Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 20 March 2014

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Civil engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Environment: Sustainability / Climate change This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sustainability task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 12 May 2013, see discussion. speedy keep (nomination withdrawn), 3 May 2013, see discussion.

This article is a HACK advertising piece- and I PROVE it, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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".

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".

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".

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".

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. By contrast, using fly ash that has undergone EMC Activation, up to 70% of the Portland cement in concrete can be replaced.

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".

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 Misplaced Pages. 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

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 bullshit. 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

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:

"EMC Activation generates high-energy particle impacts. This leads to deep transformations in the particle micro-structure in the form of (among others) sub-micro cracks, dislocations and lattice defects that significantly increase reactivity and surface area for the purposes of the necessary pozzolanic reactions. As a technology, EMC Activation is readily and highly scalable, being well-proven to an "industrial scale"."

To correct you: this is not about grading, classifying and re-mixing (although those are steps "along the way"). EMC Activation is about mechano-activation. Not about increasing the surface area either. Rather, about mechano-chemistry (or tribo-chemistry). Or, to use "new" terms given the word "nano" is so "popular": "nanotribilogy".

After your comments about pozzolanic chemistry, obvious that one cannot "please" EVERYONE all the time. I WAS going to write further about mechano-chemistry but I am not now because of comments like 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.

I hope this helps. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

>>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

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)

Hi there: Thank you very much for making and taking the time and effort to review and message me. I can assure you everything is well-referenced. This article is already so well-referenced I am worried it could be too much. But, be assured, I will be "attacking" (in positive sense lol) the mechanical activation aspects in due course. It takes time to focus the references needed for that into a logical step, and yet make it "simple".

I want you to have in mind that this article already has a B rating (WP:BCLASS), which in Chemistry Portal is not easy. And it is my ambition to drive that even higher. For this reason I may "trouble" you from time to time with details of how it is moving along so that you can drop me a note if you wish

On the basis of what you have written, I will now remove your advert tag.

Thank you again.

Kind Regards/mvh

213.66.81.80 (talk) 08:58, 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."

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)

You "HATE" this article? YOUR WORDS? Have you read what you wrote? You are so extreme half of it could be enough already. There is an entire fucking paragraph about the process. Are you blind? STOP making unjustified ATTACKS. You want to add MORE about the process then ADD to it. But to sit there stating there is NOTHING about the PROCESS is bananas.

I don't give two monkeys your "Swedish heritage" even if true. Maybe you should go learn some Swedish and the word "LAGOM". Or to put in in language you probably will understand: "enough already". Your attacks are a disgrace.

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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)

Involvement of Vladimir Ronin

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)

US EPA Award

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)

The Baron Stern of Brentford

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

You say "surface activation is significantly different", but we have no evidence of this. No-one has stated what the process is, how it differs from grinding ash with balls, how it consumes less energy, or why it is better. I suspect it is all just marketing hype. Maproom (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dont de-bunk legitimate science!

With reference to the above entry by "maproom" (a computer expert):

• I do not want to relight fires (which were unduly fierce), but sir, there is a lot of "evidence" of the effects of such "surface activation". The origins go back several decades to tribo-chemistry and this is a variant from what I see. Material science encompasses both physics and chemistry and the physics can be quite difficult because a lot is by observation and deduction (as postulates) instead of hard "evidence". This is because what is going on to give the observed physical and chemical effects is at a crystalline scale and even smaller. Nano is now a fashionable term. Here you have one aspect which was "nano" before the term became "mainstream".

• I can expand the section on what is termed here as "EMC Activation" (I think it using that term to make it more digestible). However, I think you should be aware that the phenomenon is very real and yes, does benefit from the inherent increase in surface area, but this is not thought to be the only or even the main reason for the observed effects. I also see there is (appropriately) no increase in powder finess, which supports the fact that surface area effect will likely be on the nano-scale, on account of the process and associated the lattice deformations occurring as a result. The problem is the original writer wrote a very good article which made it look like "baby science". I am quite happy to assert some "physics" into the article. But I will not do this if people who do not understand the rather obscure science are going to adopt skepital positions when for those who know the subjects required, know it is very real.

• In the academic literatures, I have seen reference to an EMC particle under TEM and therefore this might be a good addition. I will try to contact someone at the University in Sweden to see if I can have a picture released.
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for your flattering description of me.

But until I see a credible account of what "energetic modification" is, and of why it makes the cement more effective, I shall remain sceptical. Maproom (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I understand you are a computer expert. It is not so easy to be so. No, please: no need for skeptical position. You need only look to tribo-chemistry and lattice deformations for general direction for what Ronin has achieved. Remember that these materials are typically metallic salts (e.g. usually aluminium silicates) sitting in lattices with other salts. These metallic salts have energetic potentials. For, example if you keep your car parking on concrete for a long time, the battery will discharge. Even through the tires. Go to any car battery sales shop, they will tell you they never store car batteries on concrete. Concrete chemistry (like mother earth's chemistry) is very complex. The lattices structures are complex. Lattice deformation is complex. Hope this helps. Rgds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 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)

Removal of reference to patents

I have removed all reference to word "patent" in the article. It is a "sad" day for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

PPS: The reason he has had flak from me is not so much that it is written like a thinly disguised commercial advertisement (though that is true). It is that he has persistently refused to explain what "energetically modified cement" is, and how it differs from portland cement. Now, your explanation "you roughen up the surface of the particles, giving greater surface area, and the concrete is stronger" makes good sense to me. If it is correct, it should appear in the lede of the article. However it is not consistent with the article's claim that EMC uses less energy than portland cement. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Maproom: You and I had an exchange around xmas time regarding your persistent "bone" that this article does not explain the difference between OPC and EMC. You have got to be joking! This cannot be a good faith comment. There is AMPLE information. At the time, I responded and wrote a whole section on concrete chemistry to PLEASE YOU. And still you persist. But at least NOW you understand the difference between a cement and a concrete (because when you have made your attacks in the past, you did not even know the difference)

This article it is describing EMCs from discovery, industrialization, through to field results. Over 20 years work. And STILL you persist. And now "join" with Karl who is so biased that he has expressed his quote "hatred" of the page. Why dont you go to the Geopolymer cement page and take out your angst there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

PPPS: Hello!

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)

Thank you, Karl, for the explanation. It certainly makes sense to me. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

About legitimate questions ducked by writer of this article (formerly: Continued attack on the page)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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."

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 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."

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)

You are to imply good faith. The over reaction to my "calling you out" makes it even more obvious. My comments about my suspicions of your activities and motivations are in good faith. Your history of edits namely focused to this page and one edit to LEED make it perfectly obvious you are a paid mouthpiece for the portland cement industry. More particularly:

• Please stop trolling this page. Your edits are clearly designed to disparage the technology and categorize it as a "specialty" product which you have NO evidence for doing - (let alone you use AMERICAN English when this is a BRITISH English page). Your edits are removed. Please retain your objectivity and read science. This is an article about EMCs ---- NOT what YOU think the article should be about (and then making ad nauseum attacks because you "think" you know).

• The process is subject of MULTIPLE patents. Yet you imply that means nothing. And I can tell you, it has NOTHING to do with increasing surface areas by grinding per se. That is NOT mechano chemistry. Whereas, EMCs are exclusively about mechano chemistry. 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. Do you now see the distinction Between EMC Activation and "grinding per se"? Your language is as if I am making all of this up. Go and read some books. It is not my job to educate you. But it is your job to go and learn before you start making baseless attacks.

• And please no more ad hominem attacks. Curb your language. You have no right to insult me because you think I am not as clever as you. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

>>Hello!

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages!

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

71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not engaging in your tirade, especially against someone whose edit record is clearly that of a paid Portland Cement mouthpiece. Nowhere have I called you an "idiot" and yes i said there was a whole fucking paragraph about the process --- which I have spent a further three hours researching and adding to today. But it STILL makes no difference to you.

Your comments show you have not been prepared to consider matters objectively or with any basis of the level of knowledge required. Instead you are making "armchair" judgments (e.g. your comments about "scoria" taken from a patent that applies to ALL pozzolans -- including VOLCANIC ASH). You have ignored the edits I have made today to add further substance in order to meet your demands. There is no reasoning with you. Your comment about EMCs being Portland cement confirms matters. I am not going to be intimidated by you. You have no right to dictate what YOU think this article is about.

There are so many wild assertions that I cannot even begin to response. I am here to right calmly about the science and the subject of EMCs from publicly-available information - not meet your every whim (or then face the threat of your "playing god"). Note:

• There is one official website link which is permitted, and using the proper "official website" tag. Nowhere is the word "patent" mentioned.

• NOWHERE in the article is a company mentioned - let alone who the "owner is". So how do you know who the "owner" is? Maybe you have a bad experience with the "owner" - but that is none of my business and nothing to do with me or this article at all. Perhaps this is some sort of "dynamic" that I am not aware of. I speculate but maybe there is some sort of agenda here that I am caught up in that is nothing to do with me. But if you do have an "axe to sharpen" then this is surely not the place.

I have place a final warning on your talk page. I ask you to remove your bad faith edits or I will escalate this without further notice. My work is of the highest standards. You have no right to imply bad faith 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

71.33.155.41 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not engaging in your tirade, especially against someone whose edit record is clearly that of a paid Portland Cement mouthpiece. Nowhere have I called you an "idiot" and yes i said there was a whole fucking paragraph about the process --- which I have spent a further three hours researching and adding to today. But it STILL makes no difference to you.

Your comments show you have not been prepared to consider matters objectively or with any basis of the level of knowledge required. Instead you are making "armchair" judgments (e.g. your comments about "scoria" taken from a patent that applies to ALL pozzolans -- including VOLCANIC ASH). You have ignored the edits I have made today to add further substance in order to meet your demands. There is no reasoning with you. Your comment about EMCs being Portland cement confirms matters. I am not going to be intimidated by you. You have no right to dictate what YOU think this article is about.

There are so many wild assertions that I cannot even begin to response. I am here to right calmly about the science and the subject of EMCs from publicly-available information - not meet your every whim (or then face the threat of your "playing god"). Note:

• There is one official website link which is permitted, and using the proper "official website" tag. Nowhere is the word "patent" mentioned.

• NOWHERE in the article is a company mentioned - let alone who the "owner is". So how do you know who the "owner" is? Maybe you have a bad experience with the "owner" - but that is none of my business and nothing to do with me or this article at all. Perhaps this is some sort of "dynamic" that I am not aware of. I speculate but maybe there is some sort of agenda here that I am caught up in that is nothing to do with me. But if you do have an "axe to sharpen" then this is surely not the place.

I have place a final warning on your talk page. I ask you to remove your bad faith edits or I will escalate this without further notice. My work is of the highest standards. You have no right to imply bad faith 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:01, 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)."

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)

I told you I am not engaging in your tirade. You are accusing me of lying. And whether you are ANGRY or VERY angry is neither here nor there to me because it simply underscore you are acting out of ANGER. Moreover, I am not prepared to engage point-a-point with someone who is obviously deeply connected with the Portland Cement industry that is making such wild allegations. I note:

• Specifically, despite your assertion there is NO reference whatsoever on the said webpage to Ronin being a director. There is no mention of "ronin" or the word "director". I did a word search. Nothing on there.

• Because of the potential importance to the page, I have asked you to provide substantiation to your (repeated) assertion that the "australians did this first." Where is it?

213.66.81.80 (talk) 20:50, 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)

The following are important:

• Regarding your assertion that Ronin is a "director"

• You assert it is stated company website. Where precisely ?

• You assert "This information is contained in NUMEROUS PDF documents on the website" (YOUR EMPHASIS IN CAPS). Which PDF from the website states that Ronin is a director of the company? Precisely please.

• Please provide the evidence of your (repeated) assertion that the "Australians did this first". And yes I am now asking for the third time, for the sake of the importance of the page. Where is it?

Thank you 213.66.81.80 (talk) 22:44, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Let's get this the right way around. You make an assertion. I ask you to provide details. You dont get to make assertions and THEN ask ME to go an do YOUR work for you. Let's make sure this does not get even more ridiculus. And please stop being so unpleasant. You make assertions, I ask you to verify them. I do not understand why this produces such reactions.

So, again (These are all YOUR assertions):

• For the third time, regarding your assertion that Ronin is a "director"

• You assert it is stated company website. Where precisely ?

• You assert "This information is contained in NUMEROUS PDF documents on the website" (YOUR EMPHASIS IN CAPS). Which PDF from the website states that Ronin is a director of the company? Precisely please.

• Please provide the evidence of your (repeated) assertion that the "Australians did this first". And yes I am now asking for the fourth time, for the sake of the importance of the page. Where is it?

Thank you.

PS This is precisely why I have not responded line by line to your (TLDR) assertions, because so many of them cannot be justified in hard science or in the "exacting terms" required of precision writing. I just do not have the time to engage in this. For example, your assertion re "scoria" (repeated several times over to make it look as if I do not understand MY subject, material science) ----- and then when I have answered, your response is "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)". REALLY???) 213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

>>Hello!

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)

No Karl:

What is unbelievable is the way you have made TLDR comments that are highly questionable. When I have responded to four of them, you either do not back them up (and they remain YOUR assertions) or you "back down".

• I could respond line by line about some of the frankly outrageous comments you have made, but I will not or it will "engage" with you and risk giving some "appearance" of credibility to your wild assertions. And that is putting it VERY politely.

• I will not even begin with the enormous number of PERSONAL accusations you have also made against me. There is something very odd.

Your conduct are giving the appearance of being a paid consultant for the portland cement industry. And anyone who knows how that industry works, will know the hundreds of million spent with sophisticated lobbying. You only have to look at the concrete and cement standards in Europe to see that.

The point remains: We both know the "Australian did it first" claim made by you is bogus. And you and I both know that nowhere on the website (or in any of the PDFs that you claim) is it mentioned Ronin is a "director". All of these are YOUR assertions. You KNOW they are bogus.

So, in my view this is nothing less than a completely reckless "spoiling exercise" either because you are being paid to do it --- or may be because you have some issue with Ronin or the company. This is not my concern. I only concern that my many hours of work to improve Misplaced Pages is not undone by someone who every time I have "called out", has folded.

That is why I will not engage with you on the outrageous comments you have made. Because it is very "odd". And I am not going to give any credibility to someone who I believe has some sort of "agenda". My work is of the highest standard.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

213: I wonder if you consider that I have "folded"? I stopped arguing with you because I realised I was wasting my time discussing the article with you, while you refuse to say how EMC differs from Portland cement. You have claimed that 71 "giv the appearance of being a paid consultant for the portland cement industry." You come across as a paid agent of Ronin – or maybe you are Ronin. And while 71 understands how portland cement is made, 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 Misplaced Pages. Maproom (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am definitely NOT a paid agent of Ronin or any company. I understand that Ronin never wanted this anyhow.

Karl has made wild assertions and when I have called him on four of them, he has folded. Now consider those 4 assertions: he KNOWS they are bogus. That is what should concern anyone for Misplaced Pages. That somebody knowingly misleads by making statements that are known to be bogus in order to gain advantage. This is serious. VERY serious.

Whether or not you (still) cannot understand the difference between Portland cement (which is an entirely exothermic process) and EMCs (which is purely mechanical) is frankly stunning. But at least now I do believe you understand the difference between a "cement" and a "concrete". So some "good" has come of this article.

...and to be honest, I have no idea who you are. But you seem to "go with" Karls (outrageous) assertion that 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. I just cannot be distracted by these outrageous assertions which fly in the face of logic let alone hard science. I just don't get it.

I have decades of experience and could literally rip apart every single (outrageous) assertion made by Karl. But I just dont have time to take apart brick by brick TLDR spoiling exercises. I'm sorry, I just dont. If you have no connections to Karl, you still have to be open to the possibility that you are being manipulated (do you notice how for example he states EMC's are Portland cement --- playing directly to your "pysche"??).

I'm sorry I cannot be more helpful. I have spend over 10 hours improving the page to meet your concerns. And yet still....If you have any doubts, go to the company website and email them. Take it there. 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just one final comment which MIGHT help you. EMCs are PRECISELY about "grinding with balls". BUT NOT in a "Usual" manner. Those who are "in the know" will tell you there are a WHOLE multitude of machines that grind "with balls". But it is precisely because of the "special" way the grinding is done that gives rise to the EMC phenomenon.

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."

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". Trbochemistry is very real. And I added extensively to this yesterday. It took me a further three hours to keep it simple:

"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. 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). 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". 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". 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). 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.

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. 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."

That took THREE HOURS work to keep it simple. How far down the fractal do you think you want go?

213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I take time to write what follows so hopefully you will "perservere" with it:

• 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. 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.

• So the entire production is extremely energy-efficient. But the activation process itself, is incredibly energy-efficient. I mean tiny.

• It NEVER involves the burning of anything.

• 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) ----- which as they "set", produce such incredible strengths it's like you made the Alps in literally next to no time (this is in the article). So, a concrete using Portland cement activated by EMC Activation --- it really is "out of sight" in terms of the strength development (i.e. rate) and the strength that is developed.

• Like I say, HPCs are covered in the article. But they are very small specialty concrete product.

---->So, in real commercial terms it's about producing a concrete that "everyone" wants (by using a cement that yields such a concrete that "everyone" wants). Ie. to keep it simple, a NON specialty cement that yields a non specialty concrete. Yes? That is where fly ash and volcanic ash enter the picture. And this is where the EMC results are also spectacular. 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.

• So to answer your question: in volume terms of having a volume product NO Portland cement AT ALL is used to make an EMC. Which is why anyone who knows about the EU cement and concrete standards will tell you the Portland cement industry fought tooth and nail to ensure that the 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. Simple market exclusion.

• But you will note that an EMC CANNOT replace 100% of the portland cement in concrete. Why? Because to make a modern cement requires Calcium Oxide to form Calcium Hydroxide (called Portlandite by concrete chemists). Basically, you need a certain level of this critical reactant.

So, at the end of the day there is a "hard stop" theoretical limitation of how much Portland cement you can replace in a modern concrete.

(and it is strictly my "guess", but I would say that at 70% replacement EMC's made from fly ash have pretty much hit that "hard stop". But to get to 70% (or anywhere near 50%, let alone 70%) and YET remain IN field-usage performance standards is an ENORMOUS achievement.

To conclude, anyone in the cementitious materials "business" who knows the science will tell you that EMCs are without doubt the biggest threat to the dominance of Portland cement --- because to produce the products that the majority of the market needs, the waste fly ash or volcanic ash (simply dug out the ground) is treated using a tiny fraction of the energy ----- to produce much much better concretes (which have exceptional durabilities, acid resistance, chloride ion attack -- you name it)

Put simply, at anything above 50% replacement, Portland cement becomes the MINORITY cemeititious material. And THAT is an enormous advancement if you can STILL meet field-usage specifications. 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.

--->Because it is ALL recorded by TXDOT. And therefore there is the VERIFICATION that it HAS been done within spec.

• and all of this is precisely because of the pozzolanic concrete chemistry, that is unleashed by using a fly ash EMC (cement), that I spent 10 hours writing about before xmas (i.e. that is "released and ready for exploitation" the moment the EMC Activation process is unleashed on fly ashes and volcanic ashes).

• ....and this is why 4.5 million cubic years by 2010 IS significant because there is NO other high replacement of Portland cement technology out there that have ever come close in terms of REAL LIFE applications. I cannot think of one. Not one.

I hope this helps. It's an enormous subject.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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. A "specialty" concrete is a HPC. No fly ash activated by EMC Activation is going to produce a HPC. To assert so, just makes wikipedia look ridiculously stupid to those "in the know". And I am NOT exaggerating. Ridiculously stupid. Which is why I think Karl is not thinking about Wikpedia, but his own "agenda" whatever that may be...

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 Misplaced Pages."

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)

No Karl

25kWh per TONNE, so that's 25 WATTS per kg. Yes? FORTY TIME LESS THAN PORTLAND CEMENT. YES???

An EMC made from fly ash is NEVER going to produce a specialty concrete. END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!

Please go and peddle your TLDR Portland cement spoilers elsewhere. And STOP the personal attacks. I have had enough of your foul mouth AGAIN.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

>>Hello!

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)

And: EMCs made from fly ash apparently can REPLACE up to 70% of the Portland cement in concrete. Has the "penny" made it to you yet so it can "drop"?

So you understand what that means, yes? Per cubic yard of concrete cast SEVENTY PERCENT of the Portland cement is REPLACED with a cementitious material that has been made using an entirely mechanical process that requires FORTY times less energy than Portland cement. Are you now clear we are talking about replacement and NOT addition??

Are we now clear on this most basic facet you have so obviously (and perhaps conveniently to you?) overlooked 213.66.81.80 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

>>Hello!

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)

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 read before you judged you might stop this madness. Yiou have still not answered the three questions I had yesterday. So let me repeat them:

• For the fourth time, regarding your assertion that Ronin is a "director"

• You assert it is stated company website. Where precisely ?

• You assert "This information is contained in NUMEROUS PDF documents on the website" (YOUR EMPHASIS IN CAPS). Which PDF from the website states that Ronin is a director of the company? Precisely please.

• Please provide the evidence of your (repeated) assertion that the "Australians did this first". And yes I am now asking for the fifth time, for the sake of the importance of the page. Where is it?

You know your statements in the three areas above were bogus, you know this is about REPLACEMENT and you know that an EMC made from fly ash will NEVER make a specialty concrete.

This is just a trolling exercise. A paid mouthpeice Portland cement trolling exercise. That's the truth isn't it? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 22:43, 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)

Karl: You have disparaged nothing except yourself with your multiple TLDRs. But it is so odd how every time I put the real issues to you, you suddenly go "quiet". So, come on "buddy" - be candid ... you'll feel much better for "getting it off your chest". You ARE are a paid mouthpiece for the Portland cement industry aren't you? Let's look at this:

• That is why you know something that I do not: namely Ronin is a "director" of the "company". And you have used this facet to disparage MY work. Yes?

• So how do you know he is a "director"??? Because despite your claims otherwise, this fact is NOT on the website, nor ANY PDF. And you repeated this assertion that that was the source of your info. So WHERE do you get your information?

• Maybe you are a CEMBUREAU spook? Look at your TLDR above. YET, you don't know anything about EU/CEN standards. HOW convenient.... Of course you do. You know EVERYTHING about it. Don't you?

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)

Karl: Please stop this ridiculous charade. You keep making such major wild assertions. Every time I pick one randomly, you get "buried".

• Please explain how the heck it is you KNOW Ronin is a "director" of the company. It is NOT on the website or any PDFs from the website as you have asserted several times. That's two assertions. So how DO you know? PLUS where is the evidence to back up your wild claim about "Australians doing it first". That's three. You also repeated this many times in your TLDRs but have never backed up YOUR assertions with hard evidence. I have now asked five times on these three simple points, and still nothing from you.

• You are deploying diversionary and wildly inaccurate TLDR misinformation/assertions using the taktik "throw enough skit and it sticks". You have made many personal attacks. Saying I am lying, implying I am stupid, that i do not understand MY subject (i.e. material science). Many many times. So much that you got an immediate level 4 warning by an administrator. But even that does not get you to moderate.

• I spend a lot of my own time answering (I hope helpfully) a question posed by Maproom, to which you then "butt in" saying how long my response was (and then post a response 4 times the length). And then you say I do not give science??????

Further, you are making statements you KNOW are bogus. The first bullet point is simply three examples -- and there are many.

And this is why I really do believe you are likely a CEMBUREAU spook (or similar). You can't "complain" of my being "unreasonable" when you consider the foregoing record, surely? It is just all too ODD and PERSISTENT.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 11:32, 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 think some of the confusion comes from the word cement as well as the way the sources are written (obscuring some of the facts). Cement can be either or both Portland cement or the pozzolans? By mechanically grinding it in a specific way allows replacement rates for the pozzolans to increase thereby reducing the amount of Portland cement needed. At least one of the papers I read also used the same "high activation grinding" on both the replacements pozzolans and the PC. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear: Karl is making wild assertions. He initially tired to "hijack" the purpose of the article by insisting it was all about the activation process. It isn't. It is about EMC's from thier discovery, lab results -- and importantly fiedl usage reports. Along the way, Activation is discussed, and also a deeper chemistry explanation about why it is a concrete made from a pozzolan produces a "better" concrete than one made only from Portland cement. I wrote that section and also tremendously added to the section on Activation. All of it referenced.

We must also have in mind that cement chemistry is a distinct academic study as compared to concrete chemistry. Very often "never the two shall mix". I know many concrete chemists who "shudder" at cement chemistry and the other way round too(!)

Regarding your comment: I wrote a fairly detailed response to Maproom above which covers it (I tried to keep it concise). The lede of the article explains with precision what an EMC is - it is a class of materials with one commonality, mechanical activation. That's not complicated. And the resultant material (depending on the raw material used before EMC Activation) can replace high ratios of Portland cement. That's not complicated either. The confusion is not the word "cement". I suggest that any confusion comes by not "parsing" that EMCs are a complete class of materials (bold for emphasis). What most people class as "cement" is of course "Portland cement". But go 2000 years back the Romans would have said "what is Portland cement". It is simply the domination of one "minds-eye" concept of what a "cement" is.

--->For ex. go to a dentist. He will use (for example) a "cement". But it's not (trust me!) going to be Portland cement -- rather a bonding agent complimentary to hydroxyapatite. But a dentist will call that compound "cement".

This said, this is why the article also has a section "op front" dealing clearly with "classification" - because from a formal view, for those "in the know" formal classification is important. And while the classification section is perhaps "deep" to the novice, for experts, the classification aspect is very important as it establishes the "pedigree" of the article - and that it is written from knowledge. Which is important in any scientific article on Misplaced Pages.

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)

I am overwhelm here but not by the technical aspects of it. But by the insesent argueing without purpose that is going on here, but thanks for implying that I am having trouble following becuase it is so technical. Note that if you look at my user page you will see that I am way more qualified then the target audience of wikipedia. Note also that my comment was supporting your assertion that there was energy savings by using EMC. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

1. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hres394/text

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Chemistry articles
• Low-importance Chemistry articles
• WikiProject Chemistry articles
• Unassessed Civil engineering articles
• Unknown-importance Civil engineering articles
• WikiProject Civil engineering articles
• Unassessed Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Sustainability task force articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles