It isn’t in ours, correct. Give me the handbook title, edition and the table number and I’ll pull it. One catch: the same table usually quotes 1580 for the resin-bonded brick, and those two keep getting merged into one record elsewhere. They are different grades and should stay two rows, so I need to know which one your 1620 is measured on.
Updated 12 October 2026 · 41 threads, 7 open
Discussions
Where a number gets argued about before it becomes a changelog line. Anyone can read. Replying needs a contributor account, which is sponsor-only and currently paused - but a data error with a citation belongs in your email to us, not in a thread, so you lose nothing by not having one.
Before opening a thread about where a value came from: it is in sources.csv, keyed by the source_ids on the record. That link is the entire point of the id. Threads asking “what’s the source for CC-0137’s conductivity?” get closed with a one-word answer and a slightly tired emoji.
Open threads
- CC-0202 pitch-bonded dolomite RUL looks 40 °C low
- Requesting an SI-only CSV variant (drop the dual columns)
- Why is there no creep field?
- k_method on the 46 calculated conductivities - which model?
- Can we please get the slag index as two axes, glass vs steel
Recently closed
- Class 23 firebrick denser than water? (CC-0311 family)
- Add a column for price
CC-0202 pitch-bonded dolomite RUL looks 40 °C low
Record CC-0202 (dolomite brick, pitch-bonded) has rul_t05_c empty, but the handbook I have gives 1620 °C for the pitch variant and 1580 for resin. The browse table shows the service temperature as 1650 in a reducing atmosphere, so an empty RUL reads like the test was never done, when really it just isn’t in your sources yet. Can it be added?
Refractory Practice for Basic Steelmaking, 3rd ed., 2011, table 7.4, page 212. The 1620 is the pitch-bonded line, ISO 1893, 0.2 MPa, 50 mm cube. Resin is the row below it.
That’s a clean citation, thank you - queued for the next minor release at medium confidence, since it’s a single source. It will land as an edit to CC-0202 with the method in the note, not as a new record. This is exactly the shape a correction should arrive in; most of what reaches us is a number with no table behind it.
Reply
Sign in to reply in a thread. If you have a citation for this one, skip the login and email it to data@cindercore.dev - that is where it ends up anyway, and it does not wait on an account.
Why is there no creep field?
Creep decides whether an arch sags over a campaign. Its absence is glaring next to RUL. Was it dropped, or never attempted?
Never attempted, on purpose. Published creep data exists for maybe 8% of these grades and the test conditions scatter so widely that a normalised column would be 8% full and misleading in the other 92. The rule here is that a field either earns its place across the set or it doesn’t exist; a column that is mostly empty invites people to average over it. If the literature thickens we’ll revisit, but that is a v2 conversation, not a v1 field.
↑ back to open threads · the remaining 34 threads are archived and read-only.