Talk:Magnesium oxide wallboard
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magnesium oxide wallboard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Help with magnesium oxide board installation
editplease any suggestions for the proper jointing compound required for the boards also what type of material is used for the skimming of the the boards?41.219.220.112 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is best to ask a question like this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
water/moisture resistance?
editWhat's up with those claims? Magnesia does react with water, after all, and even dissociates into Mg2+ and OH- ions. I suppose the pressed material offers very little surface area for that, but "waterproof" would be quite strong a claim.
I would guess it's similar to how aluminium forms a passivation layer and is quite hard to dissolve except in the presence of catalysts such as mercury.
What's the effect of acid rain or H2CO3 (worse, a combination of the two) on MgO boards?
RandomP (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
'Disadvatages' section reads like an advert from one of the biggger suppliers in the industry, the language should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.24.130 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Rosendale Natural Cement non-fired?
editThe article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosendale_cement says that it is "calcined" (~=heated) in a kiln.
So if they're the same thing and that page is right, then the claim here that it's non-fired is wrong.
I think that what's natural about it is that the manufacturers found geological sources of appropriately pre-mixed minerals. ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Lede
editFirst sentence is CRAP. Sadsaque (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced but not a copy
editThis is informational.
The disadvantage section has a weird "[?reference]", which made me suspicious. However, it does not appear to be a copyright violation. The section generally lacks citations, so I Googled several sentences, which brings up a Shanghai Metal page. However, the sentence that set up skepticism is 2011, while the page is dated 2016 (see the news list page). Therefore, it was a false positive. Naruyoko (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)