Sticky Rice Is the Key To Super Strong Mortar

lilbridge writes "For over 1,500 years the Chinese have been using sticky rice as an ingredient in mortar, which has resulted in super strong buildings, many of which are still standing after hundreds of years. Scientists have been studying the sticky rice and lime mortar to unlock the secrets of its strength, and have just determined the secret ingredient that makes the mortar more stable and stronger. The scientists have also concluded that this mixture is the most appropriate for restoration of ancient and historic buildings, which means it is probably also appropriate for new construction as well."

Comments

The Great Wall of America

[tacarat]

So is this a good time to invest in California calrose growers?

Re:Where will the rice come from?

[Jeng]

Yes, we do have enough rice.

We have enough food production that no one should go hungry.

People go hungry due to politics and poor distribution, not overall quantity of food.

Re:US Homes

[ElectricTurtle]

While bricks are awesome aesthetically (IMO), they are really only a good idea in very stable areas. If you are near fault lines like the West Coast of the US and are at risk for earthquakes, stay away from brick buildings. When the earth moves, you want to move with it. Smaller wooden structures are very good at that.

Will someone please...

[AngryNick]

...provide this information to BP?

Darn right!

[Ungrounded Lightning]

How MUCH sticky rice per how much lime, etc. Or how much purified additive? (Though adding cooked(?) rice, as the Chinese did, would probably end up inexpensive and may also add more strength as it collapses and forms voids, making a concrete foam structure.)

I was about to make a post complaining about the lack of useful information. But you beat me to it AND phrased it brilliantly. Kudos.

Re:US Homes

[BrentH]

The point is there're two places they build with wood: the Third World and America...

Re:The romans build concrete buildings

[ElectricTurtle]

That equilibrium is not perfect. The difference does stress and wear the structure over decades, centuries, millennia, especially in temperate zones where temperature can vary more than 100 degrees a year. Like I say, repeat that for 2000 years and see what things look like. You're right, the difference is very low, but when you're talking about really large structures over really long periods, ANY difference is significant. In that scenario, solid concrete stands a better chance, so long as it's not overloaded.

It's a moot point, because nobody builds anything to last for millennia. The Romans' work has done so by coincidence, but the useful life of buildings and other structures is measured primarily in decades, occasionally in centuries, but never in millennia. So rebar it is.