On 28/04/2012 19:54, Squashme wrote:
On Apr 28, 6:19 pm, wrote:
On 28/04/2012 18:08, Bertie Wooster wrote:









On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:22:11 +0100,
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:21:12 +0100, Bertie
wrote:

snip

...... howler was that breeze blocks were just compacted ash and
cinder without cement to bond it together

I am sure that you can point out that post from Dave which said that - unless
you are lying.

Smith claimed that breeze blocks *were* concrete blocks.

They aren't.

Wikipedia is often wrong, but I don't think so in this case:

=====Quote=====
Concrete blocks are made from cast concrete, i.e. Portland cement and
aggregate, usually sand and fine gravel for high-density blocks. Lower
density blocks may use industrial wastes as an aggregate. Those that
use cinders (fly ash or bottom ash) are called cinder blocks in the
US, breeze blocks (breeze is a synonym of ash)[1] in the UK and are
also known as besser blocks or bricks in Australia.
=====/Quote=====
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_masonry_unit

I also think it's wrong to distinguish breeze blocks from concrete blocks.
Not all concrete blocks are breeze blocks, but all breeze blocks are (a form
of) concrete block.

That we don't think of them as being concrete is just cultural.

The Romans (who invented the stuff) produced even lighter concrete by means
of using pumice (lightweight solidified volcanic lava) as the aggregate
rather than the ash used for modern breeze blocks.


Surely uk.d-i-y could settle this argument? Medway will respect them.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-breeze-block.htm

Fair enough.

That breeze blocks are a form of concrete does not, of course, mean that they
are suitable as foundation stones. No-one would rest scaffolding on the dome
of the Pantheon.