's at the sci/eng library of the main campus of my uni, which is closer to my home. I just don't know if I can check out books from there, as I attend a satellite campus... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello!
- Snow said, on April 10th (it's now April 18th), "...may now be yet one more day before I can do the draft in it's entirety, though I will try to get part of it up tomorrow as planned."
- Since it's more than a week later, I am assuming you have changed your mind about rewriting this article. If I am wrong, please let me know. Also, the last edit on this article, was April 3rd, more than 2 weeks ago. Interest, since the heated debate, seems to have dropped off to almost nothing. If I hear nothing back from anyone, I will either stop checking back here anymore, soon, just leaving the article as is. Or, I may decide to rewrite the article myself (though this seems unlikely, as I have other, important things I have let slide, while I have been spending too much time on this article).
- Thanks. Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize for not noting my delay here sooner; other obligations have left me with no more than limited spare minutes a day this last week for editing in general -- not nearly enough for a rewrite of this size. For the record, I see no major issue with your doing a re-write if you so choose; the only restraint has been your voluntary decision to refrain from doing so, and while I understand your reasoning (wanting to appear above-board after the prolonged disagreement with the other editor), you remain as good a candidate as any (certainly you seem to be the most familiar with the sources and related materials technologies). That being said, I will start working on it myself as well, if no one else does; I do not view the current version of the article as particularly consistent with encyclopedic tone in general and certainly it is in violation of number of verification and promotion-oriented policies in particular, as per the consensus of the discussion above. If you want to dig in first, be bold; there is sufficient editorial review remaining here that we can correct anything that doesn't fit. I appreciate I'm being a little bit of a WP:WikiOgre on this one, but my time is limited yet still. Snow (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello! Snow said: "...I will start working on it myself..."
- I will check back from time to time. If you post a draft here, I will find the best sources I can for it. If I choose to do any rewrite, which is not too likely right now, it will have to be later in the year. My time is limited right now. Thank you. Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)