Open Source Ecology - User contributions [en]

Talk:Lead Acid Battery

2014-07-01T20:36:16Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries */

== lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries ==

This is an edited version of an email that I sent to Gregor recently.

I'm of the opinion that Ni-Fe is not the lowest-hanging fruit. The internet hype on Ni-Fe doesn't add up. Changhong DoD and voltage parameters are basically the same as industrial lead-acid. The warranties do not cover infinite lifetimes, and no one has proven with any third-party confirmation that their NiFe's work for even 10 years. Surely such long-lived batteries exist, but it took Edison more than 20 years and millions of dollars (those are ~1910 dollars!) to achieve what he did, and Changhong are not Edison cells.

I think we could make lead-antimony alloys, cast lead plates, make lead oxide paste, make sulphuric acid electrolyte, and give lead-acid batteries a user-serviceable/refurbishable form factor. Even if they only last 3-5 years, we can develop the refurbishing process to "renew" them, which would probably only involve removing all the plates, scraping off the passivated layer, squeegeeing on new paste, and swapping the electrolyte. That's less than 1 hour of work for a 1kWh capacity battery, and for me that would mean 3-4 hours of work every 3-5 years -- no brainer even at 100 hours of labor over 20 years.

Decent lead-acid batteries retail for less than $600/kWh over 20 years with 50% depth of discharge:
[http://realgoods.com/solar/batteries/flooded-lead-acid/trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery]

That's 6V * 225AH = 1350 Wh capacity, * 2 batteries = 2700 Wh capacity at 100% DoD or 1350 Wh at 50% DoD; 10 year life means 4 batteries in 20 years * $188 cost per battery including tax = $752 for 20 years of storage power for a household that uses a little over 1kWh per day.

These batteries weigh 67 lbs each. That's 268 lbs over 20 years. If they were solid lead, that would be 268lb * commodity price of $1/lb = $268 of lead. The actual quantity of lead is probably less than 70% by weight, so less than $200 in lead for $752 retail pricetag. So they jack the price 3x over commodity value (which itself is 3x over scrap lead value of ~30cents/lb). For me this all completely justifies home-manufacturing of batteries, as I make less than $5k/yr, and the prospect of decent lead acids actually lasting 10 years seems a bit far-fetched. Projected labor time of well under 100 hours for each 20 year timespan.

And lead could conceivably be 3D printed if people want to go that route!

If lead-acid is determined to be just too hazardous to work with (though I presume the lead exposure is similar to that experienced by gun enthusiasts who cast their own bullets, and will be left to old men for whom toxicity is a relatively minor issue), then there are still several other chemistries that I would consider before Ni-Fe, namely: sodium-ion (Aquion, retail $700/kWh), soluble lead flow battery, zinc-bromide flow battery (retail $900/kWh), vanadium redox flow battery, and so-called [http://www.gizmag.com/iron-air-battery/23646/ iron-air] cells (in fact, there are a whole class of metals other than aluminum and zinc that can interact with oxygen to store electricity -- probably any metal that can oxidize!). If we had a way to smelt aluminum oxide into elemental aluminum, then an aluminum-air battery would make sense, but I've never seen it done except on a huge scale with free hydroelectricity and cryolite flux -- even more toxic than lead! It's possible that we could develop an on-site recycling process for zinc-air batteries but working with high-temperature zinc is deadly dangerous.

More importantly, we've had lead-acid batteries since the mid-1800s but THERE ISN'T A SINGLE INSTRUCTABLE OR VIDEO OF PEOPLE MAKING THEM AT HOME! There is a video of a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOTFBDLziHI Nepali dude refurbishing some car batteries], but that doesn't show us everything, namely plate pasting and the end-product's performance characteristics. We MUST free this knowledge for everyone who might want it. :)

[[User:A. J. Tarnas|A. J. Tarnas]] ([[User talk:A. J. Tarnas|talk]]) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (CEST)

Talk:Lead Acid Battery

2014-07-01T20:35:41Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries */

== lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries ==

This is an edited version of an email that I sent to Gregor recently.

I'm of the opinion that Ni-Fe is not the lowest-hanging fruit. The internet hype on Ni-Fe doesn't add up. Changhong DoD and voltage parameters are basically the same as industrial lead-acid. The warranties do not cover infinite lifetimes, and no one has proven with any third-party confirmation that their NiFe's work for even 10 years. Surely such long-lived batteries exist, but it took Edison more than 20 years and millions of dollars (those are ~1910 dollars!) to achieve what he did, and Changhong are not Edison cells.

I think we could make lead-antimony alloys, cast lead plates, make lead oxide paste, make sulphuric acid electrolyte, and give lead-acid batteries a user-serviceable/refurbishable form factor. Even if they only last 3-5 years, we can develop the refurbishing process to "renew" them, which would probably only involve removing all the plates, scraping off the passivated layer, squeegeeing on new paste, and swapping the electrolyte. That's less than 1 hour of work for a 1kWh capacity battery, and for me that would mean 3-4 hours of work every 3-5 years -- no brainer even at 100 hours of labor over 20 years.

Decent lead-acid batteries retail for less than $600/kWh over 20 years with 50% depth of discharge:
[http://realgoods.com/solar/batteries/flooded-lead-acid/trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery]

That's 6V * 225AH = 1350 Wh capacity, * 2 batteries = 2700 Wh capacity at 100% DoD or 1350 Wh at 50% DoD; 10 year life means 4 batteries in 20 years * $188 cost per battery including tax = $752 for 20 years of storage power for a household that uses a little over 1kWh per day.

These batteries weigh 67 lbs each. That's 268 lbs over 20 years. If they were solid lead, that would be 268lb * commodity price of $1/lb = $268 of lead. The actual quantity of lead is probably less than 70% by weight, so less than $200 in lead for $752 retail pricetag. So they jack the price 3x over commodity value (which itself is 3x over scrap lead value of ~30cents/lb). For me this all completely justifies home-manufacturing of batteries, as I make less than $5k/yr, and the prospect of decent lead acids actually lasting 10 years seems a bit far-fetched. Projected labor time of well under 100 hours for each 20 year timespan.

And lead could conceivably be 3D printed if people want to go that route!

If lead-acid is determined to be just too hazardous to work with (though I presume the lead exposure is similar to that experienced by gun enthusiasts who cast their own bullets, and will be left to old men for whom toxicity is a relatively minor issue), then there are still several other chemistries that I would consider before Ni-Fe, namely: sodium-ion (Aquion, retail $700/kWh), soluble lead flow battery, zinc-bromide flow battery (retail $900/kWh), vanadium redox flow battery, and so-called [http://www.gizmag.com/iron-air-battery/23646/ iron-air] cells (in fact, there are a whole class of metals other than aluminum and zinc that can interact with oxygen to store electricity -- probably any metal that can oxidize, in fact!). If we had a way to smelt aluminum oxide into elemental aluminum, then an aluminum-air battery would make sense, but I've never seen it done except on a huge scale with free hydroelectricity and cryolite flux -- even more toxic than lead! It's possible that we could develop an on-site recycling process for zinc-air batteries but working with high-temperature zinc is deadly dangerous.

More importantly, we've had lead-acid batteries since the mid-1800s but THERE ISN'T A SINGLE INSTRUCTABLE OR VIDEO OF PEOPLE MAKING THEM AT HOME! There is a video of a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOTFBDLziHI Nepali dude refurbishing some car batteries], but that doesn't show us everything, namely plate pasting and the end-product's performance characteristics. We MUST free this knowledge for everyone who might want it. :)

[[User:A. J. Tarnas|A. J. Tarnas]] ([[User talk:A. J. Tarnas|talk]]) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (CEST)

Talk:Lead Acid Battery

2014-07-01T20:28:07Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries */

== lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries ==

This is an edited version of an email that I sent to Gregor recently.

I'm of the opinion that Ni-Fe is not the lowest-hanging fruit. The internet hype on Ni-Fe doesn't add up. Changhong DoD and voltage parameters are basically the same as industrial lead-acid. The warranties do not cover infinite lifetimes, and no one has proven with any third-party confirmation that their NiFe's work for even 10 years. Surely such long-lived batteries exist, but it took Edison more than 20 years and millions of dollars (those are ~1910 dollars!) to achieve what he did, and Changhong are not Edison cells.

I think we could make lead-antimony alloys, cast lead plates, make lead oxide paste, make sulphuric acid electrolyte, and give lead-acid batteries a user-serviceable/refurbishable form factor. Even if they only last 3-5 years, we can develop the refurbishing process to "renew" them, which would probably only involve removing all the plates, scraping off the passivated layer, squeegeeing on new paste, and swapping the electrolyte. That's less than 1 hour of work for a 1kWh capacity battery, and for me that would mean 3-4 hours of work every 3-5 years -- no brainer even at 100 hours of labor over 20 years.

Decent lead-acid batteries retail for less than $600/kWh over 20 years with 50% depth of discharge:
[http://realgoods.com/solar/batteries/flooded-lead-acid/trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery]

That's 6V * 225AH = 1350 Wh capacity, * 2 batteries = 2700 Wh capacity at 100% DoD or 1350 Wh at 50% DoD; 10 year life means 4 batteries in 20 years * $188 cost per battery including tax = $752 for 20 years of storage power for a household that uses a little over 1kWh per day.

These batteries weigh 67 lbs each. That's 268 lbs over 20 years. If they were solid lead, that would be 268lb * commodity price of $1/lb = $268 of lead. The actual quantity of lead is probably less than 70% by weight, so less than $200 in lead for $752 retail pricetag. So they jack the price 3x over commodity value (which itself is 3x over scrap lead value of ~30cents/lb). For me this all completely justifies home-manufacturing of batteries, as I make less than $5k/yr, and the prospect of decent lead acids actually lasting 10 years seems a bit far-fetched. Projected labor time of well under 100 hours for each 20 year timespan.

And lead could conceivably be 3D printed if people want to go that route!

If lead-acid is determined to be just too hazardous to work with (though I presume the lead exposure is similar to that experienced by gun enthusiasts who cast their own bullets, and will be left to old men for whom toxicity is a relatively minor issue), then there are still several other chemistries that I would consider before Ni-Fe, namely: sodium-ion (Aquion, retail $700/kWh), soluble lead flow battery, zinc-bromide flow battery (retail $900/kWh), vanadium redox flow battery. If we had a way to smelt aluminum oxide into elemental aluminum, then an aluminum air battery would make sense, but I've never seen it done except on a huge scale with free hydroelectricity and cryolite flux -- even more toxic than lead! It's possible that we could develop an on-site recycling process for zinc-air batteries but working with high-temperature zinc is deadly dangerous.

More importantly, we've had lead-acid batteries since the mid-1800s but THERE ISN'T A SINGLE INSTRUCTABLE OR VIDEO OF PEOPLE MAKING THEM AT HOME! There is a video of a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOTFBDLziHI Nepali dude refurbishing some car batteries], but that doesn't show us everything, namely plate pasting and the end-product's performance characteristics. We MUST free this knowledge for everyone who might want it. :)

[[User:A. J. Tarnas|A. J. Tarnas]] ([[User talk:A. J. Tarnas|talk]]) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (CEST)

Talk:Lead Acid Battery

2014-07-01T18:55:28Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries */ new section

== lowest hanging fruit re: open source batteries ==

This is an edited version of an email that I sent to Gregor recently.

I'm of the opinion that Ni-Fe is not the lowest-hanging fruit. The internet hype is on Ni-Fe doesn't add up. Changhong DoD and voltage parameters are basically the same as lead-acid. I think we could make lead-antimony alloys, cast lead plates, make lead oxide paste, make sulphuric acid electrolyte, and give lead-acid batteries a user-serviceable/refurbishable form factor. Even if they only last 3-5 years, we can develop the refurbishing process to "renew" them, which would probably only involve removing all the plates, scraping off the passivated layer, squeegeeing on new paste, and swapping the electrolyte. That's less than 1 hour of work for a 1kWh capacity battery, and for me that would mean 3-4 hours of work every 3-5 years -- no brainer even at 100 hours of labor over 20 years.

Decent lead-acid batteries retail for less than $600/kWh over 20 years with 50% depth of discharge:
[http://realgoods.com/solar/batteries/flooded-lead-acid/trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery trojan-t-105-re-deep-cycle-battery]

That's 6V * 225AH = 1350 Wh capacity, * 2 batteries = 2700 Wh capacity at 100% DoD or 1350 Wh at 50% DoD; 10 year life means 4 batteries in 20 years * $188 cost per battery including tax = $752 for 20 years of storage power for a household that uses a little over 1kWh per day.

These batteries weigh 67 lbs each. That's 268 lbs over 20 years. If they were solid lead, that would be 268lb * commodity price of $1/lb = $268 of lead. The actual quantity of lead is probably less than 70% by weight, so less than $200 in lead for $752 retail pricetag. So they jack the price 3x over commodity value (which itself is 3x over scrap lead value of ~30cents/lb). For me this all completely justifies home-manufacturing of batteries, as I make less than $5k/yr, and the prospect of decent lead acids actually lasting 10 years seems a bit far-fetched. Projected labor time of well under 100 hours for each 20 year timespan.

And lead could conceivably be 3D printed if people want to go that route!

If lead-acid is determined to be just too hazardous to work with (though I presume the lead exposure is similar to that experienced by gun enthusiasts who cast their own bullets, and will be left to old men for whom toxicity is a relatively minor issue), then there are still several other chemistries that I would consider before Ni-Fe, namely: sodium-ion (Aquion, retail $700/kWh), soluble lead flow battery, zinc-bromide flow battery (retail $900/kWh), vanadium redox flow battery. If we had a way to smelt aluminum oxide into elemental aluminum, then an aluminum air battery would make sense, but I've never seen it done except on a huge scale with free hydroelectricity and cryolite flux -- even more toxic than lead! It's possible that we could develop an on-site recycling process for zinc-air batteries but working with high-temperature zinc is deadly dangerous.

More importantly, we've had lead-acid batteries since the mid-1800s but THERE ISN'T A SINGLE INSTRUCTABLE OR VIDEO OF PEOPLE MAKING THEM AT HOME! There is a video of a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOTFBDLziHI Nepali dude refurbishing some car batteries], but that doesn't show us everything, namely plate pasting and the end-product's performance characteristics. We MUST free this knowledge for everyone who might want it. :)

[[User:A. J. Tarnas|A. J. Tarnas]] ([[User talk:A. J. Tarnas|talk]]) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (CEST)

Edison Battery

2014-06-26T15:36:06Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* References */ patent index link

Edison pioneered the invention and development of the [[Nickel-Iron_Battery|nickel-iron battery]] in the early years of the 20th century.

==Electric Lighting (Crocker, 1904)==

The book ''Electric Lighting'' written by Francis Crocker in 1904 contains a detailed description of the Edison battery as it had developed to that time.

[[image:ElectricLighting-Fig168.gif|300px|Edison Battery Plates]]
[[image:ElectricLighting-Fig169.gif|300px|Edison Battery Cell]]

The standard cells of this type are 13 inches high, 5.1 inches wide,
and vary in length according to their rating, the various capacities
being obtained by simply increasing the number of plates. The positive
and negative plates are alike in appearance, and consist of rectangular grids,
of nickel-plated iron, each about 9 1/2 by 5 by .025 inch, punched with
three rows of rectangular holes, eight holes to the row (Fig. 168);
each hole being filled by a shallow perforated box of nickel-plated steel,
the perforations being very fine, about 2,500 per square inch.

The difference between the positive and negative plates is entirely
in the contents of the perforated receptacles; those for the positive plate
containing a mixture of oxide of nickel and pulverized carbon, the latter
being employed to increase the conductivity of the active material.
The receptacles for the negative plates contain a finely divided oxide of iron
and pulverized carbon. When filled these receptacles are secured to the grid
by placing them in the openings of the same, and subjecting the assembled plate
to a pressure of about 100 tons, which expands the pockets and fixes them
firmly in the grid, the assembled plates being shown in Fig. 169.

The liquid employed consists of a 20 per cent solution of caustic potash,
which undergoes no chemical change during the process of charge or discharge,
acting simply as a conveyor of oxygen between the plates. The charging current,
entering at the positive plates, oxidizes the nickel compound to the peroxide state,
and reduces the iron compound in the negative plates to a spongy iron mass.
The containing vessel consists of nickel-plated steel, and the plates are strong individually
and close together, being separated by thin strips of vulcanized rubber,
thus forming a compact mass. The terminals of the plate pass through the cover of the cell,
from which they are insulated by vulcanized rubber bushings.

The electrical features of the Edison cell are as follows:—

Average voltage of charge at normal rate, 1.68.

Average voltage of discharge at normal rate, 1.24.

A set of charge and discharge curves of a 180-ampere-hour cell is shown in Fig. 170.
This battery is rated at 30 amperes for a period of six hours. The various cells
have a weight efficiency of 11.5 to 13.2 watt-hours per pound, depending upon the size.
The watt efficiency under normal working conditions is about 60 per cent. The charging
and discharging rates are alike and cover wide ranges. A cell may be charged at
a high rate in one hour, without apparent detriment except lowering the efficiency slightly.
It is not appreciably influenced by temperature changes, and may be fully discharged
to the zero-point of E.M.F., or even charged in the reverse direction, and then recharged
to normal conditions without suffering loss in storage capacity or other injury.

The best results are obtained when twice as many positive as negative plates are employed,
and the standard cells are made up on this basis. This type is intended especially
for electric automobile service, by virtue of its high weight efficiency, and ability
to endure rough mechanical as well as electrical treatment. The same qualities would also
adapt it to portable electric-lighting purposes.

[http://books.google.com/books?id=FigKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA388 Electric Lighting (Crocker, 1904)]

==Alkaline Battery 1906 (827279)==

[[image:Edison-827297.gif|300px|The patent drawing for Edison's Alkaline Battery (827279)]]

The patent drawing for Edison's 1906 Alkaline Battery (827279).

==Storage Battery Electrode Plate 1906 (831269)==
[[image:Edison-831269-a.gif|300px|The first patent drawing for Edison's Alkaline Battery (831269)]]
[[image:Edison-831269-b.gif|300px|The second patent drawing for Edison's Alkaline Battery (831269)]]
[[image:Edison-831269-c.gif|300px|The third patent drawing for Edison's Alkaline Battery (831269)]]

The patent drawings for Edison's 1906 storage battery electrode plates (831269).

==Self-Heated Insulated Battery Box 1918 (1266780)==

[[image:Edison-1266780.gif|300px|The patent drawing for Edison's insulated battery box (1266780)]]

==Maintenance==

The following is describes normal maintenance of the Edison battery when used to power an electric vehicle.

''In charging, however, the battery compartment must be left wide open. The small amount of electrolyte and the liability of heating on charge at the high charging rates which are permissible, give rise to an other sensitive point in the handling of this type of cell, namely, "low electrolyte," i . e., exposing the tops of the cells, and causing loss of storage capacity. In active service it is necessary to "fill up for evaporation" every few days, using distilled water only (ordinary water, which is more or less impure or which has been aerated by absorption of carbonic acid from exposure to the air, being injurious to the cell) , and putting in the water just before giving a charge, to avoid the false level due to gas bubbles in the electrolyte. Since the closed and sealed top of the cell prevents a view of its contents, a special filler is provided by means of which water may be added to the same height in a large number of cells in rapid succession. This filler is connected by a flexible rubber tube to an overhead covered tank of distilled water, and is also wired to an electric bell and dry battery. The filler spout is inserted in the aperture of the cell, and a thumb-valve on the filler is operated to allow the water to flow into the can. The stream of distilled water presents a high resistance in the bell circuit, but when the level of the electrolyte has risen into contact with the end of the spout, the bell rings. It is important to avoid filling the cans too full, for this leaves no room for the gas to escape during charge and the electrolyte is liable to be forced out in bubbles-a cause of low electrolyte.''

''The potash solution becomes contaminated in time, from impurities that have accidentally gotten into the cell either directly or by way of the filler spout (which may be laid down carelessly on a dirty bench) , or by absorption of gases in the garage. It thefore needs to be replaced by fresh electrolyte about once in eight months for a commercial-vehicle battery or once a year for a pleasure vehicle battery.'' [http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/File/1911_Edison.pdf| Scientific American 1911]

==References==
*[http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/files/misc/Edison%20battery.jpg Marketing cut-away of an Edison battery]
*[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=aFpXAAAAEBAJ Edison's Patent for Reversible Galvanic Battery - 1901 (678722)]
*[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=TalkAAAAEBAJ Edison's Patent for Alkaline Battery - 1906 (827297)]
*[http://www.google.com/patents?id=21duAAAAEBAJ Edison's Patent for Storage-Battery Electrode-Plate - 1906 (831269)]
*[http://www.google.com/patents?id=ly5BAAAAEBAJ Edison's Patent for Insulated Battery Box - 1918 (1266780)]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=IKIgAAAAMAAJ The Edison Alkaline Storage Battery (1916)]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=RDBPAAAAMAAJ The Storage Battery: A practical treatise on the construction, theory, and use of secondary batteries (Treadwell, 1898) ]
*[http://edison.rutgers.edu/battpats.htm Comprehensive listing of Edison's more than 140 battery-related patents]

[[Category:Nickel-Iron Battery]]

Talk:Sawmill

2013-02-25T05:04:10Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* "Edwardian Farm" circular ripsaw */

The page is kind of a mess, it needs to be cleaned up some more. Anyone should feel free to help out. We should make some kind of template for development. [[User:Jeremy|Jeremy]] 13:47, 14 January 2009 (PST)

A sawmill would also be able to cut wooden pieces that have been rescued from elsewhere, right? I mean, in places like Detroit where there's an almost post-civilisation setting with reuse of previous stuff. Interesting if we could make http://www.gridbeamers.com/ which looks like a project doable by others in any setting.
http://www.globalswadeshi.net/forum/topics/any-recent-news-about [[User:LucasG|LucasG]] 23 March 2009

== modularization ==

Let's modularize this design by by:

*x axis space frame and rollers
*z axis mounting
*z axis raising - need to consider log location
*log holding
*blade attachment to axis
*Blade selection and maintenance
*y axis motion
*motor speed control

== Bandsaw ==

I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere. Also, I know these talk pages aren't visited much. But in my meager woodcutting experience, and in watching [http://www.permaculture.biz/education/darrenCV.php| Darren Doherty's] videos, and also from [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1eyByN0bz0|"Saviors of the Rainforest"] and the related content there, it seems like a chainsaw would be the best place to start, whereas a double-bladed circular saw ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwpdMy06_k4&feature=related| here's something though]) would perhaps be more of a niche product.

The evolution:
# Chainsaw for freehand cutting: http://www.turtleislandpreserve.com/internships
# Alaskan mill on your chainsaw for dimensional lumber: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLhrBAHjm6Q|youtube], [http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/003364.php|cooltools]
# A track for your Alaskan mill so you don't need to hold the thing: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpUu3h1afOI|youtube], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP-YMWQohCQ&NR=1|youtube]
# Then actually make a bandsaw: http://woodgears.ca/bandsaw/homemade.html
# Then put the bandsaw on a track: bandsaw mill! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhCAmJGagp0|youtube], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShUJ3ZjVGwA&feature=related|youtube]

Where I am outside of Detroit, there are two machine shops that toss their huge metal bandsaw blades into their open scrap metal dumpsters on a weekly basis, still perfectly good for woodcutting. Bandsaw blades are probably a more straightforward open-source/scrap option than chainsaw blades.

This kind of implies a weedwhip/lawnmower size "power cube"... which again, I apologize for not watching OSE more closely, you all may be onto that already. But, then again, open-source weedwhip and lawnmower (then, chainsaw, snowblower, ice auger, jackhammer, hedgetrimmer, etc etc), that's a hell of a business model, the "low hanging fruit" perhaps.

I absolutely love this guy, though unlike FeF he's using wood as his basic structural material, not metal:
http://woodgears.ca/

[[User:A.J.|A.J.]] 20:17, 27 January 2011 (PST)

Just some points that occur to me or may be present elsewhere on the wiki already, no harm in copying them here :

against bandsaws:
The blades are usually made of 2 different materials, welded together which coudl be added complexity. Maybe they can be made with just one at some acceptable performance hit using only a single material.

Larger machine, and steel is more expensive than it looks.

Heavier to move around?

How often do bands break?

For bandsaws/mitigation of downsides:
An automatic device could be made relatively easily to sharpen the blades, this could be built right in to the saw. A grinding surface and a diamond truing device could last a very long time.

Deep cut depth possible. Maybe a sawmill could be designed with an array of many blades which could be adjusted such that they could convert a log completely to lumber in a single pass?

Against circular saws:
Cut depth more limited. Blades can oscillate or get bent.
Less teeth means more frequent sharpening for a given tooth material (but a wider choice of material may compensate).

for circular saws:
The stuff about needing to weld or otherwise attach teeth to the blade is I think of low validity. The reason blade teeth are attached is obviously to make them last longer since they can be from a harder material than the rest of the blade. You would do this for a bandsaw blade too if you could. Indeed as mentioned some bandsaw blades are dual material. Circular saw blades could be made with high solid carbon steel if desired for instance. But there would be little sense I would think as performance would be low due to risk of cracking the blade etc. and relatively short tooth life compared with a more flexible core and carbide tips.

Clearly difficulties in making relatively high performance stuff is a very common theme in OSE's development work. All the more reason for the importance of a decent fab lab, from whence relatively high performance parts can be made practically. Or the equipment to make said parts. For example, a modela like mini mill with a diamond bit can sharpen carbide teeth. The teeth themselves may be a challenge to make but carbide may be meltable with induction (it is a bit conductive at higher temps, as is glass I think).

Also a laser direct sintering machine can make the bits from powder additively albeit slowly. Being a dark color maybe the laser head of the laser cutter could work here with minor changes to the optics.... 40 watts doesn't sound like much but if it's focused to a spot 20 microns across that's pretty intense. The calculations should be done to determine if this can melt carbide.

=Related pages=
http://openfarmtech.org/wiki/Sawmill_Questions
There is also information in the forum on bandsaw vs. circular

== "Edwardian Farm" circular ripsaw ==

Just watched [http://youtu.be/eMdQMiII6OQ?t=20m20s episode 3 of "Edwardian Farm"], included a bit with a huge circular saw for ripping logs. Mollison wrote of a similar steam-powered machine that he used in Tasmania in the 1940s, which he said was even quieter.

Most interesting bit might be what looks like half-moon (screw-in?) blade teeth.

Talk:Sawmill

2013-02-25T05:01:38Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* "Edwardian Farm" circular ripsaw */

The page is kind of a mess, it needs to be cleaned up some more. Anyone should feel free to help out. We should make some kind of template for development. [[User:Jeremy|Jeremy]] 13:47, 14 January 2009 (PST)

A sawmill would also be able to cut wooden pieces that have been rescued from elsewhere, right? I mean, in places like Detroit where there's an almost post-civilisation setting with reuse of previous stuff. Interesting if we could make http://www.gridbeamers.com/ which looks like a project doable by others in any setting.
http://www.globalswadeshi.net/forum/topics/any-recent-news-about [[User:LucasG|LucasG]] 23 March 2009

== modularization ==

Let's modularize this design by by:

*x axis space frame and rollers
*z axis mounting
*z axis raising - need to consider log location
*log holding
*blade attachment to axis
*Blade selection and maintenance
*y axis motion
*motor speed control

== Bandsaw ==

I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere. Also, I know these talk pages aren't visited much. But in my meager woodcutting experience, and in watching [http://www.permaculture.biz/education/darrenCV.php| Darren Doherty's] videos, and also from [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1eyByN0bz0|"Saviors of the Rainforest"] and the related content there, it seems like a chainsaw would be the best place to start, whereas a double-bladed circular saw ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwpdMy06_k4&feature=related| here's something though]) would perhaps be more of a niche product.

The evolution:
# Chainsaw for freehand cutting: http://www.turtleislandpreserve.com/internships
# Alaskan mill on your chainsaw for dimensional lumber: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLhrBAHjm6Q|youtube], [http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/003364.php|cooltools]
# A track for your Alaskan mill so you don't need to hold the thing: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpUu3h1afOI|youtube], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP-YMWQohCQ&NR=1|youtube]
# Then actually make a bandsaw: http://woodgears.ca/bandsaw/homemade.html
# Then put the bandsaw on a track: bandsaw mill! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhCAmJGagp0|youtube], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShUJ3ZjVGwA&feature=related|youtube]

Where I am outside of Detroit, there are two machine shops that toss their huge metal bandsaw blades into their open scrap metal dumpsters on a weekly basis, still perfectly good for woodcutting. Bandsaw blades are probably a more straightforward open-source/scrap option than chainsaw blades.

This kind of implies a weedwhip/lawnmower size "power cube"... which again, I apologize for not watching OSE more closely, you all may be onto that already. But, then again, open-source weedwhip and lawnmower (then, chainsaw, snowblower, ice auger, jackhammer, hedgetrimmer, etc etc), that's a hell of a business model, the "low hanging fruit" perhaps.

I absolutely love this guy, though unlike FeF he's using wood as his basic structural material, not metal:
http://woodgears.ca/

[[User:A.J.|A.J.]] 20:17, 27 January 2011 (PST)

Just some points that occur to me or may be present elsewhere on the wiki already, no harm in copying them here :

against bandsaws:
The blades are usually made of 2 different materials, welded together which coudl be added complexity. Maybe they can be made with just one at some acceptable performance hit using only a single material.

Larger machine, and steel is more expensive than it looks.

Heavier to move around?

How often do bands break?

For bandsaws/mitigation of downsides:
An automatic device could be made relatively easily to sharpen the blades, this could be built right in to the saw. A grinding surface and a diamond truing device could last a very long time.

Deep cut depth possible. Maybe a sawmill could be designed with an array of many blades which could be adjusted such that they could convert a log completely to lumber in a single pass?

Against circular saws:
Cut depth more limited. Blades can oscillate or get bent.
Less teeth means more frequent sharpening for a given tooth material (but a wider choice of material may compensate).

for circular saws:
The stuff about needing to weld or otherwise attach teeth to the blade is I think of low validity. The reason blade teeth are attached is obviously to make them last longer since they can be from a harder material than the rest of the blade. You would do this for a bandsaw blade too if you could. Indeed as mentioned some bandsaw blades are dual material. Circular saw blades could be made with high solid carbon steel if desired for instance. But there would be little sense I would think as performance would be low due to risk of cracking the blade etc. and relatively short tooth life compared with a more flexible core and carbide tips.

Clearly difficulties in making relatively high performance stuff is a very common theme in OSE's development work. All the more reason for the importance of a decent fab lab, from whence relatively high performance parts can be made practically. Or the equipment to make said parts. For example, a modela like mini mill with a diamond bit can sharpen carbide teeth. The teeth themselves may be a challenge to make but carbide may be meltable with induction (it is a bit conductive at higher temps, as is glass I think).

Also a laser direct sintering machine can make the bits from powder additively albeit slowly. Being a dark color maybe the laser head of the laser cutter could work here with minor changes to the optics.... 40 watts doesn't sound like much but if it's focused to a spot 20 microns across that's pretty intense. The calculations should be done to determine if this can melt carbide.

=Related pages=
http://openfarmtech.org/wiki/Sawmill_Questions
There is also information in the forum on bandsaw vs. circular

== "Edwardian Farm" circular ripsaw ==

Just watched episode 3 of "Edwardian Farm"
[http://youtu.be/eMdQMiII6OQ?t=22m00s], included a bit with a huge circular saw for ripping logs. Mollison wrote of a similar steam-powered machine that he used in Tasmania in the 1940s, which he said was even quieter.

Most interesting bit might be what looks like half-moon (screw-in?) blade teeth.

Talk:Sawmill

2013-02-25T04:59:38Z

A. J. Tarnas: /* "Edwardian Farm" circular ripsaw */ new section

The page is kind of a mess, it needs to be cleaned up some more. Anyone should feel free to help out. We should make some kind of template for development. [[User:Jeremy|Jeremy]] 13:47, 14 January 2009 (PST)

A sawmill would also be able to cut wooden pieces that have been rescued from elsewhere, right? I mean, in places like Detroit where there's an almost post-civilisation setting with reuse of previous stuff. Interesting if we could make http://www.gridbeamers.com/ which looks like a project doable by others in any setting.
http://www.globalswadeshi.net/forum/topics/any-recent-news-about [[User:LucasG|LucasG]] 23 March 2009

== modularization ==

Let's modularize this design by by:

*x axis space frame and rollers
*z axis mounting
*z axis raising - need to consider log location
*log holding
*blade attachment to axis
*Blade selection and maintenance
*y axis motion
*motor speed control

== Bandsaw ==

I apologize if this has already been discussed elsewhere. Also, I know these talk pages aren't visited much. But in my meager woodcutting experience, and in watching [http://www.permaculture.biz/education/darrenCV.php| Darren Doherty's] videos, and also from [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1eyByN0bz0|"Saviors of the Rainforest"] and the related content there, it seems like a chainsaw would be the best place to start, whereas a double-bladed circular saw ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwpdMy06_k4&feature=related| here's something though]) would perhaps be more of a niche product.

The evolution:
# Chainsaw for freehand cutting: http://www.turtleislandpreserve.com/internships
# Alaskan mill on your chainsaw for dimensional lumber: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLhrBAHjm6Q|youtube], [http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/003364.php|cooltools]
# A track for your Alaskan mill so you don't need to hold the thing: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpUu3h1afOI|youtube], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP-YMWQohCQ&NR=1|youtube]
# Then actually make a bandsaw: http://woodgears.ca/bandsaw/homemade.html
# Then put the bandsaw on a track: bandsaw mill! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhCAmJGagp0|youtube], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShUJ3ZjVGwA&feature=related|youtube]

Where I am outside of Detroit, there are two machine shops that toss their huge metal bandsaw blades into their open scrap metal dumpsters on a weekly basis, still perfectly good for woodcutting. Bandsaw blades are probably a more straightforward open-source/scrap option than chainsaw blades.

This kind of implies a weedwhip/lawnmower size "power cube"... which again, I apologize for not watching OSE more closely, you all may be onto that already. But, then again, open-source weedwhip and lawnmower (then, chainsaw, snowblower, ice auger, jackhammer, hedgetrimmer, etc etc), that's a hell of a business model, the "low hanging fruit" perhaps.

I absolutely love this guy, though unlike FeF he's using wood as his basic structural material, not metal:
http://woodgears.ca/

[[User:A.J.|A.J.]] 20:17, 27 January 2011 (PST)

Just some points that occur to me or may be present elsewhere on the wiki already, no harm in copying them here :

against bandsaws:
The blades are usually made of 2 different materials, welded together which coudl be added complexity. Maybe they can be made with just one at some acceptable performance hit using only a single material.

Larger machine, and steel is more expensive than it looks.

Heavier to move around?

How often do bands break?

For bandsaws/mitigation of downsides:
An automatic device could be made relatively easily to sharpen the blades, this could be built right in to the saw. A grinding surface and a diamond truing device could last a very long time.

Deep cut depth possible. Maybe a sawmill could be designed with an array of many blades which could be adjusted such that they could convert a log completely to lumber in a single pass?

Against circular saws:
Cut depth more limited. Blades can oscillate or get bent.
Less teeth means more frequent sharpening for a given tooth material (but a wider choice of material may compensate).

for circular saws:
The stuff about needing to weld or otherwise attach teeth to the blade is I think of low validity. The reason blade teeth are attached is obviously to make them last longer since they can be from a harder material than the rest of the blade. You would do this for a bandsaw blade too if you could. Indeed as mentioned some bandsaw blades are dual material. Circular saw blades could be made with high solid carbon steel if desired for instance. But there would be little sense I would think as performance would be low due to risk of cracking the blade etc. and relatively short tooth life compared with a more flexible core and carbide tips.

Clearly difficulties in making relatively high performance stuff is a very common theme in OSE's development work. All the more reason for the importance of a decent fab lab, from whence relatively high performance parts can be made practically. Or the equipment to make said parts. For example, a modela like mini mill with a diamond bit can sharpen carbide teeth. The teeth themselves may be a challenge to make but carbide may be meltable with induction (it is a bit conductive at higher temps, as is glass I think).

Also a laser direct sintering machine can make the bits from powder additively albeit slowly. Being a dark color maybe the laser head of the laser cutter could work here with minor changes to the optics.... 40 watts doesn't sound like much but if it's focused to a spot 20 microns across that's pretty intense. The calculations should be done to determine if this can melt carbide.

=Related pages=
http://openfarmtech.org/wiki/Sawmill_Questions
There is also information in the forum on bandsaw vs. circular

== "Edwardian Farm" circular ripsaw ==

Just watched episode 3 of "Edwardian Farm", included a bit with a huge circular saw for ripping logs. Mollison wrote of a similar steam-powered machine that he used in Tasmania in the 1940s, which he said was even quieter.

Most interesting bit might be what looks like half-moon (screw-in?) blade teeth.

[http://youtu.be/eMdQMiII6OQ?t=22m00s]

Talk:Geopolymers

2013-02-12T00:22:40Z

A. J. Tarnas: collected geopolymer formulas, unedited

== research ==

I've spent probably more than 40 hours this past year researching geopolymers. I've put together an unedited jumble of formulas. I'll post them below. Eventually I'll make this all article-worthy, but for now, data-dump. (I bought a lot of raw ingredients in November but have been lazy and haven't made any test bricks yet.)

= Geopolymer formulas (alumina-silcate cement) =

== Tungsten mine study ==

Here's what I could make out from this study which uses "waste mud" from a mining operation as the active alumina-silicate pozzolan (fly ash, volcanic ash, powdered slag, silica fume, and metakaolin are other examples of pozzolans).

=== Ingredients ===

parts by mass:
15 parts aggregate (powder from schist, limestone, or granite)
9 parts waste mud (dried pozzolan)
1 part hydrated lime
10 parts activator:
- 2.85 parts NaOH (24 Molar lye flakes)
- 7.15 parts Na2SiO3 (probably neutral grade, "Na2O=8.6%, SiO2=27.8%, Al2O3=.4%, H2O=63.2%")

Distilled water, unknown quantity:
- Enough water supposedly added to dissolve lye flakes
- Then enough water to make concrete paste workable
- Perhaps between 3% and 10% weight of waste mud component (would mean from 1/3 to 1 "part" above)

=== Procedure ===

0. Calcine (heat) the waste mud pozzolan to 800*C for at least 30 minutes.

1. In one vessel, mix 15 parts aggregate with 9 parts waste mud pozzolan

2. Mix in 1 part hydrated lime. This is the "active binder and inactive aggregate".

3. Mix in enough water to a consistency of "barely moist sand".

4. In second vessel, mix some water with 2.85 parts lye flakes.

5. Mix in 7.15 parts sodium silicate with dissolved lye. This is now the "alkali activator".

6. Pour alkali activator into binder+aggregate, mix thoroughly.

7. Add up to 1 part water to make the mix reasonably workable/castable. You now have a geopolymer mortar.

8. Pour and tamp geopolymer mortar into a mould.

9. Remove from mold after 24 hours.

== Notes ==

Despite some high-school level chemistry documentation errors made in this study, it is one of the best geopolymer studies I've read. A rewrite of this same study by the same authors, "Geopolymeric binder using tungsten mine waste", (cited in google book id=wIFo7L_zO8AC, isbn=9782951482005) is even better.

The pozzolan used is "calcined" to begin with -- heated, to drive off chemically-bound water. It's not clear whether this is actually necessary or just speeds up the mortar set time. NO CONTROL with un-calcined "waste mud" was prepared for this study! It's probably possible to substitute in recently-harvested fly ash or silica fume for this waste mud and you'll still get a geopolymer. The authors note that the molar ratios between lye and water glass (sodium silicate) and water are not optimized, and that you can stray a little bit from this recipe without anything going wrong. Stray too far and you'll get a fluid that won't set or a mortar that will flash set in less than five minutes.

This mortar has an open time (that is, window of opportunity for casting) of perhaps less than an hour, and will harden to beyond the strength of a brick in 24 hours or less. It will reach near-maximum compressive strength in less than 10 days. At 20MPa, the strength of the weakest mix in this study is equal to that of normal portland cement mortar.

It appears that this mortar was allowed to set and cure at room temperature. Good! So many of these ridiculous geopolymer studies specify curing temperatures of 40*C, 60*C, or higher (totally useless for normal building applications).

The lye and sodium silicate cost too much money for this geopolymer mortar to compete with portland cement (1.5 to 2.5 times portland cement mortar cost). However, the authors did not attempt to optimize cost in any way.

This is perhaps the first clear geopolymer recipe available for free on the web! Hooray!!

== Davidotas video formula ==

Dry ingredients:
- large pile of crumbly fossil-rich kaolin-poor limestone (from France)
- lime (hydrated lime)
- natron (from France)
- kaolin clay

Quantities:
- Roughly 1 cubic yard (1 ton) limestone aggregate
- Roughly 1 cubic foot kaolin
- Roughly .5 cubic foot natron and hydrated lime
- 130 gallons of water

Rough ratio:
27 : 1 : 0.5 : 17 ... limestone:kaolin:natron+lime:water

# Measure out water
# Pour in natron and hydrated lime
# Pour in kaolin
# Mix to yield white milky fluid
# Pour in limestone aggregate
# Mix thoroughly
# Let sit several days in full sun, French Mediterranean summer
# Excess water evaporates
# Yields friable "disagglomerated" material like moist lumpy sand
# Note: looks nothing like a "slurry" at this point

This is said to be:
- 95% limestone aggregates
- 5% rock-making binder
- 12-17% water content, consistency of wet sand

# Set up wooden form with volume roughly one-half cubic yard
# Pack crumbly moist cement into form with rammer
# Remove mold 4 hours later

Quotes:
"in-situ geologic glue"
"In this ideal weather, the whole process runs smoothely and is very simple."
"When the climate is warm and beautiful, our crew rapidly produces a reagglomerated limestone that proved strong, dense, and true to the planned size and shape."

Notes: Video is unclear on natron versus sodium carbonate. They are not the same thing. Exact quantities of kaolin, natron, and lime are not given. Exact time of lime (hydrated? putty? quick?) is not given. No other ingredients are mentioned (magnesium compounds? carnallite?). Initial mixing-in of limestone aggregates is not shown... is it covered in water that evaporates, or does it completely absorb the water and then sit? Limestone used appears distinctly pebbly and crumbly, lightly tan-colored, not "shale"- or "stone"-like. Video appears to show this concrete being used to form a rough-surfaced, dry-looking block that reagglomerated like moist bread flour being smashed into a clod. This is build atop a stone where it is suggested that more water was used to produce a higher-resolution, perhaps runnier casting slurry.

== comparative building material compressive strengths ==

adobe, cob 150 to 200 psi
Rammed blocks 350 to 400 psi
concrete block 2000 psi
baked brick 4000 psi
concrete 6000 psi
granite stone 15,000 psi
steel 25,000 psi
Wood 10,000 psi.
Soils 50 to 70psi.
earth wall 1.5 feet wide 43,000 lbs per linear foot
concrete block 8 inches thick 191,000 lbs per linear foot
earthship tire wall (3 foot thick) 100,000 lbs per linear foot

==FROM LIMESTONE TO LIME, AND BACK...==
CaCO3, MgCO3
LIMESTONE + HEAT = CaO, MgO
QUICKLIME (ASTM C5)

CaO, MgO
QUICKLIME + H2O
WATER = Ca(OH)2, Mg(OH)2

HYDRATED LIME (Stoichiometric Water) ASTM C207
or LIME PUTTY (Excess Water)
HYDRATED LIME
or LIME PUTTY + GRADED SAND
(ASTM C144)
PORTLAND CEMENT (ASTM C150) = MASONARY MORTAR
(ASTM C270)

Ca(OH)2, Mg(OH)2
LIME IN MASONRY MORTAR + CO2
CARBON DIOXIDE = CaCO3, MgCO3
LIMESTONE

== Indian Fly ash bricks ==

=== Standard mix ===
Fly ash, Hydrated lime, Quarry dust and gypsum are manually fed into a pan mixer where water is added in the required proportion.
62% fly ash
8% lime
5% Gypsum
25% sand or Quarry Dust

mixture is pressed in hydraulic Brick Making machines.
bricks are carried on wooden pallets open area
dried and water cured for 14 days.

=== "Cheap" method ===
20% fly ash
15% lime
5% Gypsum
60% sand or Quarry Dust

== geopolymers ==

=== Conradius ===
? parts Kaolin Clay (from China)
1 part natron
4 parts lime
12 parts sand

"works good very and becomes really solid"

=== Alker construction ===
preprocessing is not necessary,
8-10% clay,
can be rich in silt
diameter of gravel up to 5-7cm

Ingredient/% by Weight
Soil/100
Gypsum/10 (15% according to Wiki, but Turkish site says 10% is most efficient)
Lime/2
Water/18-20 (According to the dryness of the soil)
(Practical measures in the same order as above: 2 full wheelbarrows, 4 shovelfuls, 1 shovelful, one bucketful.)

Traditional earth construction
15-21 days strengthening
curing area
water sprinkling
rain protection

Alker construction
20 min. strengthening
no curing area
no water sprinkling
no rain protection (work can continue in the rain)

The production of alker starts by mixing lime in the water firstly and gypsum secondly. This heavy water has to be poured onto soil and mixed mechanically about 3 minutes (by hand a little longer). Mechanical mixing or hand mixing both work.

===Barsoum===
Start with pool of water and then add:
Quicklime (limestone calcined at 900 degrees C.)
Diatomaceous earth
Powdered/crushed limestone
Mix and wait a few days to allow water to evaporate

At this point the limestone ‘mud’ is placed in earthbags or wood forms. Dr. Barsoum says sand was not used because it does not dissolve and so it’s not part of the chemical ‘glue’ that binds the other materials together.

===Prasad and Shahoma McAlister===
Geopolymer cement notes.
The making of alkaline solution:
*12 hr before mixing, slowly! dissolve 320gm sodium hydroxide (pure lye, as in a drain cleaner) into a liter of water. This should be stirred in slowly, with care, wearing gloves and goggles as it is very caustic. This mix will generate some heat while dissolving.
*After the lye solution is fully dissolved (12hr) mix one part lye solution with 2 1/2 parts sodium silicate. (available at pottery supplies)

* Basic recipe #8
4 1/2 parts metakaolin [Ed.: heat treated kaolin]
1/2 part lime (type-S)
8 parts aggregate (sand mix)
alkaline solution as needed (about 1/3 the amount of metakaolin and ash, by weight)

*Mix all the dry ingredients together then stir in just enough alkaline solution to make a stiff mix. Keep the liquid content as low as possible. Cure like concrete, warm and moist.
*Class C fly ash can replace the metakaolin and lime, if its type F fly ash replace only the metakaolin.

Geopolymer concrete negates the need for Portland cement as a binder. Instead, materials such as fly ash are activated by alkaline liquids (most often at temperatures below 150 degrees Celsius) to create the cement.

== Elliot Hallmark's GP goop ==

1) silicate solution "A"

Need:
- 500g soldium silicate (Na2SiO3) [water glass, sodium metasilicate, SS40]
- 136g sodium hydroxide (NaOH) [lye, caustic soda, drain cleaner]
- tough pyrex + stirstick
- sealable glass jar
- water bath

In pyrex, add SS40, then pour in NaOH pellets.
Gets very hot.
Stir to yeild homogenous cloudy white solution.
Relax a few minutes.
Transfer to glass jar with a lid.
Immerse in water bath several hours until solution is clear.
Check that water bath doesn't evaporate.
That's it!

Note: Reheating and stirring will redissolve precipitate that may form if solution sits around for days.

2) GP binder "B"

Need:
- 600g silicate solution "A"
- 505g metakaolin (calcined kaolin)
- 128g water you hosers
- nonreactive mixing vessel

Mix really well, with mixer, 5-10 minutes.
Let sit for 1-2 hours.

3) Mix in aggregate "C"

Need:
- 320g silica flour ("Micronized a-Quartz")
- 640g fine sand
- 640g mason's sand

Mix these aggregates together.
Aggregates not very key -- use whatever sandy/limestoney stuff you got.
Mix in GP binder.
Ta-daa!
Cures 60*F - 100*F.
Keep moist / cover with plastic.
Set indoors without any further action.
Takes a few weeks to be sure it's gonna last.

overal ratios
1:2:2 -- powder aggregate : fine aggregate : coarse aggregate
4:5 -- gp binder : aggregate
2:1.5:.5:1:2:2 -- sil-sol:metakaolin:water:si-flour:fine-sand:mason-sand

Note: Metakaolin is a pozzalon. Any aluminosilicate pozzalon could potentially work. Slag powder ~= volcanic ash ~= 750C calcined kaolin ~= PowerPozz ~= grog from failed bisqueware.

Advice: Aluminosilicate species dictates ratio of silicate solution to pozzolan. Kaolin != metakaolin != mullite != clay from my yard. Wikipedia those terms.

Head's Up: We know this is an incomplete recipe... like, what are the "open" and "set" times? Responds to kneading? Use gloves? Why all the sitting? Is there a secret magnesium crystal ingredient? Blood and bone ash from sacrificial animal? You tell us.

User talk:Aaron Makaruk

2012-12-18T01:35:50Z

A. J. Tarnas: spam alert

hey aaron, i saw this but not really sure if its down our ally. http://energy.gov/articles/arpa-e-issues-open-call-transformational-energy-technologies --[[User:Dorkmo|Dorkmo]] 23:19, 2 March 2012 (CET)

Thanks Dorkmo - multiple people with federal grant application experience have come forward, so I think we can make a legitimate move on this. Aaron

== dev page ==

hey aaron, i noticed you removed the gvcs list from the bottom of the main page. its been handy for me to quickly jump to pages but it was a bit of a clutter near the footer. it made me think that maybe there should be a "Dev page" link under the "main page" link in the left side navigation panel. i guess the entire wiki previously had been all dev and now its transitioning to its next life. i knwo there is a control panel page somewhere but its not quick to get to unless each person browser bookmarks it. gvcs list could be on teh dev page for quick access. --[[User:Dorkmo|Dorkmo]] 05:41, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

== spam alert ==

Hello. If you can edit this page:
[[Community_Needs_Assessment_-_February_2012_-_Results]]
Then please remove all the plaintext emails on it -- that would be nice. Getting spammed, the spammer is citing this page, and the wiki won't let me edit it. Thanks! :r]
--[[User:A. J. Tarnas|A. J. Tarnas]] 02:35, 18 December 2012 (CET)

User:A. J. Tarnas

2012-12-18T01:19:24Z

A. J. Tarnas: Created page with "Hello! My name is A.J. Hurray for OSE! What a great project."

Hello! My name is A.J.

Hurray for OSE! What a great project.