[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GSBN: Digest for 6/17/02



This message contains a digest of the messages posted to the list today. If
you reply to this message, please be sure to change the subject line to
something meaningful. Also, be careful not to include the entire text of this
message in your reply.



---------------------------------------------------------------------


-> Re: Technical issues in China
     by bruce king ecobruce@...
-> Re: Technical issues in China
     by Bruce King ecobruce@...


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 2002 09:07:34 -0500
From: bruce king ecobruce@...
Subject: Re: Technical issues in China



Kelly wrote:

" . . . The second issue has to do with plaster. Paul Lacinski and I have
been experimenting with plaster mixes here in China using locally available
materials. Last year we used flyash in several mixes (both with lime and
with cement). I won't go into the detailed mixes, but do any of you have a
feeling for the effects of flyash in plaster? Clearly flyash is a pozzolanic
material, and in concrete it adds compressive strength and also makes the
mix set more quickly (not particularly an advantage in a plaster). I'm
wondering if it also (like cement) makes the plaster less vapor permeable.
Does anyone have experience using flyash in lime plasters? There are
actually two types of flyash here - one is fine and powdery (very similar to
cement) and the other is rough and irregular, up to 3mm diameter. We've used
both types. The rough type is actually more like an aggregate though it does
seem to have a very weak pozzolanic reaction. Any thoughts on flyash and
permeability or suitability for plasters?"

Kelly et al -

Fly ash in concrete will typically (in fact, always) retard the set time,
not hasten it, so I can't explain your comment.  It also greatly decreases
permeability (by almost an order of magnitude), and for that reason alone I
have always thought it inappropriate for plaster (unless you want a vapor
barrier).

Two days ago I had a long conversation with the local VP of the biggest fly
ash supplier in the USA (USG Resources), and as it happens I asked about
China.  They are by far the biggest cement producer, concrete consumer, and
coal-fired power producer in the world, and thus, seemingly, obvious
candidates for high volume fly ash concrete promotion.

"Yes", he (the ISG guy) said, "except they don't collect the ash (ie,
pollution) like we do - it just goes up in the air.  Retrofitting an
existing coal-fired plant with an electrostatic precipitator costs about
$300 million, so they so far just aren't doing it much" (Yow! Someone call
the World Bank!).  So they basically don't "have" much ash, and are
currently just breathing it.  Thus, I suspect the ash you got is not very
high quality, and the coarse stuff is probably bottom ash - the stuff swept
off the floor of the furnace as opposed to the stuff that flew away (thus:
fly ash).  Bottom ash is used here as roadfill and soil stabilizer, and is,
yes, mildly pozzolanic.  probably fine as aggregate, but not as an actual
pozzolan you can count on.

You wanted thoughts, and you got 'em.  We miss you sweetie.  Come home soon.

best to all,

Bruce King






----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 2002 14:31:56 -0500
From: Bruce King ecobruce@...
Subject: Re: Technical issues in China

 Robert  "Tom" Tom thus spoke :

> Leave it to the Unnecessarily Gizmologically Complexified Californicating
> Murricans (no offense intended of course) to design a $300 million gizmo to
> collect dust . . .
>  . . . Shouldn't you enginoids be furiously scratching your noggins to come
up
> with more economical means by which fly ash can be taken out of the
emmisions
? 

On behalf of enginoids everywhere, I wish to thank Mr. Tom for his
thoughtful suggestion, and applaud his brilliant labor-increasing /
capital-saving invention for gathering smoke and selling it.

It beats me why it would take $300 million just to catch the dust, but I
guess it just does.  Believe me, those coal-fired power utilities would
spend less if they could, and undoubtedly spent some time trying to figure
out a cheaper way.  As I said, someone talk to the World Bank - this is
right up their alley.

just blowin' smoke,

Bruce King



----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of Digest

To request a copy of the help file, reply to this message and put "help" in
the subject.