Papercreters: Re: [papercreters] Data base info on PC mix

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Re: [papercreters] Data base info on PC mix

Greetings,

Back in the dark ages, we did tests with an oxyacetalene torch on our
samples. We held the torch on the papercrete and fibrous adobe for a
full count of 10. The same amount of time as it took to cut through a
1/4" piece of angle iron. All the samples tested were 1" thick and
over 60 days old. On all samples, it took another count of 20 to 30 for
you to be able to feel the heat start to come through. At no time did
they ever get hot. The paper adobe went out as soon as the torch was
removed, the papercrete needed to be put out.

At that time the mixtures were 70% paper, 20% sand and 10% Portland for
the papercrete and the fibrous adobe was 50/50 heavy clay and paper, by
weight. I have a scale that I use for measure the weight of my dry
paper, and all additives.

As far as I was concerned, that ended all questions about insulation
factors.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

Spaceman wrote:
>
>
> Slurry Guy was making hollow pc cylinders and using some procedure
> that involved melting ice inside them. He would be able to give
> details but hasn't been around lately. A search of the archives would
> probably turn up the information. He has other fires to put out right
> now. He said his results showed more R factor with compressed pc than
> with non-compressed, which seems counter intuitive to me. I have not
> done any testing so can't dispute his results.
>
> That test page came to me back in 2002 or so, and that was all the
> information I got. The newsletter that it originally came from is no
> longer in existence and tracking down the parties involved was
> impossible for me. After ten years the trail is very cold. They never
> did get the pc to fail, it just compressed and then re-expanded after
> the pressure was removed. Nothing like concrete which shatters when
> you exceed the strength.
>
> Considering that 12" thick walls are common with pc, 200 psi would
> support over a ton per running inch. Even a papercrete roof isn't
> going to weigh that much. PC for fill only has to support itself,
> strength needed is minimal. I read somewhere that Mike McCain got pc
> approved as adobe in NM by using magazines which have a clay coating
> on the pages. The NM code specifies clay but does not define how much.
> They test adobe for compressive strength and the number of cracks. PC
> passed with no problem.
>
> Adobe houses and missions have stood for centuries, and papercrete is
> superior to adobe in many ways.
>
> spaceman
>
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>> Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Cylinder break tests are for concrete. Pc isn't concrete, it is more like a wood product.
>>> http://starship-enterprises.net/files/papercrete%20strength%20tests.jpg shows strength tests done at NMSU.
>>> http://starship-enterprises.net/files/papercrete%20formulas.jpg gives formulas from back in the dark ages, party like it's 1999.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Both good reading. PC is *way* softer than I expected. Softer
>> than most woods used in construction. 260psi is softer than
>> basswood. [and concrete used in footings is abt 5000psi, if I recall
>> correctly]
>>
>> They don't say on that page how long they cured the samples. [or am I
>> missing that?] 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year samples would be
>> interesting.
>>
>> So what would be a good test to see if a particular PC mix was good
>> enough-- for walls or fill?
>>
>> And is there a good way to test R-value? Heat sink value?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.24/2449 - Release Date: 10/20/09 18:42:00
>>
>>
>
>
>