Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Tuesday June 08, @09:43AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the cement-cements-cembalos dept.

Visualizing cement hydration on a molecular level:

The concrete world that surrounds us owes its shape and durability to chemical reactions that start when ordinary Portland cement is mixed with water. Now, MIT scientists have demonstrated a way to watch these reactions under real-world conditions, an advance that may help researchers find ways to make concrete more sustainable.

[...] Cement in concrete contributes about 8 percent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions, rivaling the emissions produced by most individual countries. With a better understanding of cement chemistry, scientists could potentially "alter production or change ingredients so that concrete has less of an impact on emissions, or add ingredients that are capable of actively absorbing carbon dioxide," says Admir Masic, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

[...] Using Raman microspectroscopy, the MIT scientists observed a sample of ordinary Portland cement placed underwater without disturbing it or artificially stopping the hydration process, mimicking the real-world conditions of concrete use. In general, one of the hydration products, called portlandite, starts as a disordered phase, percolates throughout the material, and then crystallizes, the research team concluded.

Journal Reference:
Hyun-Chae Loh, Hee-Jeong Kim, Franz-Josef Ulm, et al. Time-Space-Resolved Chemical Deconvolution of Cementitious Colloidal Systems Using Raman Spectroscopy, Langmuir (DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.1c00609)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @10:26AM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @10:26AM (#1143084)

    The EPA has a web page listing sources of greenhouse gases (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). Have a look and total up the six categories: transportation 29%, electricity production 25%, industry 23%, commercia/residential 13%, agriculture 10% and land use/forestry 12%. According to my calculator, that adds up to 112%. Conclusion: these twisted AGW fucks are so intent on their agenda to bring us back to the stone age that they ignore basic math.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @10:38AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @10:38AM (#1143086)

      >> they ignore basic math.

      Saint Greta must have skipped that lecture.

      Queue the downmods and defensive comments from the Greta fan club in 4..3..2..

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @01:37PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @01:37PM (#1143115)

        I find your obsession with an autistic teenage girl simply trying (albeit naively) to make the world a better place quite telling.

        In my experience, it's the sign of someone who's very insecure about his own masculinity.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @01:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @01:50PM (#1143119)

          Criticism proof patron saint of environmentalism. Same principle behind child suicide bombers.

          You also assume the AC's gender.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 08, @04:37PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 08, @04:37PM (#1143190) Journal
          He's not the only one. For example, I recently walked through a pile of Newsweek (a US-based magazine) stories on climate change [newsweek.com]. At the time I looked last week, 8 out of the latest 100 Newsweek stories about climate change were about Greta Thunberg (with about as much news content as this post). It appeared to me that only US presidents (out of the personalities mentioned in the titles) were getting better coverage.

          It reminds me why I stopped reading Newsweek. They dropped the "news" part of the magazine.

          Here, I don't see the point of complaining about someone's obsession with Thunberg when major news outlets are also obsessing over her.
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 08, @05:43PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday June 08, @05:43PM (#1143218) Journal

            Wow, EIGHT whole stories!

            She's almost as newsworthy as Pizza Rat! No wonder you guys are so triggered!

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 08, @06:05PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 08, @06:05PM (#1143228) Journal

              She's almost as newsworthy as Pizza Rat!

              I take you missed the part where only US presidents (Biden and Trump BTW) were getting more climate change press. Pizza Rat doesn't get that kind of coverage.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @11:42AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @11:42AM (#1143096)

      Except that according to your own link this isn't even true and you're a morally corrupt lying piece of shit, like all the fucking climate deniers I've ever seen.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @12:30PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @12:30PM (#1143103)

        Your reading skills reflect your ignorance. Forget the pretty chart and read the text on that page. Add up the numbers, if the math isn't too hard for you.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @12:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @12:41PM (#1143106)

          You're wasting your time arguing with a brainwashed millennial.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday June 08, @01:18PM (4 children)

      by HiThere (866) on Tuesday June 08, @01:18PM (#1143110) Journal

      How about assuming that some sources fall into more than one category?

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @01:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @01:33PM (#1143113)

        Don't make the same mistake I did and try to wresle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

        The fact that some sources falls in more than one category is so obvious only a climate-denying retard wouldn't think of it. That tells you all you need to know about those shallow-end-of-the-gene-pool losers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @03:55PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @03:55PM (#1143172)

        Brought to you by the same people that use posters like this one:
        https://cdni.rt.com/files/2021.05/article/60b168e785f540785375f73b.png [rt.com]

        It would be clever, if dishonest, if they had added a 0 after the 14 cents to make it seem like $300k was $300M, but that isn't what happened, that 140 at the end is actually a footnote reference from the original source.

        So, my question is, how much money did he spend to rail against 4 people's salary for a year and make it seem like that was too much to spend on science.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 08, @04:27PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 08, @04:27PM (#1143186) Journal
        See here [soylentnews.org] for how the math was cooked. Bottom line is that land use/forestry wasn't part of the list and is negative.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 08, @04:25PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 08, @04:25PM (#1143184) Journal

      Have a look and total up the six categories: transportation 29%, electricity production 25%, industry 23%, commercia/residential 13%, agriculture 10% and land use/forestry 12%.

      From the link:

      Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry in the United States is a net sink and removes approximately 12 percent of these greenhouse gas emissions, this net sink is not shown in the above diagram.

      So if you add the first five categories, they total 100% (up to round off error) as one would expect. If we were to include the land use/forestry category, then the first five would actually total roughly 114% with 12% of that 114% taken off by land use to get 100%.

      Moral of this post: if you're going to complain about funny math, make sure your math isn't funnier.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by KritonK on Tuesday June 08, @12:16PM (1 child)

    by KritonK (465) on Tuesday June 08, @12:16PM (#1143101)

    Even more exciting than watching paint dry!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @05:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @05:15PM (#1143595)

    srsly?
    i mean, they could just take like ... uhm ... 256 (transparent?) yoghurt cups, add (same amount of) cement and then put (same amount of) water in each cup BUT with a delay of say ... 30 sec?
    then take a picture of the cups and stitch it together into one and voila you have a "movie" of how the cement sets.
    nevermind.
    facinating stuff, first it's a disconnected powder, you can shift it around, pile it up, divide it, then add water, a liquid (duh) and it becomes a half-assed sticky gooe-liqui-dish mass and finally it's one solid chunk ...

    i wonder what the "affinity" for neutrino capture is during the stage of activating (adding water +mixing) to solid (can carry itself)?
    also, what happens to the original process that generated the neutrino?

    maybe beta-decay measurements have a "lazy" day if the path of the emitted neutrino should pass thru a cement pouring site a few hundred yards away? ^_^

(1)