> On Mar 20, 8:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
>> harry wrote:
>>> We have established that adding cement doesn't necessarily make it
>> No you simply stated it as a fact with zero supporting evidence, harry.
>> That is not the same as establishing it as a fact.
> This common knowledge to anyone in the construction business with even
> half a brain.
No, it isn't. Its well known that you can make a porous and weak mix
with lots of airgaps by using less cement. Its called in the limit a
Its common knowledge that increasing the cement to remove those airgaps
leads to a stringer more frost resistant mortar or concrete.
Its called a 'strong' mix, by all the people in the trade.
> Part of my previous job was laying concrete.
No wonder you got fired.
> If you want your concrete more fliud/workable you can add/have added
> chemicals without affecting quality..
That much is at least true.
> Adding superfluous cement is not helpful and expensive.
No one was talking about adding 'superflous' cement. The ideal mix is
where the interstices between the ballast grains are just fully filled
with cement and the final mix is fully waterproof.
That's why you ideally need a graded ballast of shingle, larger stones
and sand, of varying grades. Ultimately its a composite where the cement
fills the gaps between the ballast fully - that's as good as it gets
without steel added.
Adding extra cement beyond that doesn't weaken the mix much but reducing
it below that does - simply because of the porosity.
And, finally, I believe it was your assertion that the ballast was in
fact weaker than the cement and would give first. I dont ncesessarily
believe that is the case with granite or flint, under non shock loads,
but if that IS the case then it directly contardicts your assertion that
cement is weaker than the ballast and more cement will make it even weaker.