Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bad Sensor
12-08-2012, 08:32 AM
Post: #61
RE: Bad Sensor
(12-07-2012 07:13 PM)CC Solutions Wrote:  I believe with E-96 they knew what they wanted to test for, and then used the product they felt would give the best results.

With 1869, it started by dumping some salt on a slab and seeing if it got wet. If it did the slab failed, if it didn't the slab passed. They didn't use cups or hoods or weighed samples for a long time! So what were they looking for? What water amount was going to be acceptable? What time period to let the calcium absorb? This was all just made up as they went along.

You said that twice now, throwing salt on the ground. According to Howard that was not the case. The CaCl crystals were in a small cup above a hole which was covered.

He seriously doubts the E-96 of today was the original draft, version, test methodology. I think they did it because of the same reasons you stated above. The 1869 was using CaCl and so they started using it as well. It uses the lbs formula also.

Here's another question. Which ASTM came first, the 1869 or E-96?

Stephen Perrera dba
Top Floor Installation Co.
http://www.tucsonazflooring.com
http://www.floorsavior.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2012, 04:48 PM
Post: #62
RE: Bad Sensor
So where are all the experts on this? No comment? Not so surprising. Undecided

Stephen Perrera dba
Top Floor Installation Co.
http://www.tucsonazflooring.com
http://www.floorsavior.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Technorati Digg MySpace Delicious