Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Revolutionary 'green' types of bricks and construction materials could be made from recycled PVC, waste plant fibers or sand with the help of a remarkable new kind of rubber polymer discovered by Australian scientists.
The rubber polymer, itself made from sulfur and canola oil, can be compressed and heated with fillers to create construction materials of the future, says a new paper unveiling a promising new technique just published in Chemistry—A European Journal.
"This method could produce materials that may one day replace non-recyclable construction materials, bricks and even concrete replacement," says organic chemistry researcher Flinders University Associate Professor Justin Chalker.
[...] "This new recycling method and new composites are an important step forward in making sustainable construction materials, and the rubber material can be repeatedly ground up and recycled," says lead author Flinders Ph.D. Nic Lundquist. "The rubber particles also can be first used to purify water and then repurposed into a rubber mat or tubing."
"This is also important because there are currently few methods to recycle PVC or carbon fiber," he says, with collaborators from Flinders, Deakin University and University of WA.
[...] The new manufacturing and recycling technique, called reactive compression molding, applies to rubber material that can be compressed and stretched, but one that doesn't melt. The unique chemical structure of the sulfur backbone in the novel rubber allows for multiple pieces of the rubber to bond together.
More information: Nicholas Lundquist et al. Reactive compression molding post‐inverse vulcanization: A method to assemble, recycle, and repurpose sulfur polymers and composites, Chemistry – A European Journal (2020). DOI: 10.1002/chem.202001841
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @05:07PM (6 children)
Sounds like my mother-in-law's cooking... who knew the old battle-axe was a cutting-edge materials science researcher?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @05:17PM (4 children)
Sounds like it would smell pretty nasty too... not sure I'd want to spend long periods of time inside a room constructed from that stuff.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @08:13PM (3 children)
Having worked with building material made mainly from recyled tires as the base, with other assorted plastics as fillers/whatever...yes, it bloody stinks as supplied, well, the stuff we had did, and if you had to work it....I made it SEFP when it came anywhere near the workshops..
Then there's the questions of gas and chemical leakage from it..especially over the long term, which we didn't get any answers for re the stuff we were supplied with.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday May 26 2020, @10:44PM (2 children)
SEFP ?
Science and Engineering Foundation Programme?
Shaving Eyebrows Fun and Profit?
Senior Executive Fellows Program?
Sexy Eunuchs Fucking Pillows?
Search Engine Frontend Page?
Sleek Elegant Fast Porches?
Sexy Egyptians Fucking Pharisees?
Shouldn't Expect Fair Pay?
Shaving Extremely Fine Pussy?
Sony Ericsson Flash Plugin?
Sustainable Energy Financing Project?
Selling Extremely Fucked Products?
???What????
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @05:25AM (1 child)
Someone Elses Fucking Problem.
The stuff was hellish to work with, was murder on the tooling (recyled tires...full of tiny bits of embedded metal), contaminated the dust collection system (set up mostly to handle the dust from the woodworking equipment, and the presence of this stuff in the collection bags meant that we couldn't recycle it), as far as I was concerned, it shouldn't have been anywhere near us or our equipment, but was overruled by the beancounter they'd put in charge of the workshops, so I took no responsibility for the stuff, left it to the muppet squad, and then internally charged for the damage they caused to our equipment working with it.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday May 28 2020, @02:13AM
Hahaha, oddly, never heard that one.
I like it but somehow I'm disappointed it wasn't Shaving Eyebrows for Fun and Profit!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @01:47AM
Who do you think she was testing it on?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @05:10PM (9 children)
Bricks don't get recycled because they are too busy doing their job until they are torn down which could easily be 60 years.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 26 2020, @05:57PM (7 children)
And what happens to them once they're torn down?
It doesn't really directly matter how long a product does its job (obviously the longer it's in use, the less gets thrown away per year) - the real question is the amount of the product thrown away every year. And there's a whole lot of concrete thrown away every year.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:10PM (4 children)
There's no way some rubber/plastic brick is going to last as long as a ceramic brick. It will degrade, losing strength, appearance, or chemicals to the environment. And since it doesn't last as long, it will have to be replaced (recycled) sooner with all the losses and inefficiency that goes with that. Bricks can last 150 years or more and they are chemically inert, thus harmless to the environment when in use and when disposed of.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:19PM (3 children)
Plastic lasts basically forever, in fact that's one of the big problems with it. Unless exposed sunlight, which causes it to break up (though sadly not break down) - so paint your walls.
Doesn't really matter how long your bricks theoretically last when the building is probably torn down much sooner. Then the question becomes, how re-usable are your bricks? And the answer is typically "not very" - the mortar typically binds to them too strongly to turn them back into useful bricks, so you get rubble. And concrete is hardly chemically inert.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:52PM
Not to mention that plastic is something that we've gotten rather good at tuning. One of the big headaches with recycling plastics is that there's so many of them and they don't all play well together when recycled. Depending upon the mixture of plastics you can get varying degrees of rigidity and density.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 27 2020, @02:21PM (1 child)
If it's one thing bricks are not exposed to, it's sunlight. :-) Which works great if you live in Seattle.
TFS says it's converting those materials into a rubber polymer. Rubber responds pretty dynamically to heat. Does that work in a brick form? Dynamic expansion and contraction would seem to work against the bonding agent between the bricks and allow the elements to invade. It's already a problem with regular brick (which keeps tuckpointers busy).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday May 28 2020, @01:08AM
There's this thing called paint, perhaps you've heard of it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @12:57AM (1 child)
Bricks and concrete are basically stone. The planet is covered with it anyway.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 27 2020, @02:26PM
You might want to review the chemistry. Superficial resemblance is not indicative of reality.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Tuesday May 26 2020, @11:28PM
Bricks get recycled (reused) all the time. So a fair amount get a second (or more?) shot at "doing their job until they are torn down."
https://www.acereclamation.com/Why-Reclaimed-Bricks?/B57.htm [acereclamation.com]
Their more varied and inconstant appearance is preferred by many people. Although good ones can cost considerably more than new, machine made bricks.
"which could easily be 60 years." Bricks are indeed durable.
Here's a 500 year old brick building in London.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/09/11/bromley-hall-the-oldest-brick-building-in-london/ [ianvisits.co.uk]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by BananaPhone on Tuesday May 26 2020, @05:27PM (6 children)
Love the idea but would really like to see what it looks like.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:25PM
You can panel or plaster over ugly, outgassing is much harder to cover up.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @10:05PM
Here's the best I could find: https://d2g8igdw686xgo.cloudfront.net/42394544_1589750270242103_r.jpg [cloudfront.net]
(Score: 4, Informative) by captain normal on Tuesday May 26 2020, @10:50PM (3 children)
You want pictures? OK, but you may not like them cause you also have read through a lot of chemistry and engineering stuff with lots of math formulas. Stuff the average S/N code monkeys don't seem to like.
https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1002%2Fchem.202001841&file=chem202001841-s1-Supporting_Information_for_Accepted_Article.pdf [wiley.com]
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @02:38AM
I wonder why they're choosing to market it as bricks. If it could work as a plywood, and I don't see any reason it couldn't, that would be a lot more useful.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 27 2020, @02:45PM (1 child)
The paper doesn't compare the rubber polymer composite's profile with the building materials it's meant to replace, though.
Another thing that's not clear is the embodied carbon of this vs. the alternatives. If we're spending more energy to "recycle" these materials than it would cost to, say, make a regular brick, then are we really being green? Or, if we're recycling these materials to eliminate toxic waste or some such, then is the cost of the toxic waste greater than the cost of the energy to recycle the materials?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday May 27 2020, @07:10PM
Well it doesn't take near as much energy to process something at 170C, compared to 900C to 1200C required in a brick kiln.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by Kitsune008 on Tuesday May 26 2020, @05:54PM (8 children)
Imagine the outfit that managed a deal that allowed them to crank out LARGE Lego bricks at a reasonable price.
They could even offer limited production runs of some of the more popular Lego kits, with the assorted special pieces.
You could build your own Millennium Falcon, and live in it!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:33PM (3 children)
And you thought the LEGO Millennium Falcon was expensive at $800 - just picture what one with 125,000x the volume would cost. 7541 pieces are going to take some time to wrangle into place, and a lot of kragl if you want to keep it together through outdoor thermal cycling.
Ref: Lego mini-figs are 4cm tall, if you want to accommodate 2m tall wookies the way that the model accommodates a standard mini-fig, you're going to need to scale up 50x - in all 3 dimensions. The completed 50x scaled up model will also measure 136' in length - gonna need a big lot to "land" it in, and an understanding building authority.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @07:04PM (2 children)
Keep in mind that part of the reason for building things out of plastic is that it's a way of sequestering carbon. A relatively large deck alone can take nearly the entire plastic output of a moderate sized city and keep it there for a relatively long time. Yes, it will emit some of the carbon dioxide back into the environment over time, but if you cover it or otherwise protect it against UV damage, the amount is pretty small.
If you put a thin ceramic veneer on it, the plastic will be there essentially forever, or at least until we have a better way of recycling it or can slowly release it over time to allow the plants and animals to adapt.
The big question though is how to produce enough plastic from atmospheric carbon on a large enough scale to make a difference.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 26 2020, @08:04PM (1 child)
The thing about carbon sequestration projects that cost a lot of money, generally speaking they cost that money because they consume a lot of energy - until we wean off of carbon based fuels it's a pointless exercise.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @01:51AM
It depends how you do it and what you're doing with it. Bioplastics can be quite affordable and any of the material you use is taking carbon that's recently been in the atmosphere out, provided you can seal it to prevent leakage.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:41PM (3 children)
Who needs a deal? Just look at all the unlicensed knock-offs that are out there already, often LEGO compatible (um, excuse me - "compatible with popular construction bricks", don't want to go violating that trademark)
There's nothing novel about interlocking bricks - LEGO was predated by American Bricks and several others. What set LEGO apart was the hardness and extremely tight manufacturing tolerances that let them lock together firmly and consistently.
I suspect they wouldn't scale up well though - a similar level of firm interlocking scaled to a full-sized construction brick would likely take a sledgehammer to assemble, and jaws-of-life to take apart again. Or at the very least a large mallet and crowbar. And many of the cooler special pieces would require some sort of crane to get into position. Might still be fun (especially if you already bought the "LEGO crane" kit), but not especially practical - it'd likely be a lot cheaper and easier to build with lumber or cast concrete.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:56PM (2 children)
This is true, the main reason to stick with Lego brand is that they are built to incredibly tight and consistent tolerances. Chances are that one of the first plastic sets they made will still interchange with the newest sets they're making. Which is a huge accomplishment, but also a huge part of why they're so expensive. At this point, the Lego brick production is nearly 100% automated by various robots. The prices of the sets has remained largely the same going back to at least the '80s.
That being said, I could definitely see interchangeable Lego style bricks being used for the construction of temporary buildings. Things where you just need a relatively quick and sturdy shelter where it would be useful to disassemble afterwards. Think refugee camps where you might need something more sturdy than a tent, but may also need to be able to assemble and reassemble without having experts involved.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 26 2020, @07:09PM (1 child)
That would be handy - though I suspect wall panels would work better than bricks in almost every way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @01:46AM
Possibly, but bricks are much easier to ship, they can fill more available voids in a shipping container, provided you're not over weight. Panels are great, but aren't as easy to fit around other items and are harder to assemble with just one or two people and can be somewhat limited in terms of reconfiguration to suit the needs on the ground.
I think it's more likely that it would wind up being a mixture of bricks and panels or canvas.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Farkus888 on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:37PM (3 children)
Whoever decided to brag that these could be made from sand never heard of the sand shortage.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 26 2020, @07:14PM (2 children)
You know what else is made from sand? Traditional concrete bricks...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @09:38PM (1 child)
We also make bricks from clay.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 27 2020, @02:47PM
We also make bricks from mud.
And hashish.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday May 26 2020, @06:44PM (1 child)
Whenever I see articles like this, I become skeptical. So many times in my life I have seen products, that were thought to be useful and benign, turn out to have hidden dangers. Asbestos, CFCs, teflon, etc, etc, were all thought to be revolutionary and perfectly safe materials in their time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2020, @09:40PM
I have seen this sort of product a few times now. Usually they suffer from incompatable plastics sitting next to each other and then breaking down or cracking. Would be interesting how they solved that issue. For if they have not, it will not go far and is just a vc money grab.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2020, @09:57AM
How about solving the main problems with application of plastics?
It was invented because it was durable and could withstand prolonged use.
So it should not be applied when the prolonged use is out of question. Like in one-time packaging material, devices which last until manufacturer shuts them down or disposable utensils.
There was no problem when government phased out the asbestos which, when not tampered with, is safer than most of these modern replacements, releasing weapon-grade toxic gases in high temperatures (in 1990s there were lots of papers about this issue and it seems to be unaddressed).
There was no problem when they forced to shut down the production of cheap chlorine-fluoride compounds for fire extinguishers so the fire losses became much bigger as there is literally no replacement for these substances even today. Chlorine-fluoride compounds do not leave traces on the burning material like water, foam or carbon-dioxid does.
So what's the problem with phasing out usage of plastics in temporary packaging which is more solid than product which is held in?
The funny thing about the last example: There is a replacement which you can use as a fire extinguishing substance, but until some critical temperature is reached - if it goes above, the fire extinguishing compound breaks into... propane gas. So in many cases you have no idea will the device you have will work as extinguisher or a flamethrower.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jurov on Wednesday May 27 2020, @12:21PM
I know some ..ehm.. developed countries like to build homes from combustible materials, but adding rubber is hardly of an improvement.