Papercreters: [papercreters] Re: Recipe Ratios

Thursday, June 25, 2009

[papercreters] Re: Recipe Ratios

No worries Bob.

The point I'm trying to make is that the recipe you listed in post #7826 is nowhere close to the recipe you just listed from post 7146.

The most important reason that they are drastically different is that you were quoting VOLUME measurements in gallons for your ingredients. The message you referenced listing ingredients by DRY WEIGHT.

That completely changes everything. Your version, using gallons, if the paper were dry weight might only have (I'm taking a wild guess) one pound of paper per every 10 pounds of cement if those volume quantities measurements were weighed after getting dried out. Perhaps more extreme than that. You did report that your initial blocks were extremely heavy. Clair's message you quoted used a ratio of 1 to 1.5 paper to cement IN DRY WEIGHT.

I simply want to make it clear so that everyone can understand exactly what you are doing and how it compares so that we all can learn from your experiences.

If your intent, Bob, is to make a lighter weight block, I think you have an excellent idea to use more paper for the quantity of cement you are using.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be difficult or start an argument. I'm just trying to make the comparison Apples to Apples.

I hope my comments help some readers better understand the differences in the recipes being used.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Following is your inital recipe you listed using gallons in message #7826 that you said was heavy:

--- In papercreters@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <criswells.ok@...> wrote:
>
>
> I've just started using my shop press to make blocks, don't have any
> photos yet but the set up looks very hopefull. the first block I made I
> used:
>
> * 4 gals of just slightly wet office paper/cardboard pulp,
> * 2 gal of dry cement and
> * 2 gal dry sand (just local stuff)
>
> After pressing all the water out and removing the form, I went to pick
> up the 8"hx16"lx12"w block and could hardly lift it. It took four days
> to completely dry and the finish weight was 68 lbs. Whyyyyy too heavy to
> work with, so I cut the batch in half:
>
> * 2 gal sighlty wet office paper/cardboard pulp
> * 1 gal dry cement, and
> * 1 gal dry local sand.
>
> After pressing out the water from the 3.5"hx12"wx16"l block , it dried
> in about 3 days and the finish weight was 28 lbs. Still heaver than I
> wanted but workable, I'm going to increase the:
>
> * cardboard/paper pulp to about: 4 gals and
> * cut the cement to 1/2 gal and
> * the sand to 1/2 gal and see what that turns out.
>
> I really think that pressing them is the quick way to go if you want to
> start laying right away. The out put is a lot less that the super wet
> slurry but the working time is considerably less, even if they are not
> completely dry, in two days you can handle them and probably lay them
> and they can dry in the wall. The first two had such a small amount of
> shrinkage that I could not even tell that it shrunk at all.
>
> Bob

>>>>>>>>Following is the message I'm replying to:

--- In papercreters@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <criswells.ok@...> wrote:
>
>
> I kind-of got my recipe from message 7146
>
> The following quote is from Clair from the above message:
>
> "Hi Bob our blocks are 12x14x6-we are using 7 gal mix .We are just doing
> small mixes in a barrel so we mixed 10 lbs paper 15lbs portland and 2lbs
> manifactured fines (sand)-20 gal water.We had problems with uniformity
> ,we needed more holes in the compresssion area and seems to be fine
> now."
>
> That information came from Clair up in Alaska. If you divide that by 1/2
> it comes out to
>
> * 5 lbs paper (dry I guess)
> * 7.5 lbs portland cement (that a little over a gallon)
> * 1 lb sand (ok I missed that by a mile)
> * 10 gal water (I think I can even get by with 5 gal or less)
>
> I think the new recipe will be better and not weigh so much, it should
> come out to be about 4"hx12"wx16" long, Clair said her 12"wx14"lx6"h
> weights about 12.5 lbs, I can live with that, I mix in a 8 gal container
> where she uses a barrel (I guess 55 gal size), I soak my
> paper/cardboard in a 20 gal container and then move the pulp to the 8
> gal container.
>
> The reason I'm cutting her recipe in half is because of the way I pulp
> my shredded office paper/cardboard and then move the pulp into another
> mixer and add the cement and sand. I think the sand is what was giving
> me so much weight, it would also make the blocks more fire proof and
> also doesn't soak up water so bad. As a matter of fact I took some scrap
> pieces that had dried and tried to re-pulp them with more pulp and they
> would not break down nor soak up water. (I havn't figured that one out
> yet). I had to take the pieces (they had been soaking for 48 hrs) out of
> the pulp because they just would not break down.
>
> Bob
> --- In papercreters@yahoogroups.com, "slurryguy" <slurryguy@> wrote:
>
> Wow.
>
> I'm not sure where to draw the line semantically, but it seems
> appropriate to ask the question: Are you making papercrete or are you
> making concrete mortar with a paper additive?
>
> The mix you are describing may be the most dense, mineral-rich mix I've
> ever heard about. I'm not surprised that it is heavy.
>
> I'm glad you posted about your efforts.
>
>
> A couple of comments:
> Most of the recipes people have discussed have a ratio of dry cement to
> DRY paper of as low as 1-2, or as high as 2-1, perhaps as high as 4-1 by
> weight. NOT VOLUME. Your ratio by dry weight might be 10-1 or higher.
> With such a low paper content, I'm not surprised that you have observed
> no shrinkage. Your blocks aren't "drying" they are chemically curing and
> locking all the water inside the brick.
>
> I'm curious what your are trying to accomplish? What are you planning on
> using the final product for? I can tell you right now, you won't get
> much insulation factor from the mixes you are trying, but perhaps that's
> not important to you.
>
> I'm not trying to discourage you from experimenting with any recipe you
> want to. In fact, I'm intrigued to see where you are headed. Please keep
> us informed no matter what. This might be fun to watch.
>