3 ms·

And concrete.

• znpy 3y ago
  Unironically, roman era concrete has been recently re-discovered (as in: understood how to reproduce) and this is very significant because roman-era-style concrete gets stronger with time instead of deteriorating as the regular concrete does.
  • jamiegreen 3y ago
    Incredible it has taken this long
  • michaelmior 3y ago
    I think it's less significant than it's often made out to be. > You may wonder why we don’t use Roman concrete today if that is the case; well, one of the reasons as to why is because, although it gets stronger over time and withstands erosion from water, when this cement is still young and has not had time to develop its strength from seawater, it likely does not have the compressive strength to handle modern use. https://www.forthvalleyconcrete.co.uk/the-differences-between-modern-concrete-and-roman-concrete https://www.forthvalleyconcrete.co.uk/the-differences-betwee... Also, Roman concrete didn't contain rebar which is necessary in many modern applications and rebar rusts which reduces the overall lifespan of the structure. That said, apparently Roman concrete has some potential issues in structures adjacent to bodies of saltwater since the saltwater would accelerate the strengthening process.
    • AtlasBarfed 3y ago
      ... can't you make stainless steel rebar?
      • m4rtink 3y ago
        IIRC no steel is truly rist resistant in real world conditions, given enough time. Using some non-ferous material might be a better option.
        • smsm42 3y ago
          Do it the same way this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi is done?