Special Thanks to our Sponsors:

Xatico: Performance Minerals for Geopolymer Solutions

XATICO sells, distributes and advises on mineral materials, offering a wide range of carefully selected products from the world’s best production sites. Its large customer base in Europe covers many industries, including geopolymers. XATICO’s team of experts provides technical and formulation support, customised distribution, consignment stock and delivery services throughout Europe.

Geosil^®: Silicate binders and hardeners for geopolymeric systems

The Geosil^® product line are the first aqueous silicate solutions specifically designed for geopolymerization. In addition, Woellner supplies a wide range of additives to help you achieve your desired properties.

Keynote Conference in video

State of the Geopolymer R&D 2025
Keynote by Joseph Davidovits.

38 min, 158 MB. Click on the CC icon to ACTIVATE SUBTITLES. Watch it fullscreen.

At the 17th Geopolymer Camp, Professor Joseph Davidovits delivers a special keynote to celebrate his 90th birthday. Instead of the usual technical R&D update, he shares the fascinating and personal story of how a tragic fire in the 1970s led him to invent Geopolymer science. He recounts his journey, the unexpected connections to archaeology, and the challenges he faced in establishing this revolutionary field. A must-watch for anyone interested in innovation and perseverance.

Chapters
00:00 – Introduction
01:16 – Part 1: How I Invented Geopolymer Science
01:23 – Early Life and Ambition
04:25 – University and PhD in Organic Polymers
08:50 – The Spark: A Tragic Fire in 1970
10:39 – Creating the First Research Company, CORDI S.A.
11:42 – First Scientific Papers and Introducing the Term “Geopolymer”
14:14 – Founding the Geopolymer Institute (1979)
17:20 – Developing Applications for Geopolymers
19:43 – Part 2: Geopolymer Science and Archaeology
19:52 – Debunking the Myth About the Pyramids
22:37 – A Key Question: Could Ancient Monuments Be Artificial Stone?
25:00 – Presenting the Pyramid Theory to Egyptologists
28:46 – Financial Troubles and a Surprising Media Breakthrough
32:07 – How Omni Magazine Led to a Partnership with Lone Star Industries
33:40 – The Pyrament® Cement Story and Financial Recovery
34:56 – Academic Career and Awards
36:26 – The First Geopolymer Camp (2008)
36:40 – Conclusion
36:53 – Happy Birthday Professor!

Geopolymer 3D Printing: When Rheology Meets Robotics
Keynote by Dr. Abrar Gasmi

45 min, 185 MB. Click on the CC icon to ACTIVATE SUBTITLES. Watch it fullscreen.

Summary: From a practical engineering perspective, you will learn which printing head and admixture work best, how computer simulation can accelerate development, which materials are best for printing a geopolymer slurry, and which selection criteria are most important. Finally, an LCA study will support the challenge of climate change. Dr. Abrar Gasmi thesis will be available for free download in the next months.

Join Dr. Abrar Gasmi as she details her PhD research on the multiscale optimization of 3D printed geopolymer ceramic, a key collaboration with Pyromeral Systems and the Geopolymer Institute. The goal: replace energy-intensive, waste-generating refractory molds—used for high-performance aerospace and motorsport components—with an eco-friendly, precise, 3D-printed alternative.

The journey focused on overcoming major challenges, including finding a printable formula and preventing layer collapse. Dr. Gasmi selected M88 metakaolin from temCon, feldpsar and Wollastonite from Xatico, with potassium silicate from Woellner, and optimized the rheology using additives like xanthan gum, also from Woellner, ensuring the paste exhibited the necessary high recovery rate for self-supporting structures. (All these geopolymer materials are distributed by Xatico in Europe).

A significant contribution is the use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), a novel application for geopolymers, to model material flow inside a custom-built 3D printer and fine-tune parameters for reliable extrusion. The optimized process successfully printed complex prototypes that, after thermal curing, reached 34 MPa in flexural strength, and 36 GPa in hardness, surpassing the cast material.

Furthermore, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) confirmed the geopolymer 3D printing is consistently more energy-efficient and sustainable than traditional methods, marking a significant step toward greener advanced industrial applications.

Chapters
00:00 Introduction and Sustainability Challenge
02:28 The High Temperature Insert Mold Problem
04:31 Why Geopolymers and 3D Printing
06:33 Methodological Framework
10:55 Rheology: The Key to Printability
13:52 Numerical Optimization with CFD
15:54 Process Optimization
22:27 Developing the Custom 3D Printer
27:18 High-Temperature Formula and Optimization
33:39 Printing the Industrial Prototype (Challenges & Fidelity)
38:08 Sustainability Assessment (Life Cycle Analysis)
40:09 Conclusion and Future Research

ACCESS TO THE PRESENTATIONS

Download and read the presentations given in front of the Geopolymer Camp attendance. Click here to access to the files.

PROGRAMME

The GeopolymerCamp 2025 spanned 3 days:

SPECIAL TOPICS OF INTEREST:
– Tutorial Workshop (short courses) for Newcomers, on Monday;
– Focused Sessions:
1- Celebrating Joseph Davidovits 90th Birthday !!!
2- Computer Simulations of Geopolymer Paste and Practical Application in 3D Printing
3- Nano-Molecular Geopolymer Chemistry, advancing new materials yet to be discovered

MONDAY, July 7: TUTORIAL/WORKSHOP

08:15-09:00: Registration to TUTORIAL
09:00-14:00: Workshop and tutorial with laboratory demonstrations (Groups A + B) involving 3 standard recipes.
12:00-13:00: Free Sandwich Lunch Group B
13:00-14:00: Free Sandwich Lunch Group A
14:00-16:00: Short Courses and Q&A
————————-

14:00-16:00 Registration to GEOPOLYMER CAMP

TUESDAY, July 8: GEOPOLYMER CAMP

08:30: Registration

09:00-09:15: Welcome and messages.
09:15-10:00: Keynote by Joseph Davidovits: State of the Geopolymer R&D, 2025 with special emphasis on recent developments.

10:00-12:05 First session: geopolymer molecular chemistry; raw materials, scientific investigations.
– Joerg Lind, Wöllner GmbH, Germany: Geosil – ready to use alkali silicates for Geopolymers.
– Carine Lefèvre, Xatico, Luxembourg: Metakaolins and mineral fillers in geopolymers.
– Richard Wyn Huws, Penygroes, Gwynedd, UK: Introducing the huge potential of slate powder as a geopolymer raw material.

11:00-11:30: Coffee break
– Joseph Davidovits: Nano-Molecular Geopolymer Chemistry, advancing new materials yet to be discovered

12:05 Second Session: 3D Printing

Keynote by PhD Abrar Gasmi, Picardie Jules Verne University, Saint-Quentin, France: Computer Simulations of Geopolymer Paste and Practical Application in 3D Printing.

– Siim Koor, Intelligent Materials and Systems Lab, University of Tartu, Estonia: Adaptation of Commercial 3D Clay Printers for Tabletop Fabrication of Geopolymer-Binder-Based Concrete Structures.

13:00 Free Sandwich Lunch

14:15-17:15: Third Session (part 1): industrial applications, building applications, eco-construction, LTGS, bricks, cements, concretes, CO2 mitigation, Global Warming.
– Cui Yuansheng, China Bulk Cement Association of Promotion & Development (CBCA): Progress of Geopolymer Industrialization in China.
– Erik Amesz, Adviesbureau NET, Cuijk, Netherlands: Biochar in Geopolymer concrete.
– BoSheng Liu, Feng Chia University, School of Architecture, Taichung, Taiwan: Utilizing Manufacturing Paper Sludge as Metakaolin with Engineered Biochar for Geopolymer Binder Systems.
– Mouhamadou Amar, CERI Matériaux et Procédés, IMT Nord Europe, Douai, France: Geopolymer application for concrete and brick technology.
– Alex Reggiani, GeoMITS, Italy: Geopolymer Draining Systems: Performance Flooring for Pools and Wet Zones.

16:10-16:40 Coffee break

– Chenmeng Zhang, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK: Geopolymer in self-sensing application.
– Jean-Baptiste Labrune and Marcelo Coelho, M.I.T. Cambridge, USA: Geolectric, Sustainable, Low-Carbon Ceramics for Embedded Electronics and Interaction Design.

WEDNESDAY, July 9 : GEOPOLYMER CAMP

9:10-10:15: Focused Session : Geopolymer and Archaeology

– Joseph and Ralph Davidovits: Presentation of the 4-year R&D project CUSCO-GP (Comprehensive Understanding of Stone Construction Origin – Geopolymer Project); it includes the 2-year scientific research project AGILE (Ancient Geopolymer Investigation and Lithic Experimentation) on the application of geopolymer chemistry and dating in archaeology.
CUSCO-GP is a joint research project between the Geopolymer Institute Laboratory (GIL), Saint-Quentin, France and the State University of Arizona, Tempe, USA, Prof. Don Seo. This R&D project is supported by the Athanatos Foundation (Brian Muraresku), Delaware (USA) and the American philanthropist Eugene Jhong.
– Marco Scalet, Calchèra San Giorgio, Valsugana (Trento), Italy: Geopolymers for Restauration of Ancient and Contemporary Arts.

10:15-10:45 Coffee break

10:45 Third Session (part 2): Geopolymer Concrete

– Ramon Skane, Reformix Materials Group, Perth, Western Australia: our experience with industrial by-products in the industry scale-up of Geopolymer concrete works.
– Venicius Sampaio, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Pampulha, Brasil: Scaling up geopolymer technology using different types of mining wastes.
– Abdelrahman Al Kuhaymi, Siefco, Riyadh, Saudi-Arabia: geopolymer paver block manufacturing facilities in Dammam, in combination with natural Saudi pozzolan.
– Frederic Thole, Kortmann Beton, Schüttorf, Germany: Industrial production of geopolymer concrete for use in electrical infrastructure.
– Jasper Vitse, Katlyn Caerels and Jiabin Li, KU Leuven – Bruges, Belgium: CDW-based geopolymer mortar with different binder-to-sand ratios.
– Miguel Otero et.al., AIMEN Technology Center, Spain: Optimizing CDW-Based Geopolymer Mortars for Additive Manufacturing.

13:05 – 15:30 Free Sandwich Lunch – Networking – Open discussions

– Groups – Discussions
– Materials Sciences + Products ; – Materials Technology & Engineering (+ civil engineering)
– Cements – Concretes (+ raw materials, adjuvants); – Sustainable / Eco Construction.

Photo Gallery

Special Thanks to our Sponsors:

Xatico: Performance Minerals for Geopolymer Solutions

XATICO sells, distributes and advises on mineral materials, offering a wide range of carefully selected products from the world’s best production sites. Its large customer base in Europe covers many industries, including geopolymers. XATICO’s team of experts provides technical and formulation support, customised distribution, consignment stock and delivery services throughout Europe.

Geosil^®: Silicate binders and hardeners for geopolymeric systems

The Geosil^® product line are the first aqueous silicate solutions specifically designed for geopolymerization. In addition, Woellner supplies a wide range of additives to help you achieve your desired properties.

Keynote Conference in video

State of the Geopolymer R&D 2024
Keynote by Joseph Davidovits.

28 min, 73 MB. Click on the CC icon to ACTIVATE SUBTITLES. Watch it fullscreen.

In his annual keynote, “State of the Geopolymer R&D 2024,” Professor Davidovits discusses the evolution of geopolymer research, emphasizing recent developments in polysialate-based and alumoxy-based geopolymerization. He explains the detailed chemical mechanisms and structural formations from primary to quaternary levels and highlights innovative applications of high-strength 3D-printed geopolymer ceramics. This presentation, rooted in research dating back to 1976, offers a thorough overview of the current state and future direction of geopolymer technology. Whether you are an experienced scientist or new to the field, this keynote provides valuable insights into the unique thermal stability and potential extraterrestrial applications of geopolymers.

1. Geopolymer Science (00:00)
   • From primary to quaternary structures (2:45)
   • Alumoxy-based Geopolymerization (21:20)

Geopolymer Solutions for Lunar / Martian Habitats and Space Works
Keynote by Joseph Davidovits.

21 min, 55 MB. Click on the CC icon to ACTIVATE SUBTITLES. Watch it fullscreen.

Explore the future of space construction with Professor Joseph Davidovits in his keynote presentation, “Geopolymer Solutions for Lunar / Martian Habitats and Space Works.” Recorded at the 16th Geopolymer Camp, this comprehensive talk delves into how geopolymer technology can revolutionize human settlement on the Moon and Mars. Professor Davidovits discusses the advantages of geopolymers, including their resource efficiency, resistance to radiation, thermal stability, and durability in the harsh conditions of space. He highlights recent reports from NASA and addresses the differences between true geopolymers and alkali-activated materials. The presentation also covers cutting-edge research on 3D-printed high-strength geopolymer ceramics, and the potential for utilizing lunar regolith and solar wind-derived water for construction purposes. Whether you’re a scientist, engineer, or space enthusiast, this video offers valuable insights into the innovative applications of geopolymers for extraterrestrial habitats and space missions.

1. Introduction (00:00)
   • Why geopolymers are excellent candidates for lunar habitats? (2:10)
   • Stability of geopolymers in a high vacuum (6:10)
   • What are the limitations and technical challenges? (11:07)
   • Solar-wind derived water on Moon (16:55)

ACCESS TO THE PRESENTATIONS

Download and read the presentations given in front of the Geopolymer Camp attendance. Click here to access to the files.

PROGRAMME

The GeopolymerCamp 2024 spanned 3 days:

SPECIAL TOPICS OF INTEREST:
– Tutorial Workshop (short courses) for Newcomers, on Monday;
– Focused Sessions:
1- 3D printing: Geopolymer inks and Additive manufacturing.
2- Geopolymer solutions for Lunar / Martian habitats.
3- Archaeo-chemistry vs Geopolymer-chemistry.

MONDAY, July 8: TUTORIAL/WORKSHOP

08:15-09:00: Registration to TUTORIAL
09:00-14:00: Workshop and tutorial with laboratory demonstrations (Groups A + B) involving 3 standard recipes.
12:00-13:00: Free Sandwich Lunch Group B
13:00-14:00: Free Sandwich Lunch Group A
14:00-16:00: Short Courses and Q&A
————————-

14:00-16:00 Registration to GEOPOLYMER CAMP

TUESDAY, July 9: GEOPOLYMER CAMP
(preliminary schedule; Programme in progress)

08:30: Registration

09:00-09:15: Welcome and messages.
09:15-09:45: Keynote by Joseph Davidovits: State of the Geopolymer R&D, 2024 with special emphasis on recent developments.

09:45-11:00 First session: geopolymer molecular chemistry; raw materials, scientific investigations.
– Joerg Lind, Wöllner GmbH, Germany: Geosil – ready to use alkali silicates for Geopolymers.
– Carine Lefèvre, Xatico, Luxembourg: Metakaolins and mineral fillers in geopolymers.
– Ralph Davidovits, Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, France: Tempozz  metakaolins: the best metakaolins ever tested for geopolymer.
– Ralph Davidovits, Geopolymer Institute, Natural prompt cement from Vicat, substitue for GGBS slag ?
– Sima Kamali, Oulu University, Finland: NaOH Replacement by High Salinity Water to Prepare Geopolymers.

11:00-11:30: Coffee break

11:30 Second Session: Geopolymers for Additive Manufacturing / Geopolymer Inks/ 3D printing:
– Abrar Gamsi, Picardie Jules Verne University, Saint-Quentin: Update of the ongoing research project on 3D printing with Geopolymer Inks.
– Szymon Gądek, Nina Polivoda and Barbara Kozub, Politechnika Krakowska, Krakow, Poland: Geopolymer materials in 3D printing techniques.
– Miguel Otero and L.Freire, AIMEN Technology Centre, Porriño, Spain: GeoS2·3D Project; Sustainable Geopolymer Development for Additive Manufacturing Using Construction and Demolition Waste.
– Timur Mukhametkaliyev, scientist, Kazakhstan: Geopolymer development for 3D printing in Kazakhstan.

13:00 Free Sandwich Lunch

14:00-17:15: Third Session (part 1): industrial applications, building applications, eco-construction, LTGS, bricks, cements, concretes, CO2 mitigation, Global Warming.
– Alex Reggiani, GeoMITS, Prignano Sulla Secchia, Italy: Engineered stone – Sustainable and industrial case of using geopolymer technology to completely replace polyester resin and Portland cement to obtain new marble composite, totally mineral, VOC and pollution free,
– Vincent Claude, Buildwise, Belgium: Support of companies designing innovating geopolymer materials dedicated to construction with a technical, standard and field-related approach.
– Roohollah Kalatehjari, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand: Investigating the Potentials of New Zealand Volcanic Ash in Geopolymer Production for sustainable construction practices.
– Tarek Maassarani, Geopolymer International, LLC, USA, New Geopolymer Applications in the US.
– Gita Sakale, Primekss Group, Riga, Latvia: Prīmx road to net zero concrete slab.
– Aida Pedram, PadraBrick, Vancouver, Canada: Making bricks using coal refuse in Canada.

16:00-16:30 Coffee break

– Jan de Koning, BPN Innovatie laboratorium, Netherlands: Geopolymer Concrete with 100kg CO2/m3 emission.
–

16:50-17:15: Focused Session : Archaeo-chemistry vs Geopolymer Chemistry

WEDNESDAY, July 10 : GEOPOLYMER CAMP

9:10-10:30: Focused Session : Geopolymer solutions for Lunar / Martian habitats and space work.

9:10-9:40: Keynote by Joseph Davidovits, Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, France: The advantages and properties of geopolymers for Lunar and Space materials: a discussion with AI (artificial intelligence Claude-Instant and GPT).
– Samuel Lucas, Stembert, Belgium and Orion Lawlor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA: Heat-weldable and vitrifiable lunar geopolymer concrete based on lunar regolith simulant LHS-1.

10:30-11:00: Coffee break

11:00 Third Session (part 2): industrial applications, building applications, eco-construction, LTGS, bricks, cements, concretes, CO2 mitigation, Global Warming
– Alberto Carollo, Ecobeton, Italy: Geoteria: Examples of industrial applications of geopolymer products.
 – Mikk Luht, Eestimaaehitus – Competence Center for Ecological Building, Estonia: Combining geopolymer technologies with natural building techniques.
– Jon Ender, Kodatek, Estonia: Onsite-produced ultralight foamed geopolymer for making houses energy efficient using industry byproducts.
– Jasper Vitse, KU Leuven, Bruges, Belgium: Workability and mechanical properties of CDW-GGBS based geopolymer composites.
– Guido Volmer, Metten Concrete Solutions GmbH, Overath, Germany: EcoTerra ZERO – cement free paving blocks for the concrete industry.
– Rodney La Tourelle, Berling, Germany: Betonwaves; a creative approach to geopolymer cement and recycled concrete.
– Ambilly PS, RWTH Aachen University, Germany: Fresh Properties of 3D Printable Geopolymer Concrete.

13:15 – 15:30 Free Sandwich Lunch – Networking – Open discussions

– Groups – Discussions
– Materials Sciences + Products ; – Materials Technology & Engineering (+ civil engineering)
– Cements – Concretes (+ raw materials, adjuvants); – Sustainable / Eco Construction.

To sum-up: Alkali-Activated Materials (AAM) are NOT Polymers, so they cannot be called Geo-Polymers. AAMs are hydrates and Geopolymers are polymers. Geopolymers are NOT a subset of AAM because they are not a calcium hydrate alternative (no NASH, no KASH). Geopolymer is not a hydrate, because water does not participate in the structuration of the material. AAM and Geopolymers belong to two very different and separate chemistry systems (a hydrate/precipitate that is a monomer or a dimer versus a true polymer). Those who claim that both terms are synonyms are promoting a misleading scientific belief. Learn why by watching these four videos.
“Non-activated geopolymers” are the only TRUE geopolymers that provide the excellent properties you are expecting. AAM kills polymeric reaction.

Get an official transcript of the 4 videos, including a DOI for official references and citations, by downloading the technical paper # 25.

Geopolymers vs. AAM: Understanding the Crucial Differences

33 min, 89 MB. Click on the CC icon to ACTIVATE SUBTITLES. Watch it fullscreen.

Buy the “Geopolymer Bundle” Video + Tutorial (click here).

Summary: Geopolymers are not Alkali Activated Materials (AAM).
AAMs are characterized by their hydration process and are not polymers. Therefore, they cannot be called geopolymers. Geopolymers, on the other hand, are polymers and not hydrates. Consequently, the terms NASH or KASH are irrelevant because geopolymers are polymers, not hydrates. It is a significant scientific error to claim that polymers and hydrates are similar. Attempting to create a polymer using the mix design of a hydrate will result in failure (cracking, shrinkage and efflorescence). Conversely, following the kinetics of a polymer when making a geopolymer will result in success.
There is no controversy. You have been misled by people who lack a proper understanding of polymers. You have been faithfully following and copying their wrong mixes and getting bad results.
Everything is proven with solid scientific evidence against fake science.

Video description: This video is an excerpt from a 3-hour workshop on geopolymer processing. Buy the Geopolymer Bundle (click here).
It addresses common misconceptions about geopolymer cements and explains why many attempts to produce geopolymer cements have failed to achieve the superior properties that are often cited in the scientific literature.
The presenters argue that geopolymers are not alkali activated materials (AAM) and highlight the fundamental differences between the two. They emphasize the importance of understanding polymer chemistry for successful formulation.
The video critiques common errors in the scientific literature, particularly those propagated between 2003 and 2019, that have led to confusion in the field. It explains why treating geopolymers as hydrates (NASH or KASH) is incorrect and provides evidence from infrared spectroscopy and the role of water to support this claim.
The presenters emphasize the importance of proper terminology and understanding, pointing out that geopolymers are true mineral polymers, not hydrates or precipitates.
This informative video aims to clear up misconceptions and provide a solid foundation for those interested in working with geopolymer cement, ultimately promoting a better understanding and more successful implementation of this innovative material in construction and engineering.

Chapters:

• 00:00 Introduction
• 01:33 AAM are not GP
• 03:53 Geopolymer definition
• 05:06 Example of wrong mixing
• 11:58 Portland cement chemistry
• 12:57 Geopolymer chemistry
• 14:05 Wrong NASH and KASH terminology
• 15:42 Wrong RILEM committee definition
• 17:09 Water to binder ratio proves GP not a hydrate
• 18:35 IR proves GP not a hydrate
• 24:49 AAM are not Polymers
• 25:18 What is activation?
• 27:47 There is no GP activator
• 29:00 Concrete Society classifications
• 30:15 Designing Buildings definitions
• 32:43 GP is a polymer not a hydrate

Other videos

In his four recent keynotes at the Geopolymer Camp 2014, Geopolymer Camp 2015, Geopolymer Camp 2016 and Geopolymer Camp 2017, Prof. J. Davidovits explained why Alkali-Activated-Materials are not Geopolymers, or why alkali-activation is not geopolymerization. We have selected all the sequences that had been dedicated to this issue in the GPCamp-2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 keynotes. These new videos are titled: Why Alkali-Activated Materials are NOT Geopolymers. You will finally understand why they are two different systems.

Part 4 (new 2017): NASH / KASH is an invalid terminology

In 2016, a paper published by a group of scientists determined that there is no presence of NASH or KASH in geopolymer cement (see part 3 below). In this short excerpt, Prof. Joseph Davidovits explains this result by the true polymer nature of geopolymer chemistry. You will learn what true NASH and KASH are, and in which context they are actually used. AAM and geopolymer cement (wrongly shorten by some as “geopolymers”) are two very different and separate chemistry (a hydrate/precipitate that is a monomer or a dimer versus a true polymer). None is a subset of the other or its derivative which leads to confused interpretations.

10 min, 26 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Part 3: AAM are not polymers, so they cannot be called “geopolymers”

Prof. Joseph Davidovits emphasizes the fact that Alkali Activated Materials (AAM) are not polymers, so they cannot be called “geopolymers”. He presents what scientists are now writing about this issue. They now agree with proven facts that it is a big scientific mistake to use AAM and geopolymer as synonyms, and people shall stop doing so. Geopolymer cement is not a CSH derivative; therefore, scientists are now stating that applying the CSH terminology from Portland cement is not only inappropriate, but also calling them NASH and KASH is totally wrong. Those who purposefully use and propagate these misleading languages delude the understanding of the true chemical reactions that really occur (never a hydrate or a gel, but a polymer), resulting in confused interpretations.

27 min, 62 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Part 1 (2014): AAM are not geopolymers, two different chemistries

Prof. J. Davidovits explains the main differences between AAC (Alkali-Activated Cement or Concrete), AAS (Alkali-Activated Slag), AAF (Alkali-Activated Fly Ash) and Slag-based Geopolymer cement, in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, long-term durability. In a second part, on hand of the industrialization of Slag/fly ash-based geopolymer cement/concrete implemented by the company Wagners, Australia, he focuses on the results provided by the carbonation testing data obtained for ordinary Portland cement, AAS and EFC (Slag/fly ash-based geopolymer). The tests were carried out at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology RMIT in Australia. Geopolymer behaves like regular Portland cement, whereas AAS gets very bad carbonation results.

20 min, 46 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Part 2 (2015): Clarifying statement about all the false ideas and assertions

Prof. J. Davidovits makes a clarifying statement about all the false ideas and assertions written by several alkali activated materials scientists (incorrectly using the word “geopolymer” for marketing purpose in place of AAM) and blindly imitated by others. He explains why it is a true polymer with a well-known and understood chemistry (as opposed to those who claim it is a “gel” of unknown character), mentions the historicity and discovery of geopolymer chemistry, the real contributions of Glukhovsky and what he really wrote about geopolymers. He develops the range of actual industrial applications that goes far beyond cement made out of wastes…

29 min, 67 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Special Thanks to our Sponsors:

Xatico: Performance Minerals for Geopolymer Solutions

XATICO sells, distributes and advises on mineral materials, offering a wide range of carefully selected products from the world’s best production sites. Its large customer base in Europe covers many industries, including geopolymers. XATICO’s team of experts provides technical and formulation support, customised distribution, consignment stock and delivery services throughout Europe.

Geosil^®: Silicate binders and hardeners for geopolymeric systems

The Geosil^® product line are the first aqueous silicate solutions specifically designed for geopolymerization. In addition, Woellner supplies a wide range of additives to help you achieve your desired properties.

Geopolymer products manufacturer for the USA and North America
Website: gpi.earth

Geopolymer International is your geopolymer expert for the USA and North America. Engaged in production of a wide range of sustainable materials for manufacturing and construction based on geopolymer technology, as well as architectural concrete elements production and 3D printing.

Keynote Conference in video

State of the Geopolymer R&D 2023
Keynote by Joseph Davidovits.

31 min, 81 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

In his keynote “State of the Geopolymer R&D 2023”, Professor Joseph Davidovits provides a comprehensive review of the advancements in geopolymer science and applications over the past year. He begins with discussing ongoing research into the fundamental geopolymerization process and new discoveries around acid-based geopolymerization. Moving into practical applications, Prof. Davidovits examines the development of super high strength metakaolins and how geopolymers can help mitigate global warming through their lower carbon footprint compared to Ordinary Portland Cement. Other timely topics covered include the role of geopolymers in sustainable water resources management and repairing critical infrastructure like roads and pavements damaged by floods. The keynote also talked about progress with 3D printing using geopolymer binders to create strong and stable ceramic-like materials. A highlight is providing details on the world’s first 3D printed house in geopolymer concrete. Lastly, Prof. Davidovits envisions future opportunities for geopolymers to enable more durable habitats for permanent settlements on the moon.

1. Geopolymer Science (00:00)
   • Acid-based Geopolymerization (4:52)
   • New Super High Strength Metakaolins (13:04)
2. Geopolymer and Global Warming (14:50)
   • Management of water resources (15:54)
   • Floodings and infrastructures (roads, pavements repair) (20:11)
3. Geopolymer for Additive Manufacturing 3D-Printing (22:01)
   • High-strength and Chemically Stable ceramic-like (24:04)
   • First house printed in Geopolymer Concrete (26:07)
   • Geopolymer Solutions for Lunar Habitats (28:45)

First house printed in Geopolymer Concrete in Las Vegas, USA
Keynote by William HOFF (Geopolymer International), Emmanuel ROY and Jon SCOTT (StrongPrint3D), Alex REGGIANI, Marina and Andrey DUDNIKOV (Renca).

23 min, 60 MB. Click on the CC icon to ACTIVATE SUBTITLES. Watch it fullscreen.

Two presentations are included in the video:

• (00:00) First Printed House in Geopolymer Cement, by William Hoff (Geopolymer International), Emmanuel Roy and Jon Scott (StrongPrint3D)
• Watch Jarett Gross (@automateconstruction) video: youtu.be/C-tnpkcXTuc
• (10:24) First Printed House – Fight Against the Nature, Alex Reggiani, Marina Dudnikova and Andrey Dudnikov (RENCA)

In April 2023, Geopolymer International, Renca and StrongPrint3D came together in Las Vegas, Nevada to pioneer the world’s first 3D-printed house made entirely from geopolymer cement. Despite the extreme heat and frequent winds in the Las Vegas desert, their teams worked tirelessly over several weeks, using large robotic printer equipment to layer the geopolymer cement to construct the house piece by piece directly on site. There were many challenges along the way, such as cement drying and setting quicker than expected in the hot weather. Adaptations had to be made like modifying cement mixtures. Heavy winds also disrupted prints on some days. However, through ongoing collaboration and adjustments to their process, the companies overcame these hurdles. Finally, they announced the successful completion of the fully 3D-printed house, proving the feasibility of building structures with this innovative method and opening doors to future sustainable housing applications using geopolymer materials.

Additive Manufacturing of Ceramic Type Geopolymer For Complex and Tiny Objects
Keynote by Abrar GASMI, Université Picardie Jules Verne, France, LTI – UR UPJV 3899.

26 min, 69 MB. Click on the CC icon to ACTIVATE SUBTITLES. Watch it fullscreen.

Conference presented by Abrar Gasmi, a PhD student at University Picardie Jules Verne in France, titled “Additive Manufacturing of Ceramic Type Geopolymer For Complex and Tiny Objects.” A. Gasmi discusses her research into 3D printing geopolymer materials, which are environmentally friendly ceramic-like composites. She outlines the challenges in robocasting or extrusion-based 3D printing of geopolymers. A. Gasmi explains how the rheological properties of geopolymer pastes must be characterized to determine their suitability for the 3D printing process. A variety of potential anomalies are explored, from flaws in the initial geopolymer formula to issues that can arise during and after the printing process. She shares insights on developing an optimized geopolymer formula for 3D printing through rheological testing and characterization. She highlights some of the promising results thus far in additively manufacturing complex, small-scale geopolymer prototypes.

ACCESS TO THE PRESENTATIONS

Download and read the presentations given in front of the Geopolymer Camp attendance. Click here to access to the files.

PROGRAMME

The GeopolymerCamp 2023 spanned 3 days:

SPECIAL TOPICS OF INTEREST:
– Tutorial Workshop (short courses) for Newcomers, on Monday;
– Focused Sessions dedicated to 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing / Geopolymer Inks:
1- Geopolymer Inks for additive manufacturing of ceramic type geopolymer items, in the cm range. Experiences gathered in the Saint-Quentin Geopolymer laboratory.
2- 3D printing of a House: experiences gathered in the USA by Geopolymer International LLC (Las Vegas).

MONDAY, July 10: TUTORIAL/WORKSHOP

08:15-09:00: Registration to TUTORIAL
09:00-14:00: Workshop and tutorial with laboratory demonstrations (Groups A + B) involving 3 standard recipes.
12:00-13:00: Free Sandwich Lunch Group B
13:00-14:00: Free Sandwich Lunch Group A
14:00-16:00: Short Courses and Q&A
————————-

14:00-16:00 Registration to GEOPOLYMER CAMP

TUESDAY, July 11: GEOPOLYMER CAMP

08:30: Registration

09:00-09:15: Welcome and messages.
09:15-09:45: Keynote by Joseph Davidovits: State of the Geopolymer R&D, 2023 with special emphasis on recent developments.

09:45 First session:

Themes: geopolymer molecular chemistry; raw materials, scientific investigations.
– The need for a peer-reviewed, open access, online academic journal – the Journal of Geopolymer Chemistry and Materials, John Head, Geopolymer Industries, USA.
– Graphii Coat 30 GP, engineered graphite geopolymer coating, Alex Reggiani, GeoMITS, Prignano Sulla Secchia, Italy.
– Joerg Lind, Wöllner GmbH, Germany: Geosil – ready to use alkali silicates for Geopolymers.
– Carine Lefèvre, Xatico, Luxembourg: Metakaolins and mineral fillers in geopolymers.

11:00-11:30: Coffee break

11:30 Second Session:

Geopolymers for Additive Manufacturing / Geopolymer Inks/ 3D printing.
– Introducing a new metakaolin for the making of Geopolymer Inks adapted to additive /3D printing, Ralph Davidovits, Geopolymer Institute and Laboratoire des Technologies Innovantes, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France.  
– Geopolymer Inks for additive manufacturing of ceramic type geopolymer items, in the cm range. Experiences gathered in the Saint-Quentin Geopolymer laboratory. Abrar Gasmi and Ralph Davidovits, Laboratoire des Technologies Innovantes, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France.
– The relationship between maker, machine and material: Creative investigation of geopolymer extrusion 3D printing, Lennart Engels, 3D Print Workshop, School of Arts, Design and Architectur, Aalto University, Finland.

13:00 Free Sandwich Lunch

14:000 Focused Session : 3D printing of Geopolymer concrete

– Geopolymer composites and 3D printing technology to create modern solutions for Lunar and Martian habitats, Kozub Barbara, Gądek Szymon, Korniejenko Kinga, Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland.

– The First 3D Printed Geopolymer House: Experiences Gathered in the USA, William Hoff,  Geopolymer International LLC, Las Vegas, USA, and Emmanuel Roy, Jon Scott, StrongPrint 3D Construction Inc, Calgary, Canada.
– Renca-Geopolymer mortar for the first 3D Printed Geopolymer House, Alex Reggiani, Andrey Dudnikov, Marina Dudnikova, Renca.

15:45-16:15 Coffee break:

16:15 – 17:00 General Discussion on 3D Printing (Part 1)

WEDNESDAY, July 12 : GEOPOLYMER CAMP

9:00-09:45 Third Session:

Themes: industrial applications, foamed panels, ceramics, high temperature, binders, composites, toxic and radioactive waste containment.

– Manufacturing of fibre reinforced phosphate geopolymer composites, Sathis Kumar Selvarayan, Deutsche Institute für Textil- und Faserforschung Denkendorf, Germany.
– Alternative applications of geopolymers in the environmental industry, Miguel Otero and Lorena Freire, AIMEN Technology Centre, O Porriño (Spain).
– Recycled coffee grounds and micronized rice husk GP lightweight mortar for casting tables and tiles, Alex Reggiani, GeoMITS, Prignano Sulla Secchia, Italy.

Fourth session 09:45-12:15

Themes: building applications, eco-construction, LTGS, bricks, cements, concretes, CO2 mitigation, Global Warming.

– a) Application of Dry Grinding as an Optimisation Tool for the Surface Area development in Geopolymer Cement Manufacture and b) Predictive optimisation model for geopolymer Cement production, Zvikomborero Lazarus Duri, Naveen BP, Rajesh Arora, Rajesh Goyal, Amity International Univervisity Haryana, Gurgaon (Manesar), India and NICMAR University, Pune, India.
– Performance evaluation of Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) incorporated Geopolymer Concrete for rigid pavement applications, Ghosh Ayana, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India.
– The use of excavated soils into geopolymeric binders, Mouhammadou Amar, IMT-Nord Europe, CERI Matériaux et Procédés, Douai, France.
– Geopolymers as a Concrete Repair Material in Industrial Facilities Glenn Schaefer, Structural Technologies, Fulton, USA.

11:00-11:30: Coffee break.

– Development Of Semi Mobile Precast Facilities For Geopolymer Concrete Made From Chilean Copper Mining Tailings, Maarten van den Berg and Sergio Ascencio Letelier, VDB Ingeniería Circular, Santiago, Chile.
– R-EVOLUTION, geopolymer-based mortar for the production of eco-pavers, Alex Reggiani, GeoMITS, Prignano Sulla Secchia, Italy.

13:15 – 15:30 Free Sandwich Lunch – Networking – Open discussions

– Groups – Discussions
– Materials Sciences + Products ; – Materials Technology & Engineering (+ civil engineering)
– Cements – Concretes (+ raw materials, adjuvants); – Sustainable / Eco Construction.

Photos Gallery

The GeopolymerCamp spans 3 days: Programme 2022.

SPECIAL TOPICS OF INTEREST:
– Tutorial Workshop (short courses) for Newcomers, on Monday;
– 3 Focused Sessions:
1- Breakthrough in Renewable production of Electricity in Large Scale Microbial Fuel Cells with Conductive Geopolymers.
2- Geopolymer concrete for Solar Electrical Power Generation.
3- Geopolymer science applied to Archaeology: the 6000 year old European megalithic structures.

Every year, we invite you to join the Geopolymer Institute for the largest, most comprehensive international conference devoted to Geopolymer technologies, the 14th GeopolymerCamp 2022, at the University of Picardie, Campus of Saint-Quentin, North of Paris, France, on July 4th to 6th 2022.

Please, take a look at the GEOPOLYMER CAMP web page for the programme and to register:
GeopolymerCamp Main Page (click on the link)
(or in French at GeopolymerCamp Page Principale )

Registration IS sold out.

We opened a waiting list in case of cancellation (click on Contact in the Menu).
70 participants maximum allowed for GP-Camp and 45 for Workshop/Tutorial.

As of today’s sanitary instructions, wearing a mask and social distance rules are mandatory. Full vaccination is recommended.
Because of this exceptional situation, you will get a full refund if we have to cancel the event or if you are forbidden to travel to France at the last minute.

SPECIAL TOPICS OF INTEREST:
– Tutorial Workshop (short courses) for Newcomers, on Monday;
– Focused Sessions (to be confirmed) : “Mechano-chemistry of dumped and piled fly ash” .

Every year, we invite you to join the Geopolymer Institute for the largest, most comprehensive international conference devoted to Geopolymer technologies, the 13th GeopolymerCamp 2021, at the University of Picardie, Campus of Saint-Quentin, North of Paris, France, on August 30-31, September 1st.

Please, take a look at the GEOPOLYMER CAMP web page for the programme and to register:
GeopolymerCamp Main Page (click on the link)
(or in French at GeopolymerCamp Page Principale )

]]> https://www.geopolymer.org/news/geopolymer-in-south-american-monuments-first-scientific-paper-published/ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 11:20:27 +0000 https://www.geopolymer.org/?p=4388 At the Geopolymer Camp 2018, in the Session: Ancient Technologies, Prof. J. Davidovits presented the first results of the joint research program conducted by the Geopolymer Institute and Universidad Catolica San Pablo, Arequipa, Peru, on Tiahuanaco / Pumapunku megalithic monuments (Tiwanaku), Bolivia (Lake Titicaca). See a brief summary of the lecture in Davidovits’ Keynote “State of the R&D 2018”, last 7 minutes of the video at GPCAMP-2018.

Tiwanaku Gate of the Sun and Pumapunku megalithic geopolymer sandstone slabs.

The platform on top of the 4 step pyramid of Pumapunku consists of 4 megalithic red sandstone slabs, weighing between 130 and 180 tonnes each, the largest among the New World monuments. Our study suggests that the slabs are a type of sandstone geopolymer concrete cast on the spot. It was recently published in Materials Letters 235 (2019) 120-124, Online on 8 October 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.10.033> access with the following link: Materials Letters.

Ferro-sialate geopolymer sandstone matrix under SEM:

SEM/EDS of ferro-sialate geopolymer sandstone matrix. Materials Letters (235) (2019), 120-124, Fig.3 C-D.

—————————————–

A second scientific paper dealing with the spectacular stone artifacts made of andesite geopolymer stone (H sculptures and the like) has been recently published in Ceramics International (on line January 3, 2019), with the title: “Ancient organo-mineral geopolymer in South- American Monuments: organic matter in andesite stone. SEM and petrographic evidence”. (J. Davidovits, L. Huaman, R. Davidovits, Ceramics International 45 (2019)  7385-7389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.01.024). Free access and download of the published paper is available until April 10, 2019 with the following link: Ceramics International.

Organic matter pointing on man-made stone and C-14 dating.

The presence of organic matter points to man-made stone. In addition it should allow C-14 dating of the geopolymer stone and consequently of the monument. On going research.

SEM image of organic matter in volcanic andesite stone, Ceramics International 45 (2019) 7385-7389, Fig. 3B.

This study is linked to our research carried out 36 years ago (in the 1980s) titled “Making Cements with plant extracts” and available for free download in our Library, Archaeological paper #C at library/archaeological-papers.

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY (for the detailed description go to: Tiahuanaco Monuments (Tiwanaku / Pumapunku), Bolivia ):

Tiahuanaco, on Lake Titicaca in Bolivia, is a village known throughout the world for its mysterious Gate of the Sun, ruins of temples and its pyramid. Archaeologists consider that this site was built well before the Incas, around 600 to AD 700. The site of Pumapunku is right next door with the ruins of an enigmatic pyramidal temple built at the same time. Because it is not restored and developed for touristic activity, it is less known to the general public. However, there are two architectural curiosities there: four giant red sandstone terraces weighing between 130 and 180 tons and small blocks of andesite, an extremely hard volcanic stone, whose complex shapes and millimetric precision are incompatible with the technology of the time. And for good reason, since archeology tells us that the Tiwanakans had only stone tools and no metal hard enough to carve the rock. But they would have carved the gigantic blocks of red sandstone (these ancient blocks are the largest of all the American continent!) and were able to carry these hundreds of tons on the site, then to adjust them precisely. Also, they would have been able to carve other smaller blocks made of volcanic andesite, an impossible-to-carve stone with an incredible finish! Archaeologists cannot give any rational explanations on how this was possible. Therefore, for the general public, the assumptions generally advanced to explain these wonders are the achievement by a lost ancient super civilization or by aliens’ involvement.

In November 2017, scientists gathered samples taken in the red sandstone and andesite from the Pumapunku site. For the first time, these stones were analyzed under the electron microscope, this had never been done before! They discovered the artificial nature of the stones. They compared the monuments’ stones with the local geological resources and found many differences.

Andesite rock is a volcanic stone from magma. It is composed mainly of silica in the form of plagioclase feldspar, amphibole and pyroxene. But the scientists have discovered the presence of an organic matter based on carbon. “Carbon-based organic matter does not exist in a volcanic rock formed at high temperatures because they are vaporized. It is impossible to find it in andesite rock. And because we found organic matter inside the volcanic andesitic stone, scientists will have the opportunity to carry out a Carbon-14 dating analysis and provide the exact age of the monuments”, according to Luis Huaman, geologist at Universidad Catolica San Pablo, Arequipa, Peru. This organic element is a geopolymer based on carboxylic acids which was therefore added by human intervention into andesite sand to form a kind of cement.

The giant blocks of red sandstone raise another problem. Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed of quartz grains and a clay binder. There are several possible geological sources but none correspond to the stones of the archaeological monuments. No known quarry is able to provide massive blocks of 10 meters long. In addition, the local stone is friable and small in size. Scientists have discovered under the electron microscope that the red sandstone of Pumapunku cannot come from the region because it contains elements, such as sodium carbonate, not found in the local geology. Therefore, where does the stone come from? From hundreds to thousands of kilometers? With what means have they been transported? In fact, electron microscopic analysis proves that the composition of the sandstone could be artificial (a ferro-sialate geopolymer) and manufactured to form cement.

What is this technology mastered by the Tiwanakans? “Artificial stones were formed as a cement. But, it is not a modern cement, it is a natural geological cement obtained by geosynthesis” says Ralph Davidovits, researcher at the Geopolymer Institute. For this, they took naturally friable and eroded rock like red sandstone from the nearby mountain, on the one hand, and on the other hand, unconsolidated volcanic tuff from the nearby Cerro Kapia volcano in Peru to form andesite. They created cement either from clay (the same red clay that Tiwuanakans used for pottery) and sodium carbonate salts from Laguna Cachi in the Altiplano Desert to the south, to form red sandstone. For gray andesite, they invented an organo-mineral binder based on natural organic acids extracted from local plants and other natural reagents. This cement was then poured into molds and hardened for a few months. Without a thorough knowledge of geopolymer chemistry, which studies the formation of these rocks by geosynthesis, it is difficult to recognize the artificial nature of the stones. “This chemistry is not a difficult science to master. It is an extension of the knowledge of Tiwanakans in ceramics, mineral binders, pigments and above all an excellent knowledge of their environment,” says Joseph Davidovits. Without the selection of good raw materials, these extraordinary monuments could not have been created 1400 years ago.

Finally, this scientific discovery confirms local legends that say, “The stones were made with plant extracts able to soften the stone.” This explanation has always been rejected by archaeologists because it made no sense. The evidence provided by the team of scientists from France and Peru shows that the oral tradition was right: they made soft stones that could harden! The hypothesis of the lost ancient super civilization or aliens intervention is false. Tiwanakuans were intelligent human beings. They knew their environment perfectly and knew how to exploit the resources brought by nature.

In addition to the Carbon-14 dating analysis, further studies will soon be carried out to determine whether certain monuments in the Cuzco region of Peru have been built with the same scientific knowledge.

For the detailed description go to: Tiahuanaco Monuments (Tiwanaku / Pumapunku), Bolivia ).

The Geopolymer Institute is proud to sponsor the GeoMongol Rally Team. Liza, Marina and Andrey Dudnikov left the Geopolymer Camp and Saint-Quentin on Thursday July 13 (see on the photo with Prof. J. Davidovits). These Russian geopolymer experts and entrepreneurs are participating in the 2017 Mongol Rally, an 8-week, 16,000 km long crazy adventure departing from London, UK, on the route through several European and Asian countries.

Follow them and support their journey on Instagram #geomongol and read more on the GeoMongol website (read all details and buy stuffs to help raising money for charity). Track the itinerary in real time at mongolrally.iridium360.ru

After 6 weeks and 18700 km, they did it ! But they have to come back !!! In total, they travelled 26500 km (from Tcheliabinsk, Russia, to London, UK, then London, UK to Oulan-Bator, Mongolia, then back to Tcheliabinsk, Russia) and crossed 21 countries. What an adventure. And they made some geopolymer concrete too…

You may wonder who they are ?

The Dudnikovs (Marina Dudnikova + Andrey Dudnikov), together with Italian expert Alex Reggiani,  have created the company Renca in Russia to market true geopolymer cements all over the world (they are presently focusing on Dubai). They refuse to fall into the trap of cheap, low-tech, bad quality alkali-activated cements. They made the choice of manufacturing high quality geopolymer products with selected raw materials. Therefore, they are developing innovative geopolymer cement processes with in-house designed equipment. They don’t target at all-purpose mass markets, but into problem solving applications, yet with easy to implement solutions. For example, they are commercializing special geopolymer concretes for 3D printing (together with ApisCor), or designing an innovative Mobile Automatic Mixing System for manufacturing geopolymer concrete on the construction site, or offering a smart solution for fire protection in buildings with sprayed geopolymer foam, or passive cooling and reducing air conditioning energy…

They are pioneers like the Wagners in Australia, willing to seize opportunities and true entrepreneurs willing to take risks. Their participation to this eccentric and fascinating rally illustrates their mindsets. The Geopolymer Institute sticker on their car will travel through Europe and Asia.

IMPORTANT: We are changing the format of our Webinar – Q&A session only!

Outline of the talk:

For this Webinar Spring 2017, we have decided to set up a Questions and Answers (Q&A) session. Join Professor Joseph Davidovits and get your chance to ask any questions on Geopolymer Chemistry and Technology. He will answer questions either sent in advance or directly from the audience, live from his office, and stay online up to 3 hours until relevant topics have been discussed.

We strongly engage your attention to watch again the previous webinars videos before attending the webinar and prepare asking your questions. They have been now watched a thousand of times and been acclaimed by many as the best and straightforward introduction to geopolymers for all audiences (including students, scientists, engineers, business men, enthusiastic…).

You will have two ways of asking questions:

1. Complex questions that need certain time to read and study. You can send Professor Joseph Davidovits some texts, pictures or PDF and ask for his advices. He will try to answer your query as best as possible with regard to the audience interests. Please, send in advance your question or comments as a PDF file with graphs and images not exceeding 5 MB in total at the bottom of this page.
2. Simple short questions. They can be asked during the webinar session. Just, type in your question in the chat field of the GoToMeeting software. You can also write your question in advance at the bottom of this page which is the best method anyway to get an answer.

Obviously, you may attend the seminar without having to send any question. It is free for anybody to listen and learn, provided you register. Therefore, we are inviting you to participate, to share the spirit of this event, and hope to have you on line during this Geopolymer Webinar.

There will be two sessions, one for the Eastern hemisphere and the day after for the Western hemisphere. Please, register to only one session.

April 11, 2017: First 3 hour talk for the Eastern Hemisphere (Europe / Africa / Asia), at 07:00 UTC+0 (09:00 Paris / Berlin, 09:00 Johannesburg, 10:00 Moscow, 11:00 Dubai, 12:00 New Delhi, 14:00 Jakarta, 15:00 Beijing, 16:00 Tokyo, 17:00 Sidney, 19:00 Auckland).

April 12, 2017: Second 3 hour talk for the Western Hemisphere (Europe / Americas), at 16:00 UTC+0 (18:00 Paris / Berlin, 17:00 London / Casablanca, 13:00 Rio de Janeiro, 12:00 New York, 11:00 Mexico City, 09:00 Los Angeles).

If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

Language is English.

Note that the number of attendees is limited to 100 per session. So, do not wait for the last moment to join the Webinar and secure your seat before it is too late. This Q&A webinar is FREE.

Who shall attend?
Students, scientists, researchers, engineers from public and private organizations, curious or long-term experienced people in their fields of expertise, professionals involved in a wide range of development, including managers, finance specialists, R&D, marketing, business decision makers, technology and products development specialists, etc.

Technical requirements: We will use the GoToWebinar system from LogMeIn working with many computers (PC, Mac, iOS or Android App), including a fast internet connection, a web browser and the GoToMeeting application that you must install in your computer or your mobile/tablet device. For more information, please verify that you meet the systems requirements for GoToMeeting. Before joining the meeting from the e-mail invitation, please join a test meeting to confirm that you are able to successfully join a meeting.

Register Now:

Do not wait to register. You will immediately receive an e-mail with all the details and a personal link to connect to the webinar. More, you will receive 3 reminders by e-mail, one week, one day and one hour before the beginning of each session.

If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

Ask Your Question:

[si-contact-form form=’4′]

Privacy statement:

We’ll use this information to keep you informed once or twice a year about news or other plans provided by the Geopolymer Institute, and to gather demographic data yielding visitors statistics. Any information gathered using this form will not be given, sold or traded to anyone outside of the Geopolymer Institute for any reason.
We consider all messages received as confidential because they may contain information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure. We will not transmit to third parties your e-mail address. According to the French law (art. 34 of the law “Informatique et Libertés” ( Computer and Liberty ) 6-jan-1978), you have the right to access, edit, modify and delete all data concerning you. To apply this right, please write us.

The theory has many supporters around the world, but there are still opponents criticizing and repeating the same arguments. This page is here to help supporters counter critics.

First, you find below a list of the main opposing ideas, opinions and sometimes evidence, and how to reply to them. Then, we expose an extended abstract of the theory with a simplify list of arguments.

More details, information, videos are available at this page. Only a lengthy summary is disclosed here.

List of the main opposing arguments

1- The context. What you need to keep in mind.

An hypothesis that has a long life.

The theory is now well-known by the public since 1988 (first publication of the book in english), but presented earlier in official egyptology congresses since 1979. The Geopolymer Institute website exists since 1996 and, since the beginning, the theory was exposed in detail. Since then, new scientific papers, new books, new videos, new webpages have been published with the latest updates. Nevertheless, most opponents are always expressing their opinions based on hearsays, preconceived ideas, clichés, and are not taking 10 minutes of their precious time to read what is presented here. Some of them are publishing rebuttals using “wrong” arguments that Davidovits’ has never raised instead of quoting his work (for example, we do not claim to crush stones as aggregates, a useless exhausting effort, but instead asserting the use of weathered or eroded stones). A parody of science since some studies were made on “fake” pyramid samples. See section #5 below and the page: Deep misleading publications by geologists. These published sloppy papers are taken for serious references by the opponents of the re-agglomerated theory. You will be disappointed by the fact that this misleading behavior represents the vast majority of the opponents. Why? Because the artificial stone theory is the truth, they don’t know how to counter it. They are missing the big picture.

A global thinking

People trying to solve the Pyramids mysteries are always thinking in terms of engineering and technique, and worse, they are only focusing on Kheops’ pyramid, forgetting the previous ones and the hundred more built after. If an idea sounds valid for Kheops, it is immediately invalid for the others. Davidovits’ theory is the only theory with a global view encompassing the building of all the pyramids of Egypt for 250 years, from the first of Zoser to those in crude bricks, with solid and valid scientific evidence in geology, mineralogy, chemistry, hieroglyphic studies, religion and Egyptian history… Read the extended abstract below or buy the book to learn more. No other theory has this global approach.

Official theory

The man-made or re-agglometared stone theory exists, is still discussed and countered for more than 40 years! If the arguments against are so easy to expose, to denigrate and are self-evident, why people are still talking about it? Why people are still not convinced by carving theories?

By the way, what is the official theory? Ask the opponents before starting the discussion. The bare truth is that there is none. After centuries, so many studies, scientific investigations, archeological discoveries, carving theories are still a weak hypothesis. Nobody agrees on the main scenario around carving and hoisting. None is approved by the mainstream. What a massive failure after more than one century of egyptology! When someone raises a solution, it lasts 6 months up to 1 year after it vanishes because it leads to other insoluble problems. And the artificial stone theory is there for more than 40 years. After so much time, the carving theories fail !

So, the opponent of the re-agglomation hypothesis believes he acts in the name of truth, when actually he is found defending one of the many unofficial speculative carving theories! Is he convincing? Not at all. It is easy to criticize that his (un)official theory brings up more problems than solutions, and, above all, where is the evidence?

The ultimate evidence

Here is the solid argument that everybody understands:

More and more scientists agree and support the theory. Classical methods of investigation are not relevant. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral.

Several studies, carried out by independent scientists using the most modern equipment, exposed the ultimate proofs that the pyramids blocks are not natural. You may find various papers or opinions challenging the theory, but all prefer ignoring these independent analysis. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth that is still fought by some people for irrational purposes.

2- There is stone everywhere. Why bother to make a concrete?

This is common sense, isn’t it? You are thinking of the use of stones with a modern mind, in terms of architecture. For 3000 years long, Egyptians used stones (whether man-made or carved) only for religious purposes: temples, tombs and statues. Where are the houses, where are the palaces, where are the garrisons? They were built in crude bricks. During the pyramids time, it was forbidden to carve stones. Man-made stone bears a specific religious meaning related to the creation of life. Read more about this topic in the extended abstract under the “Religious context“.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

3- We see fossil shells, so it is a natural stone.

Man-made stone holds around 90% of natural mineral aggregates (here nummulites, fossil shells), and between 5 to 10% of the synthetic geopolymer binder. Some opponents believe that we claim that the geopolymer chemistry is manufacturing fossil shells in situ, which is absurd. But where do the fossil shells come from? From the quarry where we extract the natural stone aggregates. It is like claiming modern concrete is a carved and natural stone because it contains natural sand and natural stone aggregates ! If the stones were carved, why are all shells intact? Why none of them are cut?

There is evidence that limestone blocks come from different quarries. Since we know their origin, without a doubt, the stones are natural? But to make re-agglomerated limestone concrete, it is necessary that the 90% of limestone aggregate come from somewhere. Of course, they come from the same place! So, people have 90% of chance of analyzing a natural aggregate (here, nummulite fossil shell) and stating the artificial stone theory is wrong, setting aside the 10% synthetic binder.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

4- If it is a concrete-like stone, all block would have the same dimensions. But they are all different.

Before the first pyramid built out of stone, the ancient Egyptians constructed very imposing crude brick monuments. We find large funerary temple enclosures of the second dynasty, like the Khasekhemwy one (2,730 B.C.). Its massive wall is of crude clay bricks, therefore in a molded material. It is generally agreed, since these bricks were worked in molds, that their dimension must be uniform. However, this is wrong. Despite having been manufactured in molds, the clay bricks are of approximately 5 different sizes, implying the use of several patterns. We find these differences in proportions in all pyramids. This heterogeneity gives the monuments the ability to resist earthquakes by avoiding the amplification of seismic waves.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

5- One scientist / expert has analyzed the stones and claims they are natural, so you are wrong!

The analysis methods used today by geologists are not relevant. These methods are used to CLASSIFY not to determine natural or artificial species. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral. Indeed, the molecule of a mineral is by essence always the same, whether it is natural or synthetic, otherwise it would be another molecule, so another mineral. In addition, experts / scientists who oppose the theory of re-agglomeration have scarcely knowledge or understanding of the geopolymer chemistry. They will not know how to analyze this and will miss the evidence. Have the opponents ever analyzed a geopolymer and gain some understandings? Never! Ask them for their scientific papers on geopolymers, if they have ever published one. Take a close look at their studies: they assert that the stones bear the features of natural rocks, and these are their only claims. They imply that the geopolymer is inherently artificial and therefore that its synthetical nature would be immediately obvious, superbly ignoring the principles of geochemistry. Their ignorance of geopolymers deceives them. To our knowledge, no geologist has yet published a comparative analysis between a present-time geopolymer fossil shell limestone and an ancient pyramid stone. They criticize the system without having the slightest idea of what we are talking about. This leads to an unproductive debate with inconclusive results. Geopolymer is a hard science, not a speculative study. To show the geopolymerization and the artificial nature of the material, they need to work with more powerful methods. These tools are seldom used by them. Studies have been made with modern and powerful equipment, and all show that the stones are artificial. Opponents prefer to ignore them, it is out of their skill to argue against.

To find out more, here are our answers to the 3 geological studies most often cited by the opponents. Our claims are so straightforward that no scientific knowledge is required to understand them. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science. Read: Deep Misleading Publications by Geologists

If it is not convincing enough:

According to recent scientific studies, believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

6- There are granite blocks that are carved but roughly trimmed. So, your theory is wrong.

We have never claimed granite was artificial (another hearsay). Indeed, granite is not carved (they did not have the right tools) but split (a very different skill). You will read below in the extended abstract under the “Religious context” why they used granite, because it represents the southern country. The granite was not carved in a quarry, but simply taken from individual boulders found in great quantities in the Aswan region. The boulders were split to fine dressed faces, leaving a typical rough undressed back. They represent less than 0.1% of the total blocks. Workers had 10 years to install them in the pyramid, and 10 years to carve a unique sarcophagus with whatever technique they have at their disposal. In short, we don’t care! We care about the 99.9% of limestone blocks. For Kheops, one block must be placed every 3 minutes.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

7- The analysis in favor of the artificial stone theory are invalid because they are not official.

Right. Egyptologists are historian, linguists, archeologists but none are material scientists! So, there will never be official analysis carried out by them, they will always rely on experts like us. By the way, are the opponents officials? Are there published rebuttals official? And the person you are talking with, who is against the re-agglomerated stone theory, is it an official person expressing an official opinion? Absolutely not, never, none of them can claim that. Their argument has no more value than yours. You are at the same level! And what about the numerous carving theories, are they official? Are they promoting another new unofficial carving theory? (see above)

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

8- Another new study / investigation shows something strange in the pyramids…

None of the recent studies, using new tools and high-tech equipments are countering the artificial stone theory. It is often the opposite, it may be interpreted as a new evidence for re-agglomeration. Each time, they raise new questions and enigma that the carving theories cannot answer, fueling crazy speculations.

And, by the way:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

9- Aliens and/or ancient advanced civilization built the pyramids.

These people are reading all the contradictory, unofficial, numerous carving theories, and because all of them raise more questions than answers, they imagine a radical solution: a super civilization must have done it. We consider this belief as an insult to the genius of mankind, as if Homo sapiens is a stupid creature and what we believe are human achievements are a fraud. The geopolymer chemistry used to build the pyramids is a very simple technology, much easier than you think. They have all ingredients at the vicinity. It is a natural evolution of a technology having its origin from mineral binders, ceramics, pigments, ores, and simple chemistries. It gives extraordinary results, yet with straightforward knowledge. It is much more complicated to make copper tools, or metallurgy in general, by selecting the right ore (there are many that look like the same), using the right process at the right time and temperature…

More pictures, drawings, details, information, videos are available at this page. Only a lengthy summary is published below.

Extended abstract of the theory with a simplify list of arguments

In his books, Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with Fake Stones (2009-2017), Professor Joseph Davidovits presented a theory on the pyramids’ construction: they were built by using re-agglomerated stone (a natural limestone treated like a concrete and then moulded), and not by using enormous blocks, carved and hoisted on ramps. Initially published in New York in 1988 under the title The pyramids: an enigma solved, this thesis has recently been released in several books with an important update of facts missing in the first American edition.

The theory is based on scientific analysis, archaeological elements and hieroglyphic texts as well as religious and historical aspects. Contrary to other theories that only seek a technical explanation for the Giza Plateau pyramids, and often looking only at Kheops itself and ignoring the others, his theory encompasses the building of all the pyramids of Egypt for 250 years, from the first of Zoser to those in crude bricks.

A- Theory

1. The formula and materials used:

The most important material is limestone. Analysis done by the German geochemist D.D. Klemm [1] showed that 97 to 100% of the blocks come from the soft and argillaceous limestone layer located in the Wadi, downwards the Giza Plateau. According to the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner [2], the Egyptians used a soft and crumbly limestone, unusable for hewn stones. The workmen did not choose the hard and dense limestone located near the pyramids, with rare exceptions for later restorations. The geologist L. Gauri [3] showed that this limestone is fragile, because it includes clay-like materials (in particular kaolinite clay) sensitive to water which explains the extreme softness of the Sphinx body, whereas its head, cut in the hard and dense geological layer, resisted 4000 years of erosion.

This soft argillaceous limestone, too fragile to be a hewn stone, is well adapted to agglomeration. Moreover, it naturally contains reactive geopolymeric ingredients, like kaolinitic clay, essential to manufacture the geological glue (a binder) and to ensure the geosynthesis.

It was not required to crush this stone, because it disaggregates easily with the Nile water during floods (the Wadi is filled with water at this time) to form a limestone mud. To this mud, they added reactive geological materials (mafkat, a hydrated alumina and copper silicate, overexploited at the time of Kheops in the Sinai mines) [4], Egyptian natron salt (sodium carbonate, massively present in Wadi Natrum), and lime coming from plants and wood ashes [5]. They carried this limestone mud in baskets, poured it, then packed it in moulds (made out of wood, stone, crude brick), directly on the building site. The method is identical to the pisé technique, still in use today.

This limestone, re-agglomerated by geochemical reaction, naturally hardens to form resistant blocks. The blocks thus consist of 90 to 95% of natural limestone aggregates with its fossil shells, and from 5 to 10% of geological glue (a cement known as “geopolymeric” binder) based on aluminosilicates.

2. Why do geologists see nothing?

This is due to the geological glue, which, though artificial, is seen by the geologists either as an impurity, and therefore useless to study, or as a natural binder. At best, the analysis tools and the working methods of geologists consider the glue as a perfectly natural “micritic binder”. Joseph Davidovits manufactured an artificial limestone containing 15% of synthetic binder, and submitted it to geologists who, on studying it, suspected nothing [6].

A geologist not informed of geopolymer chemistry will assert with good faith that the stones are natural.

3. The chemical formula:

The geosynthesis aims to react the kaolinite clay (naturally included in the Giza limestone) with caustic soda (see chemical formula 1). To manufacture this caustic soda, they use Egyptian natron (sodium carbonate) and lime (coming from plant ashes) (see chemical formula 2). Then, they get soda which will react with clay.

But the most interesting point is that this chemical reaction creates pure limestone as well as hydrosodalite (a mineral of the feldspathoids or zeolites family). [6]

Chemical reaction 1:
Si₂O₅,Al₂(OH)₄ + 2NaOH = > Na₂O.2SiO₂Al₂O₃.nH₂O
kaolinite clay + soda = > hydrosodalite

Chemical reaction 2:
Na₂CO₃ + Ca(OH)₂ = > 2NaOH + CaCO₃
Sodium carbonate (Egyptian natron) + lime = > soda + limestone

Summary of the re-agglomerated stone binder chemical formula:
clay + natron + lime = > feldspathoids + limestone (i.e. a natural stone)

The re-agglomerated stone binder is the result of a geosynthesis (a geopolymer), which creates two natural minerals: limestone and hydrated feldspar (feldspathoids). We understand why the geologists can easily be misled.

4. Scientific analysis:

Now that more and more scientists agree and support the theory, some have decided to carry on researches without my help and without requesting any approval from egyptologists, so in total independence from both parties.

The analysis methods used today by geologists are not relevant. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral. Indeed, the molecule of a mineral is by essence always the same, whether it is natural or synthetic, otherwise it would be another molecule, so another mineral. To show the artificial nature of the material, they need to work with more powerful methods (analysis by synchrotron, transmission and electronic scan microscopy SEM TEM, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Paleomagnetism, Particle Induced Gamma-Ray Emission, Particle Induced X-Ray Emission, X-ray fluorescence, X-ray Diffraction). These tools are seldom used in this situation. Studies have been made, and all show that the pyramid stones are artificial. [7]

This last paleomagnetism study is simply the ultimate proof that the pyramids blocks are not natural. You may find various papers or opinions challenging the theory, but all prefer ignoring these independent analysis. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth that is still fought by some people for irrational purposes.

We can quote the following scientific papers:

• Paleomagnetic investigation of the Great Egyptian Pyramids, Igor Túnyi and Ibrahim A. El-hemaly, Europhysics News 2012, 43/6, 28-31.
• Were the casing stones of Senefru’s Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved? Multinuclear NMR evidence, Kenneth J. D. MacKenzie, M. E. Smith, A. Wong, J. V. Hanna, B. Barryand M. W. Barsoum, Mater. Lett., 2011, 65, 350.
• Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Barsoum M.W., Ganguly A. and Hug G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89[12], 3788-3796, 2006.
• The Enigma of the Construction of the Giza Pyramids Solved?, Scientific British Laboratory, Daresbury, SRS Synchrotron Radiation Source, 2004.
• PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza, Guy Demortier, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS and METHODS in PHYSICS RESEARCH B, B 226, 98 – 109 (2004).
• X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries., Davidovits J., Science in Egyptology; A.R. David ed.; 1986; Proceedings of the “Science in Egyptology Symposia”; Manchester University Press, UK; pp.511-520.
• Differential thermal analysis (DTA) detection of intra-ceramic geopolymeric setting In archaeological ceramics and mortars., Davidovits J.; Courtois L., 21st Archaeometry Symposium; Brookhaven Nat. Lab., N.Y.; 1981; Abstracts P. 22.
• How Not to Analyze Pyramid Stone, Morris, M. JOURNAL OF GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION, VOL. 41, P. 364-369 (1993).
• Comment a-t-on construit les Pyramides: polémique chez les Égyptologues, HISTORIA Magazine, Paris, No 674, fév. 2003, dossier pp. 54-79 (2003).

B- The Archaeological Evidence

1. The hieroglyphic texts:

We know the Egypt of the Pharaohs quite well, thanks to its numerous steles, frescos and papyrus describing all kinds of religious, scientific, technical knowledge, the craft industry, agriculture, medicine, astronomy, and so on. However, there is not a single hieroglyphic document revealing the pyramids’ construction with carved stones, ramps, and wooden sledges. On the contrary, we find many texts showing that the ancient Egyptians had the knowledge of man-made stones:

The Famine Stele is engraved on a rock at Sehel island, close to Elephantine. It stages the god Khnum, Pharaoh Zoser and his architect Imhotep, builder of the first pyramid at Saqqarah. This inscription contains 650 hieroglyphs depicting either rocks and minerals, or their transformation processes. In column 12, we read: “With these products (mineral) they built (…) the royal tomb (the pyramid)“. In columns 18 to 20, the god Khnum gives to Zoser a list of minerals needed in the construction of these sacred monuments. This list does not mention the traditional hard and compact construction stones like limestone (ainr-hedj), monumental sandstone (ainr-rwdt) or Aswan granite (mat). By studying this text, we notice that we cannot build a pyramid or a temple with simple minerals, except if they are used to manufacture the binder of a re-agglomerated stone. [8]

The Irtysen stele (C14) at the Louvre Museum is an autobiography of the sculptor Irtysen under one of the Mentouhotep Pharaohs, eleventh dynasty (2000 B.C.). It explains the method of manufacturing synthetic stone statues (with “cast stone”). [9]

The Ti fresco, fifth dynasty (2450 front. J.-C.), illustrates the sculptors work on a wooden statue, the manufacturing of a stone statue and mixtures in vases. This fresco perfectly shows the difference between carving a statue (here in wood with hieroglyphic signs depicting the operation of carving), the fashioning of a statue (made out of synthetic stone with hieroglyphic signs representing the action “to synthesize”, “man-made”), and mixing caustic chemicals in ceramic vases to work on this statue. [10]

2. The invention of re-agglomerated stone: growth and decline of a technology

Before the first pyramid built out of stone, the ancient Egyptians constructed very imposing crude brick monuments. We find large funerary temple enclosures of the second dynasty, like the Khasekhemwy one (2,730 B.C.). Its massive wall is of crude clay bricks, therefore in a moulded material. It is generally agreed, since these bricks were worked in moulds, that their dimension must be uniform. However, this is wrong. Despite having been manufactured in moulds, the clay bricks are of approximately 5 different sizes, implying the use of several patterns. We find these differences in proportions in all pyramids. This heterogeneity gives the monuments the ability to resist earthquakes by avoiding the amplification of seismic waves.

20 years later, Zoser ordered Imhotep to build him a stone monument for eternity. The scribe Imhotep is the inventor of re-agglomerated stone (2,650 B.C.) and the architect of the first pyramid of Egypt. Instead of using crude bricks, he simply replaced the clay with a re-agglomerated limestone and kept the same method of moulding bricks. This is why the first pyramid is made in small bricks, which become bigger in dimension as the invention is better mastered. The bricks are manufactured where the stones are extracted, in the Wadi (at the east of the complex [11]) at the Nile flooding period, then carried and placed on the pyramid under construction.

Its invention, inherited from pisé and crude brick, improves with time during the pyramids’ construction at the third and fourth dynasties. Starting from the small limestone bricks at Saqqarah, the stone dimensions increase gradually. For the Meidoum and Bent pyramids, the blocks are produced in the vicinity and are moved up to the pyramid. There is always a Wadi nearby to easily disaggregate limestone with water and to prepare the mixture at the Nile flooding time.

From Sneferu’s red pyramid in Dashur, the blocks are manufactured on the spot, because the dimensions are now too large for them to be transported.

In Giza, some stones (in particular those at the Khefren temple) weigh more than 30 tons. How would they have simply carved them with soft copper tools, without wheels or pulleys?

According to Guy Demortier [12], re-agglomerating stones on the spot greatly simplifies the logistic problems. Instead of 25,000 to 100,000 workmen necessary for carving [13], he deduces that the site occupancy never exceeded 2,300 people, which confirms what the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner discovered with his excavations of the workmen’s village at Giza.

The decline of the agglomerated stone technology appears with the pyramid of Mykerinos, which represents only 7% in volume of Kheops. Why is this pyramid suddenly so small? This decline would have been caused by a sudden reduction in reactive mineral resources, like the exhaustion of the principal Sinai mines at the end of the fourth dynasty. Expeditions of B. Rothenberg [4] showed that they had extracted enormous quantities of turquoises and chrysocollas (called mafkat in Egyptian), quantities so large as to rule out their use in jewellery and decoration, as confirmed by the Egyptologist Sydney Aufrère [14].

The decline would also result from an ecological and agricultural disaster radically limiting the production of lime coming from plant ashes burned for this purpose. If we burn more than what we can produce or renew, a famine or an ecological disaster can occur. Analyzed by D.D. Klemm [15], lime, present in mortars of the third and fourth dynasties, disappears in mortars of the fifth and sixth dynasties. Indeed, the succeeding pyramids, and in particular that of Userkaf, first king of the fifth dynasty, is ridiculously small compared to Mykerinos. In the beginning, they were covered by a limestone coating which hid the bulk of natural blocks, badly worked out. This pyramid is only an uneven stone assembly covering a funerary room made, this time, out of re-agglomerated stone and protected by enormous beams of several dozen tons. Only the core of this pyramid was carefully manufactured, the remainder being botched, because the reactive materials were rare. Thus, we are in the presence of a very different system, which cannot be explained by carving stone. If the pyramids of Giza had been hewn, how can such a drop in architectural quality be explained, while stone is an abundant material? Carving would have resulted in a construction quality equivalent to those of Giza, even with pyramids more reasonable in height, but this is not the case.

With respect to a resource impoverishment, starting from the twelfth dynasty (1,990-1,780 B.C.), Pharaoh Amenemhat I and his successors built crude brick pyramids. But here also, only the funerary room is built, with great care, out of re-agglomerated stone. However, the Egyptians did not choose to carve stone for the body of the pyramids, preferring crude bricks, even though they had harder and more efficient bronze tools had they wished to use them.

We note, then, that the technology of re-agglomerated stone, after a formidable rise, a perfect mastery of the process, an intense exploitation of its resources, went on to  an extremely rapid architectural decline. A mining exhaustion of the chemical reagent resources, and an ecological and agricultural disaster explain this decline. [16] [17]

3. Religious context:

Why did they maintain this need to build out of agglomerated stone or to preserve the agglomeration system, while they could carve stone?

For ancient Egyptians, stone had a sacred quality, used only for religious purposes, that prohibited its use for secular buildings (built rather out of crude bricks, clay and wood, never out of stone). It is only under the Ptolemys, 2,000 years after the pyramids, that stone became a trivial building material. The reasons for this distinction come from religion.

Egyptian civilization lasted more than 3,000 years and, contrary to what the general public thinks, it was not homogeneous. Thus, there are 2 geneses explaining the creation of the World; two distinct gods claim the creation of the World and man: Khnum and Amon.

The god Khnum was worshipped during the Old and Middle Kingdoms (3,000 to 1,800 B.C.). He is depicted as a man with a ram’s head and horizontal horns. He personalizes the nutritious Nile, and at Elephantine, Thebes, Heracleopolis, Memphis, he is the god of creation. In the act of creation, he “kneads” humanity on his potter’s wheel with the Nile silt and other minerals (mafkat, natron) as in the Biblical and Koranic genesis. This does not give an unspecified clay, but a stone called “ka”, i.e. the soul that is not spirit, but eternal stone. Khnum and all the divine incarnations of Râ appear by the act of manufacturing stone. His hieroglyphic sign is a hard stone vase like those of the Nagadean era (3,500 to 3,000 B.C.). Thus, under the Old Kingdom, the purpose of the agglomeration act was to reproduce the divine intervention at the time of the creation of the World and the human soul.

For the two main Pharaohs of the Old Kingdom, Zoser and Kheops, the relationship with Khnum is proven by archaeological discoveries (cf. the Famine Stele). Also, the true name of Kheops is Khnum-Khufu (may the god Khnum protect Kheops). Would Kheops have attached his name to an inferior god? No, Khnum is a major god. It is simply the perception of the Egyptian Pantheon which is not correct.

Amon is the second god of creation. In the beginning, he was only an average god. He became a dynastic god in the twelfth dynasty (1,800 B.C.), but he was not yet the god of creation, this role still being the privilege of Khnum. Then, he became the “king of the gods” and the priests gave him the ability to create the world. In the genesis myth, Amon is identified as a sacred mountain and he “carves” each human being in a part of himself, i.e. in this sacred mountain. Amon and all the divine incarnations of Amon-Râ appear by the act of carving stone, and are at the origin of the New Kingdom monuments, like those of Ramses II, 1,300 years after the pyramids.

Thus, we understand why the tombs were no longer under pyramids, symbols of agglomeration, but under a sacred mountain, the Valley of the Kings, symbol of Amon. In the same way, the temples are built out of stone hewn with great care and the obelisks are called “Amon’s fingers”. During the Old Kingdom, where the name of Khnum (“the one who binds”) is in the complete name of Kheops (Khnum-Khufu), the name of Amon (“the one who is hidden”) is found in the New Kingdom Pharaohs’ names like Amenhotep.

Arguments against the carving theory

Here are arguments presented by the partisans of carving to show that this technique was in use at the pyramids’ time. However, these evidence are anachronous; they date from the Middle to the New Kingdom, in times when the stone was hewn, and not from the Old Kingdom, the time of the pyramids.

The extraction of blocks would have been possible by means of wooden dowels that, once in place, were wetted to cleave the stone. However, D.D. Klemm shows that the Romans only used this primitive technique very late on. Each period left distinct patterns of cut traces in quarries, thus making it possible to date them, except at the time of the pyramids, when no trace remains. [18]

The bas-relief of Djehutihotep illustrates the transport of a colossal statue on a sledge [19]. In the same way, R. Stadelman discovered that Amenemhat II workmen had stolen stones on sledges from the Sneferu pyramid, used as a vulgar quarry. These two events took place under the twelfth dynasty (1,800 B.C.), that is 700 years after the construction of the pyramids.

The Tura stele depicts a stone block dragged on a sledge by oxen [20]. It does not constitute a proof because once again, it goes back to approximately 1,000 years after the construction of the pyramids.

The Rekhmire fresco presents the work of masons setting up blocks with bronze tools. But these new tools were unknown to pyramid builders 1,300 years earlier.

Any ramps would have been made out of crude clay bricks, several kilometres in length (in straight or spiral lines, with the attendant problem of turning corners), representing a considerable amount of material. Each team would have sprinkled the ground with water to ease the motion of the sledge. But the action of water would have transformed the ramp into a soapy and very slippery path. After several teams had passed by, it would have been transformed into mud where sledges and hauler would be stuck!

There is no official theory of carving, hauling blocks on sledges and ramps. There are approximately twenty or so that propose various solutions. These theories are not based on hieroglyphic texts, do not match the technology found on archaeological sites, and do not take into account the historical and religious environment. These theories are essentially focused on the pyramid of Kheops, the most remarkable one, but not on the pyramids that precede or follow it, and even less on those made out of crude brick.

Notes and references

[1] Klemm, Steine und Steinbrüche in Alten Ägypten, Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1993.
[2] M. Lehner, The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu project, Mitteilungun des Deutschen Institutes, Abteilung Kairo, 41, p. 149, 1985.
[3] L. Gauri, Geological study of the Sphinx, Newsletter American Research Center in Egypt, No 127, pp. 24-43, 1984.
[4] B. Rothenberg, Sinai exploration 1967-1972, Bulletin, Museum Haaretz Tel Aviv, 1972, p. 35
[5] J. Davidovits, Ils ont bâti les pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2002, pp. 161-162, 307-311
[6] J. Davidovits, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2004, pp. 57-58 et 72
[7] See ref. [5] and [6] for comprehensive bibliographics notes and debates with geologists.
[8] Pyramid Man-Made Stone, Myths or Facts, III. The Famine Stela Provides the Hieroglyphic Names of Chemicals and Minerals Involved in the Construction , Davidovits J., 5th Int. Congress of Egyptology, Cairo, Egypt, 1988; Egyptian Antiquities Organization; EGY; 1988; pp. 57-58 in Résumés des Communications. See also ref. [5] and [6].
[9] J. Davidovits, Ils ont bâti les pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2002, pp. 229-236
[10] J. Davidovits, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2004, pp. 145-150
[11] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, Thames and Hudson, 1997, p. 83
[12] G. Demortier, La construction de la pyramide de Khéops, Revue des questions scientifiques, Bruxelles, 2004, Tome 175, p. 341-382
[13] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, Thames and Hudson, 1997, p. 224
[14] Sydney Aufrère, L’univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne, IFAO, Le Caire, 1991, Volume 2, p. 494
[15] D.D. Klemm and R. Klemm, Mortar evolution in the old kingdom of Egypt, Archaeometry ’90, Birkhaüser Verlag, Basel, Suisse, 1990, pp. 445-454
[16] J. Davidovits, Ils ont bâti les pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2002, pp. 297-328
[17] J. Davidovits, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2004, pp. 207-228
[18] Klemm, The archaeological map of Gebel el Silsila, 2nd Int. Congress of Egyptologists, Grenoble, 1979, Session 05.
[19] J. P. Adam, l’Archéologie devant l’imposture, éd. Robert Laffont, Paris, 1975, p. 158
[20] Vyze-Perring, The Pyramids of Gizeh, Vol. III, p. 99

Videos

This free webinar covers various aspects of the geopolymer science and applications. Yet, you will find a focus on geopolymer cement and concrete to celebrate its successful commercialization that raises a great interest all over the world.
Professor Joseph Davidovits spans a broad spectrum of valuable knowledge in this 2¼ hours video by reviewing the following topics:

1. Geopolymer definitions.
2. Real world and successful applications and commercialization.
3. Heat and fire-resistant geopolymer.
4. Why did it take 30 years to commercialize geopolymer cement?
5. Alkali Activated Materials are not Polymers, so they cannot be used as synonyms for Geo-Polymers!
6. The “good” geopolymer terminology and why using it opens its understanding.
7. Principles of geopolymer technologies (it is first a real “polymer”).
8. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: how to make a good one.
9. The 6 basic rules in geopolymer processing.
10. False CO2 emissions calculations.

2h15, 265 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Join Professor Joseph Davidovits and listen to the Free Geopolymer WEBINAR Spring 2016 (free Web Workshop), April 19-20, 2016, a 1-day talk of 3 hours including 3-4 breaks with Q&A that will cover:

• The impact of geopolymer on your R&D projects, university research, product marketing or industrial practices.
• The fundamental principles and concept of geopolymer science and technology (geopolymer resins, binders and cements, high-tech composites, fire- and heat-resistance materials);
• The major impact of geopolymer chemistry on our global economy in terms of low-energy and low-CO2 production technologies: geopolymer cements, geopolymer ceramics, eco-building, LTGS bricks;

LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH. Each talk is designed in order to encourage fruitful discussions between Prof. Joseph Davidovits (3-4 breaks with Q&A).

During the webinar, we plan 2 identical sessions with the same talk and content but with a different time. It will help to connect with people around the world with different time zones. If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

April 19, 2016:

• Session 1: 07:00 UTC+0 (GMT) for Europe, Africa, Asia (09:00 Paris / Berlin, 09:00 Johannesburg, 10:00 Moscow, 11:00 Dubai, 12:00 New Delhi, 14:00 Jakarta, 15:00 Beijing, 16:00 Tokyo, 17:00 Sidney, 19:00 Auckland).

April 20, 2016:

• Session 2: 16:00 UTC+0 (GMT) for Europe and Americas (18:00 Paris / Berlin, 17:00 London / Casablanca, 13:00 Rio de Janeiro, 12:00 New York, 11:00 Mexico City, 09:00 Los Angeles).

Outline of the talk:
The talk shows how the development of the geopolymer science concept was governed by the need to solve global technological problems in the industrial fields of extractive minerals, ceramics, cements, building materials, decorative stones and restoration works, fire and heat resistant composites, high-tech composites for aerospace, aircraft, naval and automobile, radioactive and toxic waste containment, thermal insulation. 
It further provides a clear distinction between geopolymer and alkali-activated materials and highlights some historical milestones.
 Upon completion of this presentation, you will be able to make a clear cut between geopolymer technologies and low-tech/alkali-activated systems.

Who shall attend?
Students, scientists, researchers, engineers from public and private organizations, curious or long-term experienced people in their fields of expertise, professionals involved in a wide range of development, including managers, finance specialists, R&D, marketing, business decision makers, technology and products development specialists, etc.

Technical requirements: We will use the GoToWebinar system from LogMeIn working with many computers (PC, Mac, iOS or Android App), including a fast internet connection, a web browser and the GoToMeeting application that you must install in your computer or your mobile/tablet device. For more information, please verify that you meet the systems requirements for GoToMeeting. Before joining the meeting from the e-mail invitation, please join a test meeting to confirm that you are able to successfully join a meeting.

Register Now:

Do not wait to register. You will immediately receive an e-mail with all the details and a personal link to connect to the webinar. More, you will receive 3 reminders by e-mail, one week, one day and one hour before the beginning of each session.

If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

Privacy statement:

We’ll use this information to keep you informed once or twice a year about news or other plans provided by the Geopolymer Institute, and to gather demographic data yielding visitors statistics. Any information gathered using this form will not be given, sold or traded to anyone outside of the Geopolymer Institute for any reason.
We consider all messages received as confidential because they may contain information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure. We will not transmit to third parties your e-mail address. According to the French law (art. 34 of the law “Informatique et Libertés” ( Computer and Liberty ) 6-jan-1978), you have the right to access, edit, modify and delete all data concerning you. To apply this right, please write us.

False Values on CO₂ Emission for Geopolymer Cement/Concrete Published in Scientific Papers

Adapted from the article originally published in Elsevier’s internet site “Materials Today” at Environmental Implications of Geopolymers, 29 June 2015. See also the presentation at the Geopolymer Camp 2015. See also the news Virtual Journal on Geopolymer Science .

LCA of commercialised geopolymer cement/concretes are seldom. This is due to proprietary reasons. Presently they are based on Type 2 slag/fly ash/alkali-silicate system (see Technical papers #21, #22, #23 in the Library). Geopolymer Type 2 concrete and standard Portland concrete are similar in non- binder materials used and behaviour after production; there is some dilution of the benefits when measured over the full life cycle (LCA). The greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of Geopolymer Type 2 concrete are approximately 62%-66% lower than emissions from the reference concrete. The Type 2 geopolymer cement has ca. 80% lower embodied greenhouse gas intensity than an equivalent amount of ordinary Portland cement binder used in reference concrete of a similar strength, confirming the data published by the Geopolymer Institute, where the reductions are in the range of 70 % to 90 % (see Technical paper #21). These values do not include any additional external constraints like transport from or to the utility. They reflect the actual potential as soon as industrialization starts in full swing.

On the opposite, several published scientific LCA papers claim that, in terms of CO₂ emission, geopolymer cement was not better than Portland cement, and worse for other parameters. These statements are based on methodological errors and false calculations of the CO₂ emission values for geopolymer cement/concrete. The problem is that these false values are taken for granted by other scientists without any further consideration.

The present paper “False Values on CO₂ Emission for Geopolymer Cement/Concrete Published in Scientific Papers” cites and explains the methodological errors and false calculations.

Click here to see how to download paper nr 24 False-CO2-values.pdf.

Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport (BWWA), Toowoomba, Queensland, is Australia’s first greenfield public airport to be built in 48 years. BWWA became fully operational with commercial flights operated by Qantas Link in November 2014. See our News dated of October 14, 2014, 70,000 tonnes Geopolymer Concrete for airport.
This project marks a very significant milestone in engineering – the world’s largest geopolymer concrete project. BWWA was built with approximately 40,000 m3 (100,000 tonnes) of geopolymer concrete making it the largest application of this new class of concrete in the world. The geopolymer concrete developed by the company Wagners, known as Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC), was found to be well suited for this construction method due to its high flexural tensile strength, low shrinkage and workability characteristics. Heavy duty geopolymer concrete, 435 mm thick, used for the turning node, apron and taxiway aircraft pavements, welcomes a heavy 747 cargo for regular air traffic between Toowoomba-Wellcamp BWWA airport and Hong Kong. For technical details read the paper by Glasby et al. (2015), EFC Geopolymer Concrete Aircraft Pavements at Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport, in our Library, Technical paper #23 GP-AIRPORT. Technical Paper on Geopolymer Aircraft Pavement

Prof. Joseph Davidovits’ visit to the Toowoomba-Wellcamp-Airport.

On October 3, 2015, Joseph and Ralph Davidovits flew from Sydney Airport to Toowoomba-Wellcamp-Airport, for a visit to the company Wagners.

Prof. Joseph Davidovits’ visit to the Global Change Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

On October 7, 2015, Joseph and Ralph Davidovits drove with Tom Glasby and Russell Genrich, company Wagners, from Toowoomba to Brisbane. Our News dated December 10, 2013, was titled World’s first public building with structural Geopolymer Concrete. It introduced the world’s first building to successfully use geopolymer concrete for structural purposes, the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. The 4 story high building, for general public use, comprises 3 suspended geopolymer concrete floors involving 33 precast panels. They are made from slag/fly ash-based geopolymer concrete coined Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC), a Wagners brand name for their commercial form of geopolymer concrete.

Last year (October 14, 2014), our News was titled 70,000 tonnes Geopolymer Concrete for airport; it presented company Wagners’ newly developed geopolymer concrete EFC in the construction of the Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport (BWWA), Toowoomba, Australia, which became fully operational with commercial flights operated by Qantas Link in November 2014. BWWA was built with approximately 40,000 m3 (100,000 tonnes) of geopolymer concrete making it the largest application of this new class of concrete in the world. The geopolymer concrete, known as Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC), was found to be well suited for this construction method due to its high flexural tensile strength, low shrinkage and workability characteristics. Heavy duty geopolymer concrete, 435 mm thick, was used for the turning node, apron and taxiway aircraft pavements, and cast in place with the slip form paving machine displayed below.

EFC Geopolymer Concrete Aircraft Pavements at Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport.

by Tom Glasby, John Day, Russell Genrich and James Aldred.

Paper presented at Concrete 2015 Conference, Melbourne Australia 2015.

CONTENT
1. Introduction
2. Project Outline
3. Geopolymer Concrete Mix
4. Geopolymer Concrete Production and Supply
5. Geopolymer Concrete Pavement Construction
6. Commercialisation of Geopolymer Concrete
7. Conclusion
References

Click here to see how to download paper nr 23 GP-AIRPORT.

Webinar Spring 2016

This free webinar covers various aspects of the geopolymer science and applications. Yet, you will find a focus on geopolymer cement and concrete to celebrate its successful commercialization that raises a great interest all over the world.
Professor Joseph Davidovits spans a broad spectrum of valuable knowledge in this 2¼ hours video by reviewing the following topics:

1. Geopolymer definitions.
2. Real world and successful applications and commercialization.
3. Heat and fire-resistant geopolymer.
4. Why did it take 30 years to commercialize geopolymer cement?
5. Alkali Activated Materials are not Polymers, so they cannot be used as synonyms for Geo-Polymers!
6. The “good” geopolymer terminology and why using it opens its understanding.
7. Principles of geopolymer technologies (it is first a real “polymer”).
8. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: how to make a good one.
9. The 6 basic rules in geopolymer processing.
10. False CO2 emissions calculations.

2h15, 265 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Webinar Spring 2014: Talk 1 and Talk 2.

These are live recording videos. They constitute genuine tools for those of you who want to learn and increase their knowledge in Geopolymer Science and Technology.

Talk 1/Part 1 – Applications and commercializations

24 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 1/Part 2 – What is a geopolymer ?

15 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 1/Part 3 – The 6 basic rules in geopolymer processing

33 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 1/Part 4 – Geopolymer science and egyptian pyramids

25 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 2/Part 5 – Principles of alumino-silicate geopolymer

29 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 2/Part 6 – Heat- and fire-resistant geopolymer

12 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 2/Part 7 – Fly ashed-based geopolymer (10 min.)

10 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 2/Part 8 – Durability tests

9 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 2/Part 9 – Geopolymer cement standards / low CO₂

12 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Talk 2/Part 10 – Geopolymer science and roman cement

12 minutes. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

IMPORTANT: We are changing the format of our Webinar – Q&A session only!

Outline of the talk:

For this Webinar Fall 2014, we have decided to set up a unique Questions and Answers (Q&A) session. Join Professor Joseph Davidovits and get your chance to ask any questions on Geopolymer Chemistry and Technology. He will answer to questions either sent in advance or directly from the audience, live from his office, and stay online up to 3 hours until relevant topics have been discussed.

We change the format because the videos of the last Webinar Spring 2014 are still available at this web page Video – Webinar Spring 2014: Geopolymer Web Workshop, Apr. 8-9. They have been now watched a thousand of times and been acclaimed by many as the best and straightforward introduction to geopolymers for all audiences (including students, scientists, engineers, business men, enthusiastic…). So, we strongly engage your attention to watch again these videos before attending the webinar and prepare asking your questions.

You will have two ways of asking questions:

1. Complex questions that need certain time to read and study. You can send Professor Joseph Davidovits some texts, pictures or PDF and ask for his advices. He will try to answer your query as best as possible with regard to the audience interests. Please, send in advance your question or comments as a PDF file with graphs and images not exceeding 5 MB in total at the bottom of this page.
2. Simple short questions. They can be asked during the webinar session. Just, type in your question in the chat field of the GoToMeeting software. You can also write your question in advance at the bottom of this page.

Obviously, you may attend the seminar without having to send any question. It is free for anybody to listen and learn, provided you register. Therefore, we are inviting you to participate, to share the spirit of this event, and hope to have you on line during this Geopolymer Webinar Fall 2014.

There will be two sessions, one for the Eastern hemisphere and the day after for the Western hemisphere. Please, register to only one session.

November 25, 2014: First 3 hour talk for the Eastern Hemisphere, at 07:00 UTC+0 (08:00 Paris-Berlin, 09:00 Johannesburg, 10:00 Moscow, 11:00 Dubai, 12:30 New Delhi, 14:00 Jakarta, 15:00 Beijing, 15:00 Perth, 16:00 Seoul, 17:00 Brisbane, 18:00 Melbourne, 20:00 Auckland).

November 26, 2014: Second 3 hour talk for the Western Hemisphere, at 15:00 UTC+0 (16:00 Paris-Berlin, 15:00 London-Casablanca, 13:00 Sao Paulo, 10:00 New York-Bogota, 09:00 Mexico City, 08:00 Phoenix, 07:00 Los Angeles).

If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

Language is English.

Note that the number of attendees is limited to 100 per session. So, do not wait for the last moment to join the Webinar and secure your seat before it is too late. This Q&A webinar is FREE.

Who shall attend?
Students, scientists, researchers, engineers from public and private organizations, curious or long-term experienced people in their fields of expertise, professionals involved in a wide range of development, including managers, finance specialists, R&D, marketing, business decision makers, technology and products development specialists, etc.

Technical requirements: We will use the GoToWebinar system from LogMeIn working with many computers (PC, Mac, iOS or Android App), including a fast internet connection, a web browser and the GoToMeeting application that you must install in your computer or your mobile/tablet device. For more information, please verify that you meet the systems requirements for GoToMeeting. Before joining the meeting from the e-mail invitation, please join a test meeting to confirm that you are able to successfully join a meeting.

Register Now:

Do not wait to register. You will immediately receive an e-mail with all the details and a personal link to connect to the webinar. More, you will receive 3 reminders by e-mail, one week, one day and one hour before the beginning of each session.

If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

Ask Your Question:

[si-contact-form form=’4′]

Privacy statement:

We’ll use this information to keep you informed once or twice a year about news or other plans provided by the Geopolymer Institute, and to gather demographic data yielding visitors statistics. Any information gathered using this form will not be given, sold or traded to anyone outside of the Geopolymer Institute for any reason.
We consider all messages received as confidential because they may contain information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure. We will not transmit to third parties your e-mail address. According to the French law (art. 34 of the law “Informatique et Libertés” ( Computer and Liberty ) 6-jan-1978), you have the right to access, edit, modify and delete all data concerning you. To apply this right, please write us.

Credit: The Chronicle 29 Sept. 2014

Wellcamp airport becomes the greenest airport in the world. More than 30,000 cubic metres of the world’s lowest carbon, cement-free geopolymer concrete, Wagners’ Earth Friendly Concrete (EFC), was used to save more than 6,600 tonnes of carbon emissions in the construction of the airport.

The Australian company, geopolymer concrete pioneer, Wagners EFC developed the airport. For details see also Prof.Davidovits Geopolymer Camp 2014 Keynote video, at time 39:30.

ORGANIZED BY THE GEOPOLYMER INSTITUTE

– April, Geopolymer Webinar Spring 2015 (Internet)

Join Professor Joseph Davidovits and listen to the Geopolymer WEBINAR Spring 2015 a free Web seminar of 2 x 3 hours course.

Go to Geopolymer Webinar Spring 2015

06-8 July, Saint-Quentin, France

7th Geopolymer Camp 2015,
International workshop on geopolymer science, technology and applications, as well as archaeology. Celebrating 36th-year anniversary of the Geopolymer Institute.
Go to GeopolymerCamp

– November, Geopolymer Webinar Fall 2015 (Internet)

Join Professor Joseph Davidovits and listen to the Geopolymer WEBINAR Fall 2015 a free Web seminar of 2 x 3 hours course.

Go to Geopolymer Webinar 2014

ADDITIONAL OFFICIAL CONFERENCE FOR 2015

25-30 January, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA,

Organized by the American Ceramic Society,
ICACC’15 International Conference on Advanced Ceramics and Composites,
Focused Session 1: Geopolymer and Chemically Bonded Ceramics.
Go to Daytona Symposia

24-29 May, Hernstein, Austria

ECI Conference GEOPOLYMERS
Geopolymers: The route to eliminate waste and emissions in ceramic and cement manufacturing.
Go to ECI Conference

Development of room temperature hardening for fly ash-based geopolymer cements and concretes.

When compared with alkali-activated, heat-cured conventional methods, the slag/fly ash-based geopolymer cement technologies, which harden at ambient temperature, provide better properties: higher strength, safer long-term durability and lower leachates.

CONTENT
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1 Conventional Method: Alkali-Activation, Dissolution And Zeolite Formation: User-Hostile
2.2 Geopolymeric Method: Room Temperature Hardening, Polycondensation, User-Friendly.
3. Results And Discussion
3.1 Compressive Strength
3.2 X-Ray Diffraction
3.3 Leaching Properties
3.4 (Ca,K)-Based Geopolymer Matrix: Composition And Structure
References

Click here to see how to download paper nr 22.

Recorded Videos of the Free Geopolymer Webinar Spring 2014: Talk 1 and Talk 2, April 8-9, 2014.

We had a strong attendance (ca. 215 registered participants split between the two daily sessions, see map below).

These are live recording videos. They constitute genuine tools for those of you who want to learn and increase their knowledge in Geopolymer Science and Technology.

Webinar 2014 Talk 1/Part 1 – Applications and commercializations (24 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 1/Part 2 – What is a geopolymer ? (15 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 1/Part 3 – The 6 basic rules of geopolymer processing (33 min.)

Webinar 2014 Part 4 – Geopolymer science and egyptian pyramids (25 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 2/Part 5 – Principles of alumino-silicate geopolymer (29 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 2/Part 6 – Heat- and fire-resistant geopolymer (12 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 2/Part 7 – Fly ashed-based geopolymer (10 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 2/Part 8 – Durability tests (9 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 2/Part 9 – Geopolymer cement standards / low CO₂ (12 min.)

Webinar 2014 Talk 2/Part 10 – Geopolymer science and roman cement (12 min.)

Join Professor Joseph Davidovits and listen to the Free Geopolymer WEBINAR Spring 2014 (free Web Workshop), April 8-9, 2014, a 2-day talk of 2 hours including 3-4 breaks with Q&A that will cover:

• The impact of geopolymer on your R&D projects, university research, product marketing or industrial practices.
• The fundamental principles and concept of geopolymer science and technology (geopolymer resins, binders and cements, high-tech composites, fire- and heat-resistance materials);
• The major impact of geopolymer chemistry on our global economy in terms of low-energy and low-CO2 production technologies: geopolymer cements, geopolymer ceramics, eco-building, LTGS bricks;

LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH. Each talk is designed in order to encourage fruitful discussions between Prof. Joseph Davidovits (3-4 breaks with Q&A).

During the webinar, we plan 2 sessions for the same day with the same talk and content but with a different time. It will help to connect with people around the world with different time zones. If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

April 8, 2014: first day, 2 hour talk

• Session 1: 07:00 UTC+0 (GMT) for Europe, Africa, Asia (09:00 Paris-Berlin time, 12:30 India, 15:00 China, 15:00 Perth, 19:00 Auckland),
• Session 2: 16:00 UTC+0 (GMT) for Europe and Americas (18:00 Paris-Berlin time, 13:00 Brazil, 12:00 New York, 09:00 Los Angeles).

April 9, 2014: second day, 2 hour talk

• Session 1: 07:00 UTC+0 (GMT) for Europe, Africa, Asia (09:00 Paris-Berlin time, 12:30 India, 15:00 China, 15:00 Perth, 19:00 Auckland),
• Session 2: 16:00 UTC+0 (GMT) for Europe and Americas (18:00 Paris-Berlin time, 13:00 Brazil, 12:00 New York, 09:00 Los Angeles).

Outline of the talk:
The talk shows how the development of the geopolymer science concept was governed by the need to solve global technological problems in the industrial fields of extractive minerals, ceramics, cements, building materials, decorative stones and restoration works, fire and heat resistant composites, high-tech composites for aerospace, aircraft, naval and automobile, radioactive and toxic waste containment, thermal insulation. 
It further provides a clear distinction between geopolymer and alkali-activated materials and highlights some historical milestones.
 Upon completion of this presentation, you will be able to make a clear cut between geopolymer technologies and low-tech/alkali-activated systems.

Who shall attend?
Students, scientists, researchers, engineers from public and private organizations, curious or long-term experienced people in their fields of expertise, professionals involved in a wide range of development, including managers, finance specialists, R&D, marketing, business decision makers, technology and products development specialists, etc.

Technical requirements: We will use the GoToWebinar system from Citrix working with many computers (PC, Mac, iOS or Android App), including a fast internet connection, a web browser and the GoToMeeting application that you must install in your computer or your mobile/tablet device. For more information, please verify that you meet the systems requirements for Citrix  GoToMeeting. Before joining the meeting from the e-mail invitation, please join a test meeting to confirm that you are able to successfully join a meeting.

Register Now:

Do not wait to register. You will immediately receive an e-mail with all the details and a personal link to connect to the webinar. More, you will receive 3 reminders by e-mail, one week, one day and one hour before the beginning of each session.

If you have any doubt for the time and date for your country, visit a time zone converter website like this one: thetimenow.com

Privacy statement:

We’ll use this information to keep you informed once or twice a year about news or other plans provided by the Geopolymer Institute, and to gather demographic data yielding visitors statistics. Any information gathered using this form will not be given, sold or traded to anyone outside of the Geopolymer Institute for any reason.
We consider all messages received as confidential because they may contain information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure. We will not transmit to third parties your e-mail address. According to the French law (art. 34 of the law “Informatique et Libertés” ( Computer and Liberty ) 6-jan-1978), you have the right to access, edit, modify and delete all data concerning you. To apply this right, please write us.