ignore the tendency to believe the accuracy of this article because it’s from MIT, and see if you can spot a flaw in their thinking process.
https://news.mit.edu/2023/roman-concrete-durability-lime-casts-0106
Discussion
They claim to have tested quicklime experimentally with a reasonable control, so I'm inclined to believe the ultimate conclusion
I am skeptical that the volcanic ash is not actually helpful (assuming the claims about its ancient use & reputation are accurate)
Perhaps both are relevant
Is there some other error in thinking you've found?
I wouldn’t say absolutely, because that would be a flaw in my thinking.
But I am skeptical of the selective use of historical documentation.
They also claim to have proved that this was how the Romans did it, because their experiment achieved a similar result. It didn’t, they only proved they can achieve similar results using this method.
But there is something more I can’t quite put into words yet, that has been bothering me about the way western science and academia think about things.
Side note, this kinda feels like an advertisement for a patentable process they want to sell.
Much of what the Roman’s built had to have been precast modular shapes because it would have been impossibleor extremely difficult to have enough time before the concrete set to get it in formwork. Casting most likely wasn’t done in summer because all the men were off fighting and conquering lands. So winter only, and even in Rome the winters are very mild so a “hot batch” would still be very unworkable. What say you?