Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - Printable Version
+- Concrete Moisture Measurement Forums (http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum)
+-- Forum: Concrete (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Moisture Measurement in Concrete (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=120)
Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - Ernesto - 04-08-2011 03:25 PM
Not to take away from the intense and fun loving discussions we have here. But good ole Bob posted a pretty interesting thread over at flooringinstaller.com. Maybe he will post it here as well, kinda doubt it though as he has some reservations about the purity of only performing insitu tests it seems. Maybe I read it wrong. But I see he is itching for a debate, better sharpen your swords first. lol
I'll be keeping an eye open for new sign-ups if you have the time to chat this weekend, Ta ta
Click the link:
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - eaadams - 04-08-2011 04:14 PM
Funny, he says:
"With few exceptions, moisture, originating from the concrete; in and of itself is NOT responsible for a majority of floor covering failures, unless accompanied by chemicals that can create either a chemical and/or physical disruption of the adhesive, or flooring assembly."
Well we all know that. the majority of floor covering failures are due to chemicals that are brought to the surface with the water. Namely those that increase surface pH. That is why modern high moisture adhesives usually use the 'out' of a neutral / 7 pH.
A floor covering failure due to solely moisture would be limited to the correct definition of Hydrostatic Pressure, which I've never seen. I've seen moisture problems called Hydrostatic Pressure but never correctly. I've never seen a Hydrostatic Pressure failure.
His talk about the NBA problems puzzles me. I specialize in those sort of uses and we all know that the HVAC surge capacity of those facilities is of greatest importance. But no real relevance to floor covering. As with all wood floors, wipe them down if they get wet and you will avoid most moisture headaches.
--- Special note, most NBA floors are extremely expensive portable floors siting on carpet pad. Why portable? Because they are removed and ta-da you have an ice rink. I know this is the case in Boston and in LA in the Celtics / Clippers example. Don't you think that 'ice rink' effect MIGHT have something to do with condensation.
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - Ernesto - 04-08-2011 04:45 PM
Quote:floor covering failure due to solely moisture would be limited to the correct definition of Hydrostatic Pressure
I don't agree with that. But I dare you to take that up with Bob. heh heh My definition of hydrostatic pressure is actual water pressure forcing water into the slab, no?
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - eaadams - 04-08-2011 04:51 PM
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - Ernesto - 04-08-2011 05:02 PM
Thats not Bob Higgins, and don't even get me started with that Christopher dude.
I have recieved that mag since it's beginning and have thrown several in the can after reading his articles.
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - eaadams - 04-08-2011 05:09 PM
true, their recent discussion of ASTM F1869-10 (the 2010 update) really threw me for a loop. Now I really don't get ASTM F1869 testing.
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - Ernesto - 04-09-2011 08:22 AM
Yea, I thought wood science was kind of hard to grasp at first but concrete science.......is just down right scary. Just as soon as you think you know everything one needs to know, then Bob posts aother indisputable thread. The dude should be published, maybe he is. Talk about throwing a wrench in the mix.
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - CC Solutions - 04-09-2011 10:00 AM
How do I say anything without getting in trouble or a huge debate???
Bob and I don't see eye to eye, we all know that. But the list of people I do agree with is long and impressive. Howard Kanare is on that list, although Howard and I have had some disagreements about installation practices, I will defer to his much better pedigree!
Bob and his dang CaCl tests, they have been scientifically proven to be inaccurate. He will refute that fact until the cows come home, but you know what I think the real problem with Bob is? He never has his money on the line. I have to put my money where my mouth is every time I do a job, every moisture test I take and every job I mitigate. My testing will determine my liability for millions of dollars a year. When I think of it, Howard is the same way, except Howard is using CTL money, so maybe not. My money is on the line for my work. Just like you guys. I'm not sure about Bob, but he doesn't sound like it. He's a consultant, and if the job fails he can point to some voodoo he couldn't have expected. Maybe if Bob had to test a slab then GUARANTEE he could get a floor to stick to it for 20 years, he'd change his tune.
CaCl tests DON'T work for flooring purposes. If Bob wants to debate that, I'll build him an 18" thick lightweight slab and I'll dry that thing to 3 lbs MVER and we'll see how long a rubber floor will stick to the thing. RH testing will tell me the slab is wet, but CaCl, impedance, or any other easily fooled test won't. And he speaks at length about basketball stadiums and condensation. The ASTM's governing flooring installation require conditioned airspace for 48 hours before installation can begin, so condensation is basically a non-issue.
And don't get me going on his jar with wood and all these other analogies he comes up with. He is difficult to understand not because he's brighter than anyone else, because he doesn't make sense! Maybe in his own mind the words make sense, but just reading a paragraph hurts my brain trying to decipher what point he is trying to make. Like reading Shakespeare....
My point is; Bob's favorite testing methods have been proven to give false results. While I agree in using multiple tests to get a more wholesome picture, I rely most heavily on RH testing, and many major manufacturers are also making the shift. This is NOT because it is cool and chic, but because it works and it saves money.
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - Ernesto - 04-09-2011 12:58 PM
The only reason manufacturers like insitu is because it is faster and faster means more product on the floor. If they truly believed in it they would take full responsibility for anything that should happen causing a failure. And I don't see that happening. Read all the install requirements and warrantys for both the man and the adhesive manufacturers. The only thing they will guarantee is that they will give you more adhesive if there happens to be a failure, then some not even that because they will always find a way to blame it on the installers. What White Paper?
Here is one I read just this morning. I'm certain you will like it.Don't forget to read the looooong list of exclusions.
I like this part; "Any floor leveling or patching must be performed prior to application of the MS Plus Wood Flooring Adhesive, and in strict accordance with the floor leveler manufacturer’s instructions"
RE: Mositure Testing Over Concrete Discussion - CC Solutions - 04-09-2011 01:28 PM
That Taylor warranty is special!!! They will make ONE REPAIR, then the warranty is void. Some warranty!!!! New trowel every 210 square feet. LOL.
I installed two moisture mitigations systems last year on failed Taylor systems. Both complied fully with their warranty. Both were ignored. Both had the GC, the owner, the installer and the architect fighting with Taylor, but Taylor refused to do anything. In the end, if you have to sue the company to get them to honor the warranty, what good can the product be?
Do you work with Nora Rubber? They will warrant their adhesive and flooring 100% if you use the Wagner Rapid RH. I have seen it time and time again. Nora is an industry leader (I just love them) and will NOT walk away from a job if they blessed it up front. By the way, Wagner is the ONLY RH probe Nora will recommend because they have tested the heck out of it and they trust it 100%. If you tell them you read 70% with a Protimeter, they will tell you the reading is invalid and you must use a Wagner before they will stick their neck out on the line.
(04-09-2011 12:58 PM)Ernesto Wrote: I like this part; "Any floor leveling or patching must be performed prior to application of the MS Plus Wood Flooring Adhesive, and in strict accordance with the floor leveler manufacturer’s instructions"
Oh, now this is going to be funny.
Ardex FF will only warrant the patch to the same MVER that the flooring manufacturer warrants.
So if you install FF, then the Taylor adhesive on a floor reading 8 lbs, chances are the FF will soften and fail. Now the failure will not be warranted. Taylor will point at Ardex, Ardex will point to their warranty. It all makes sense, but installer beware!!!