Talk:Biorock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merging in the Seacrete article[edit]

I see no reason to keep separate articles for Seacrete and Biorock. They're describing the same thing. Let's merge them together. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Biorock and Seacrete should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.93.221 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles have apparently now been merged PeterEastern (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

The tone of this article and constant bolding of BIOROCK! is atrocious and reads like an ad (probably is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.187.59.67 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy, biorock is not "bio"[edit]

1 cubikmeter of biorock has about 2.75 tons of mass, that means it needs about 2750 kWh (german wikipedia). With non-regenerative energie sources this will cause about 700 up to 1200kg CO2. Even there would be regenerative Energy sources it will need a lot of energy for comparison. 1 cubikmeter of concrete needs 280kg cement. That causes 170kg CO2, if cement would be producet with solar heat it would be only 100kg/cubikmeter. per cubikmeter of material biorock needs 6 times more energy, tha means it needs althoug more energy farms. That makes it more expensive, it needs more space, it causes more grey-energy... further its not practicable, because you dont get an powder you can make diffrent concrete you like, you get massiv blocks and they need to be transportet what needs more energy and so on... and last it grows only a few centimeters per year not so good if i decide now to build something when i have to wait 1-2 years till i get my things... all data i used are taken by german wikipedia, everyone who like can recalculate this data. p.s. in biorock (en) is written tha 1kg cost 1.1 $ when one kWh cost 0.05$, tha would mean that one cubikmeter needs 60 000 kwh and not 2750 how i calculatet because of the data of the german wikipedia, whit thid data you easily see that it would be much worse! (more than 20 times...)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.43.114 (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's quite right.The seasteading institute has more details on this topic. See link. I'd rewrite the article myself, but I'm not much good at either editing or writing 182.185.48.137 (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical current[edit]

What is the electrical current used for the biorock structures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.30.34.35 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

direct current (DC) 12 Volt
(Source, german) https://www.brandeins.de/magazine/brand-eins-wirtschaftsmagazin/2016/vorbilder/korallen-unter-strom
english (translation with http://itools.com/tool/google-translate-web-page-translator)
https://www-brandeins-de.translate.goog/magazine/brand-eins-wirtschaftsmagazin/2016/vorbilder/korallen-unter-strom?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Usual (water) electrolysis (devices) use about DC 4 Volt.
--Visionhelp (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Biorock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality[edit]

This article seems to be promoting some thing and has a somewhat non-neutral tone, as seen in the first paragraph of the History section of the article. --JethRoad the FactBoy 01:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeth888: - Agree that that first paragraph looks promotion, and that it probably isn't support by the reference provided. If I edit/remove that first paragraph, does that take care of your concerns, or are there other areas? Do you want to go through and add {{Promotional source}} or {{Dubious}} in-line tags everywhere you see issues? That way we can go through and clean up the issues. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, there is no factual basis for the above accusation of a non-neutral tone in the first three sentences of the first paragraph of the History section. It's a simple analysis: The first sentence is a simple factual statement, nothing commercial or otherwise is being promoted. The same applies to the second and third sentences, and the third sentence supports its claim of an environmental disaster with the appropriate, linked source. Only the fourth sentence lacks a source for its claim, so I have initially removed that sentence. It can be reinstated at a later time with a supporting link.
On a second point, it should also be noted that the above discussion has become dormant, since the tag is now over one year old and no support for the initial claims has come forward. Therefore, I am removing the POV template.
-Hilbertz (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of some content to 'Electric reef'[edit]

I propose to move some of the content of this article to Electric reef (which is currently a redirect here). I suggest that we move content that relates to reefs and reef formation, leaving behind the content relates to the Biorock process and to the development of that process. I will wait for comments for a few days before doing any work on this and invite people to discuss the change with me first. PeterEastern (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed the split. PeterEastern (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolysis not worth a mention, a link to ?[edit]

Sorry, I miss the mention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
--Visionhelp (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biorock&oldid=1200053172"