+- 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: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? (/showthread.php?tid=221)
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - Ernesto - 11-10-2011 07:34 PM
(11-10-2011 07:08 PM)CC Solutions Wrote:(11-10-2011 05:13 PM)Ernesto Wrote: Or...or and or. But what if I test and my readings are under the prescribed limit?
If your readings are under the manufacturer's upper limit and you meet all the rest of the requirements, you will have a warranty. Other requirements are a functioning and proper vapor retarder and a porous surface that has a profile to it, as Bostik says, 'not smooth but like a broom finish', as well as many other requirements.
If you miss just one required parameter the manufacturer has a way out, and for good reason! They know the floor moisture could skyrocket with no vapor retarder.
(11-10-2011 05:13 PM)Ernesto Wrote: Hey, here is one of the leading underlayments for the industry as far as floating laminate and hardwood floors go. They claim it is 700 + percent more effective that other underlayments as far as moisture concerns go. See what test they require. Check it out;
http://www.floormuffler.com/ultraseal/installationinstructions.html
How is this a good vapor mitigation system? The instructions are " If installing over concrete, the concrete must be dry with moisture emission rates that do not exceed 3 lbs. per 1000 square feet per 24 hours as measured by the Anhydrous Calcium Chloride Test."
Sounds like it has to be dry before you even start!
(11-10-2011 05:16 PM)eaadams Wrote: Saw an add in Floor Covering Installer this month (came today) for Halex's Versashild and it claims to go to 95% RH. Going to circle that for info....
There are hundreds of products that claim to 'go to 95%' or more. Why not stick with the three or four that actually work?
The way I read the Bostik requirements is that I only have to make one of them, not all of them.
As far as the floormuffler goes, welcome to my world. The way I see it, my options are...1) call their bluff and do a CaCl test with documentation, 2) just install the 1,100 sf of laminate and call it a day, or 3) throw some six mil under it...which I often do.
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - CC Solutions - 11-10-2011 08:06 PM
No, you have to meet ALL of Bostik's requirements.
And you can do CaCl tests by the zillions, and I do mean ZILLIONS and have all of them come in at .00000000000000000001lb MVER. You can document it with video, audio, you can have your governor standing there watching you do the tests, you can use a scale brought in from a NASA, you can have Geraldo Rivera do a documentary of the quality and accuracy of your MVER testing....
And the first time you have a failure, even if it is due to a getaway car from a local bank robbery smashing through the window and the car tires tearing through the flooring as it does a burn-out, if the manufacturer puts down a CaCl test and reads anything more than 3lbs MVER your warranty is VOID.
That's the way it is. It DOES NOT matter what the floor WAS, it only matters what it is when the failure happens and the floor is tested at that time.
This my friend, is at the VERY HEART of the problem installers are having today, why they don't understand what is happening and what they need to test for, and why building owners are getting screwed daily.
I have said before, with some manipulation I can make any floor read less than 3lbs MVER, but that's just NOT the point. The goal is to understand all the factors that make a slab ready for flooring and assure all those factors are proper before the floor is installed. That way you have a good installation with full warranties and backing of all the parties involved.
It baffles my mind why any installer would do anything less, when they have no liability in the project unless they cut corners.
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - Ernesto - 11-10-2011 08:09 PM
You should look up the definition of "Or".
No one could possibly predict what the slabs MVER will be in the future, the reading is prior to installation, wrong again.
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - CC Solutions - 11-10-2011 08:20 PM
(11-10-2011 08:09 PM)Ernesto Wrote: You should look up the definition of "Or".
No one could possibly predict what the slabs MVER will be in the future, the reading is prior to installation, wrong again.
I know what I'm talking about here, this I can guarantee you. You call Bostik and ask what their position will be if you put their glue down on a 70% floor or a 3 lb floor with no vapor retarder and if in two years the floor becomes 24 lbs MVER and 99% RH... Ask if they'll warrant that installation because it was good before... LOL.
And I know what OR means. If you have no vapor retarder, OR a failed vapor retarder, OR more than 12lbs MVER, OR more than 82% RH, you cannot use our product... That sure doesn't mean you can pick any one of those conditions...
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - Ernesto - 11-10-2011 08:33 PM
(11-10-2011 08:20 PM)CC Solutions Wrote:(11-10-2011 08:09 PM)Ernesto Wrote: You should look up the definition of "Or".
No one could possibly predict what the slabs MVER will be in the future, the reading is prior to installation, wrong again.
And I know what OR means. If you have no vapor retarder, OR a failed vapor retarder, OR more than 12lbs MVER, OR more than 82% RH, you cannot use our product... That sure doesn't mean you can pick any one of those conditions...
I'd be happy to take that up with them or you in court. If my Rapid Rh reader says less than 82% I am golden prior to installation.
Do you understand the difference between past tense, present tense and future tense?
How can anyone possibly know if the floor is going to be over 82% after the floor is installed? Why do YOU test PRIOR to your jobs?
See what teflon can do to your brain?
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - CC Solutions - 11-10-2011 09:03 PM
(11-10-2011 08:33 PM)Ernesto Wrote: I'd be happy to take that up with them or you in court. If my Rapid Rh reader says less than 82% I am golden prior to installation.
Do you understand the difference between past tense, present tense and future tense?
How can anyone possibly know if the floor is going to be over 82% after the floor is installed? Why do YOU test PRIOR to your jobs?
See what teflon can do to your brain?
LOL!! Yes, I suppose I have Teflon Brain Syndrome....
This is another situation where you aren't following along....
If you meet all the parameters for the warranty you are showing due diligence. That is good. If you install on a floor with no vapor retarder you are liable for any failure, no matter what the readings were or are! Remember when I said some slabs I don't have to test to know they fail? Any missed checkpoint is a failure. No vapor retarder, FAIL! The manufacturer spells this out clearly.
And the reason they require the slab to be isolated is because they know that a slab with a moisture source has the ability to become extremely wet and fail over time. Now if a floor is elevated on a deck, and my Rapid RH tests are 80% at 40% depth, I KNOW the floor is not going to be 90% in a year. That's why I test. I do not test floors with no vapor retarder unless I am doing it as a special request for curiosity sake. There is just no point, as the entire installation is a gamble unless the floor is properly mitigated.
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - Ernesto - 11-11-2011 07:12 AM
OK you switched from talking about after the fact high moisture readings to explicitly talking about a vapor retarder under slab. Of course if there is no retarder under slab some manufacturers will not warranty it, although the tech guy I talked to at Bostik said they warranty it up to 15 lbs.
And 90 percent of the time there are no retarders under slabs, yet you still are required to test even if there is a retarder under the slab. Why? theres a reason, go ask. Can't tell ya how many slabs are gone over without an additional layer of glue/vapor retarder. Basically MVP4 is just another layer of glue without the anti-slumping compound in it. If I am using just BB then I always step up the notch. I can read slabs. I used to strictly do sheet vinyl and never tested, never had a moisture issue.
How about their newer adhesives like the One Step, the Seal N Grip, do they function better because they have an extra layer of adhesive or is it strictly the chemical composition or both that ae supposed to prevent failures? Do they also state there must be a vapor retarder under the slab?
Now for your claim that any after the fact high reading will void any warranty. Thats complete nonsense. If that were true there would be no flooring going down and no glue sales.
The most important thing is is to NOT install when the readingsa are high.
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - CC Solutions - 11-11-2011 07:28 AM
Sorry Stephen, you are wrong.
Read the requirements for the glues you are using and tell me which ones do NOT require a functioning vapor retarder under them.
Sure they'll warrant them as long as there's no problem. If you have a problem, they'll point to the no retarder issue and show you where they require it in their data sheet.
There are methods to guarantee slabs with no vapor retarder under them, but gluing and praying isn't the way!
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - admin - 11-11-2011 10:08 AM
Jason just came into my office and was reading this post over my shoulder (he does that!) and he told me to invite both of you to dinner with him in Vegas the week of WOC and Surfaces.
Admin
RE: MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH? - rapidrhrep - 11-11-2011 10:18 AM
I only want to take you both to dinner so I can video tape the fist fight in person for my next You Tube segment
