wheat flour epoxy additive

I would not use a filler in a situation that needed strength. It was --I think never expected to.

It is meant to fill a void for painting or glassing a radius.

The clue is in the word "filler"

 

That's incorrect Frosty, fillers can add, sometimes quite dramatically, to the epoxy's physical properties. I wouldn't think of using epoxy in an enclosed engine compartment without aluminum oxide to improve it's thermal protection properties, nor would I bond fasteners or hardware without something to improve it's compressive qualities and the list goes on.

Collin, I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but log onto the westsystem.com and systemthree.com sites and download their free user's guides. They'll provide a good over view of how things work, applications and techniques to insure good result too.

Water molecules are pretty big, but moisture vapor molecules are small enough to just breach an 10 mil epoxy membrane. Unfortunately, for the moisture vapor, there's not much space for it to live in, once it does get past the surface, as the majority of the wood's cellular structure is filled with cured goo. This is why you can stabilize the moisture content. Yes, some does get through, but not enough to cause problems and no, it doesn't just continue soaking it. It fills the few remaining cellular voids and that's it. It's important to not think of encapsulated wood as normal wood any more, because it's not. It's embalmed in plastic, the surface is saturated and though a very small percentage of moisture can get in, it's nothing of significance. The wood doesn't need nor is it desirable to breath, like raw materials. Again, this assumes full encapsulation.

 

I am well aware that the powder addition will enhance the strength of the eopxy. It was my post about the pykrete that alerted the thread to such a concept.

Jeff pykrete invented the simple mix of H20 and 14 % of saw dust frozen into ice and to come up with pycrete.

Roumer has it that Lord Montbatton was a convert and wanted to biuld a massive floating platform impervious to torpedos and fire to be stationed at sea supporting 200 Spitfires.

He is and is said to have dropped a block of this frozen stuff into Winston Churchill bath to attract his attention to it . He immediately approved the idea of HMS 'Haverhook'.

The war ended before "Haverhook"could be built.

 

200' thick blocks of ice are pretty impervious without saw dust.

 

Not the point --the addition of just 14%sawdust increased its strength and it ability to resist fire many fold --quite incredible.

 

So the risk of fire on a block of ice is how big?

 

Collin,

Epoxy resins require to be overcoated and protected with paint or UV resistant varnish, which adds another barrier to water vapour. Epoxy resins are used to repair osmosis damage to polyester hulls.

http://www.bluemoment.com/osmosis.html

More on Pycrete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete

 

Good point but that risk changes when you use the ice to store fuel and ammunition on.

It changes again when other people start putting their ammunition there without your permission.

I imagine while not actually doing anything about the fire the sawdust would slow down how quickly the ice conducted heat.

 

The Mythbusters tested pykrete and were surprised how strong it was---and they discovered using newspaper instead of sawdust increased its strength many times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UMKis4FPykw

 

I remember that;
The sheets of newspaper hadfar greater shear strength that the ice/sawdust mix.

 

If a floating barge of this size had have been built it would be there today. It would need no paint or rust protection. It may not need antifoul protection and any cracks would repair them selves by pouring water on it or with a blow lamp.

I am assuming that ice on ice is a perfect molecular bond. Once a hull was formed thickening would be a simple matter of firing a hose pipe at it.

As said there is no reason to assume that it would last almost indefinately as Ice bergs can be 10,000 years old.

The cost of the materials to build it would be free.

I can certainly see the interest in it as a floating airport in the North atlantic

 

You are confusing the age of the ice with the lifetime of an iceberg once it has 'launched'


http://isolatium.uhh.hawaii.edu/m206L/student/iceberg/iceberg.htm

1) On March 17, 2000 a large iceberg, named B-15, was "born" from the Ross Ice

"This newly formed iceberg is among the largest ever observed. It is approximately 295 kilometers long and 37 kilometers wide. The area of the iceberg is estimated to be 11,000 square-kilometers, which is roughly the size of Connecticut. The thickness of the iceberg is estimated to be 200 meters on the North side and 350 meters on the south side."




1.) How large would the iceberg be five, ten, and twenty years after its initial volume Kg3?

1.) Five years = 2799
Ten years = 2574
Twenty years = 2123

2.) How long would it take for the iceberg to completely melt?

804.521 months or 67.043 years.

Also, as an iceberg melts, it becomes very unstable - not at all suitable for industrial use.

 

Fresh water or salt.

If it was built from fresh it would stay frozen in sea water!!--wouldnt it.

Thats how the guy on a motorbike and side car makes Ice lolleys in the streets of Thailand with an ice maker from saline solution that is colder that fresh water.

Im sure Lord Mountbatton and Winston Churchill had done their sums.

 

Frosty - ALL ICEBERGS are FRESH WATER !!!! You cant freeze salt. Nor does Fresh water stay frozen in salt water !!! All icebergs eventually melt.

Lord M and Winston never expected the 'berg to last very long, which is why the added sawdust.

 

Salt water doesnt freeze? really!!!

The saw dust was not put in to sop it melting? who said that.

Shall we start at the beginning for Mr Watson.