I thought it would be cement and they were ashamed to admit that. But their site says "no cement use when compared with concrete blocks". Not sure why "no" has to be a relative term, so something sneaky might be going on there.
I think this is the patent, but they don't mention a "binder" per se. There are several claims specifically relating to the exclusion of "tar" which seems interesting. I think someone better versed in reading patents than I am might be able to make more sense of that. Tar just doesn't seem like their style. Maybe there are already claims on that or they are well known. But "organic matter", "tar", "cement" or "fly ash" still seem like possibilities.
The patent also mentions "additive" (e.g. pigment / recycled toner) as improving the strength of the resulting bricks and reducing moisture uptake. It can be added in surprising amounts (5-20%). That doesn't seem very scalable though.
Or, of course, they could have come up with something else in the meantime. Distinctly possible.
This is in CNN Style for a reason. It's a neat research project, great for prestige projects like Hyde Park. It just cannot compete with clay from a cost perspective.
I'd be curious if you've got some figures or if you are just guessing that it's the case. (Intuitively, I'd agree with you, but I couldn't find any info.)
Assuming also that the externalities of the existing brick manufacturing industry are not costed into the price of a standard brick. Other sources suggest that the k-briq is also more insulative than a regular brick, which should impact the cost calculations as well.
Technically true but wouldn't going with a cheaper exterior option and using the saved cost for dedicated insulation be more efficient? Aside from airflow it is usually windows and frames where the insulation property is relevant, otherwise we would see using thicker walls instead of just spraying insulation for cheap development.
I mean it is a neat concept but unfortunately efficiency often selects the "boring" option.
Open Source Ecology has open-source designs for a compressed earth block machine that can generate these things from the dirt on-site. These machines have been built and had been in use for some time now. They did require some knowledge that are not widely disseminated (use of water to motar them together, and other construction techniques you would not use with conventional bricks). With a CEB machine onsite, it makes construction of this type of material decentralized, without having to rely on a fragile, global supply chain.
It also means getting more CEBs to affect repairs can be sourced locally, and does not require a functioning global supply chain. (Assuming you can keep the CEB machine in good repair; but that is why it is open-sourced).
I think there are some heat retaining properties that CEB have that conventional bricks don't have. Combined with a hollow-core, or insulated core wall construction, the end results are housing that are more efficient with heating and cooling.
When combined with permaculture design, the excavation can be done to build swales for efficient rain water harvesting.
So yeah, if we only look at the cost from just the perspective of sourcing conventional bricks, maybe it won't compete. From the perspective of whole system design and resilient systems, I think CEB offers something better.
Trees are great but require quite a bit of landmass. They're also slow :) As part of an "all of the above solution", a way to do what they do artificially would be handy
We already have several reinventions of the brick which are stronger and more eco-friendly -- we call them concrete blocks.
I thought it was pretty silly to compare this product to bricks on it's cost/strength/waste. People aren't choosing brick for these factors anyway. People choose brick mainly for the aesthetic.
Yeah, I lost it when TFA referred to bricks as "The building blocks of modern suburban homes." I'm not sure what suburbs the author is familiar with where new homes are made of structural brick.
The article says 1.5 trillion bricks are produced annually...wonder where they are getting used. In North America their use seems to have been relegated to facades.
In central/southern Ontario, nearly all homes have brick facades (stick-built frames), even cheap subdivision homes and new construction. I'd put it at something like 80%-90%. I have no idea why brick is so popular here, but that's a lot of bricks.
Brick exteriors do not burn. Brick exteriors are much more rugged to the elements. Brick exteriors do not require maintenance of painting, etc. Brick exterior houses are cheaper to insure. There's lots of reasons for brick exterior than just aesthetics.
I agree with everything you said (particularly the no maintenance part), but I think there must be another explanation as to why brick facades are so prevalent on southern Ontario houses. Other areas with similar climates and population levels (say, Minnesota) have much fewer brick homes.
It probably comes down to tradition. In the old parts of any city, all of the 100 year-old houses have brick exteriors, as well as most of the houses built since then.
Thermal mass too, I think - though it's also not uncommon to see a lot of brick construction in areas where timber is in shorter supply (whether that's because it's already been logged, is protected from logging, or trees just aren't very big).
"Brick" homes are common in the US too, but most made after WWII are simply veneers over a structure of a different material. Are you sure that's not the case there? I did an image search for "uk home construction", and all of the instances on the first page also appear to be veneers.
Wood is not cheap outside Europe/North America and few other countries. Concrete is still the cheapest option along with steel if i am not mistaken. One thing is observe is that downsizing or reducing the size of the house is not considered a popular option.
> We already have several reinventions of the brick which are stronger and more eco-friendly -- we call them concrete blocks.
This.
Not only that, but in concrete alone there are a myriad of concrete types and tech improvements throughout the years.
The whole article is founded in a false premise. It's as if naive salespeople were expecting no one in the construction industty would have any idea of what a brick is and how construction technology has been changing throughout the years.
This article has inspired me to make a brick. The regular kind. I have tons of clay and a forge that can melt steel, honestly it just never occured to me so now I have to try!
Now you’ve got me googling “refining clay from soil”. Our city is built on the most terrible clay gumbo imaginable, and I’ve got a huge pile of the stuff to get rid of somehow...
Many older village houses here in Czech Republic are made from compressed earth bricks (using local materials & not fired). As long as you keep them dry, they will last basically forever. If they get wet, they loose all strength and the building collapses, making any floods particularly dangerous for such buildings.
As far as different mediums for building go, check out sirewall. Or insulated rammed earth wall. It is only 9 pct cement. And can make some pretty charming spaces.
It would be interesting to see exactly how much CO2 was created in the process of creating a brick vs the amount of CO2 created during transportation. This tech seems like a good idea until you realize every brick is being produced in one spot in England... the real problem isn’t creating these bricks, it’s building out the infrastructure to supply a significant demand.
I work in the masonry trade, all of the materials we use are from brick yards and quarries that are local (~75-100mi radius) for the simple fact that transporting large numbers of pallets of brick over long distances is a logistical nightmare. Storing them can also prove to be a problem, so much so that we literally throw away thousands of bricks we have left over from jobs every year. It’s rare that two customers would use the same bricks and we end up keeping the extras until we know we’re not getting called back in to do additional work.
They’re right that reclaiming bricks as being labor intensive work. The real holy grail of this industry would be figuring out how to reclaim the trillions of bricks already in circulation without needing human intervention. There is often huge demand for antique bricks because a lot of the unique clay deposits used to create the bricks end up being totally depleted. Milwaukee, WI is famous for their Cream City bricks that were produced in the mid and late 19th century but once the unique clay beds used to create these bricks were gone, so were new Cream Cities. You can see these in just about every city’s downtown in Wisconsin. I’ve spent many hours reclaiming these bricks from old houses and factories because for one, they look incredible, and two, they’re worth about a dollar a piece once they’re ready to be laid again (Pretty good money if you’re good with a brick hammer). If there was a way you could dump a house worth of old bricks into one end of a black box and spit out reusable brick from the other end, you’d basically be printing money. Mortar is not easily removed from brick without damaging the brick. That’s kind of the whole point of the mortar being used as a binder in the first place.
42 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 81.4 ms ] threadhttps://patents.google.com/patent/US10669205B2/en?oq=US10669...
I think this is the patent, but they don't mention a "binder" per se. There are several claims specifically relating to the exclusion of "tar" which seems interesting. I think someone better versed in reading patents than I am might be able to make more sense of that. Tar just doesn't seem like their style. Maybe there are already claims on that or they are well known. But "organic matter", "tar", "cement" or "fly ash" still seem like possibilities.
The patent also mentions "additive" (e.g. pigment / recycled toner) as improving the strength of the resulting bricks and reducing moisture uptake. It can be added in surprising amounts (5-20%). That doesn't seem very scalable though.
Or, of course, they could have come up with something else in the meantime. Distinctly possible.
Assuming also that the externalities of the existing brick manufacturing industry are not costed into the price of a standard brick. Other sources suggest that the k-briq is also more insulative than a regular brick, which should impact the cost calculations as well.
I mean it is a neat concept but unfortunately efficiency often selects the "boring" option.
It also means getting more CEBs to affect repairs can be sourced locally, and does not require a functioning global supply chain. (Assuming you can keep the CEB machine in good repair; but that is why it is open-sourced).
I think there are some heat retaining properties that CEB have that conventional bricks don't have. Combined with a hollow-core, or insulated core wall construction, the end results are housing that are more efficient with heating and cooling.
When combined with permaculture design, the excavation can be done to build swales for efficient rain water harvesting.
So yeah, if we only look at the cost from just the perspective of sourcing conventional bricks, maybe it won't compete. From the perspective of whole system design and resilient systems, I think CEB offers something better.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=cross+laminated
I thought it was pretty silly to compare this product to bricks on it's cost/strength/waste. People aren't choosing brick for these factors anyway. People choose brick mainly for the aesthetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoclaved_aerated_concrete
Even brick masonry now is split-face and limited to at-grade elevations.
Speaking of reinventing, I'm still waiting on Elon Musk's eco-bricks [1] and whenever foamed metals [2] become popular.
[1] - https://interestingengineering.com/boring-companys-eco-brick...
[2] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_foam
It probably comes down to tradition. In the old parts of any city, all of the 100 year-old houses have brick exteriors, as well as most of the houses built since then.
Example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/615000-new-...
Of course, there are even better alternatives, like building your home out of solar sequestered carbon solids, i.e. wood.
This.
Not only that, but in concrete alone there are a myriad of concrete types and tech improvements throughout the years.
The whole article is founded in a false premise. It's as if naive salespeople were expecting no one in the construction industty would have any idea of what a brick is and how construction technology has been changing throughout the years.
I notice they don't mention what the binder is, and I see it labeled as a "secret binder" in another article.
I work in the masonry trade, all of the materials we use are from brick yards and quarries that are local (~75-100mi radius) for the simple fact that transporting large numbers of pallets of brick over long distances is a logistical nightmare. Storing them can also prove to be a problem, so much so that we literally throw away thousands of bricks we have left over from jobs every year. It’s rare that two customers would use the same bricks and we end up keeping the extras until we know we’re not getting called back in to do additional work.
They’re right that reclaiming bricks as being labor intensive work. The real holy grail of this industry would be figuring out how to reclaim the trillions of bricks already in circulation without needing human intervention. There is often huge demand for antique bricks because a lot of the unique clay deposits used to create the bricks end up being totally depleted. Milwaukee, WI is famous for their Cream City bricks that were produced in the mid and late 19th century but once the unique clay beds used to create these bricks were gone, so were new Cream Cities. You can see these in just about every city’s downtown in Wisconsin. I’ve spent many hours reclaiming these bricks from old houses and factories because for one, they look incredible, and two, they’re worth about a dollar a piece once they’re ready to be laid again (Pretty good money if you’re good with a brick hammer). If there was a way you could dump a house worth of old bricks into one end of a black box and spit out reusable brick from the other end, you’d basically be printing money. Mortar is not easily removed from brick without damaging the brick. That’s kind of the whole point of the mortar being used as a binder in the first place.
For anyone interested, Cream City bricks has a Wikipedia page[0] with pictures of buildings built with them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_City_brick
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csz2w8