9/23/2008
4:29:07 PM 

Ron,
Stephen is promoting your product,
you are posting in support of his promotion of your product,
I suggested, in fairness, others should be allowed to do the
same,

I find your product, as a professional inspector, more expensive
to use.

I have seen comparisons done in the field between your product
and theirs, and found them to have, within any degree of
tolerance for all "field" devices, similar. A client installed your
readers in a new grocery store, and I was asked to take readings
on the same day with mine. There was only a few 'points'
difference. Any field device, as stated, or implied, is not 100%
accurate.

I am sure, your data supports your equipment just as GE will
have data supporting theirs. So, are you suggesting, with the
offer of technical data, a side by side comparison with their
technical data?

I am not attacking you or your product. I simply asked, to be
fair, on a forum to share information without bias, others similar
products also shown or promoted?

Stephen,
I drill a hole, insert a sleeve, wait the required time, come back,
place in each hole one of the probes, by the time I have inserted
my five into five holes, the first one is ready to be read, I do the
five, start over,, my cost is only the plastic sleeve. The probes
are removed and reused. I have used it about 2 dozen times for
testing, but, never saved any photos of it. I can, if you like, post
a photo of the thermal hydrometer, which I find to be extremely
accurate in dual usages, like Rh in air and concrete.

Since, the test tells us when, if I remember correctly, the Rh test
is telling us there is more than 80Rh in concrete or is it 85Rh?
indicates free water still present? Would CC test also measure
that in the amount of vapor emissions? Not saying the probe
testing is inferior, I find it valuable tool, and with visual
observations and the CC tests all combined, a way to give me
more accurate data or "evaluation tools".

I am sure, Ron is working with you Stephen to help you learn
how to use your equipment correctly and learn more about
testing concrete. I salute this involvement and wished more
manufacturers were on line to do it. So, my question is, have
you contacted the others to ask them to come here to promote
their products so inspectors can make side by side comparisons
to decide which may be best for them?

I saw, at the NWFA this past Spring, three meter companies on
the stage sharing information and helping explain the different
types of meters in cooperation with each other. I am sure, if an
effort was made, others, if invited with the same enthusiasm
given to Ron, might also want to have the opportunity to display
their products also.

9/23/2008
7:01:23 PM 

Lee,

Thanks much for the input. You are helping me answer the question of what may or may not be appropriate for this forum.

If I am free to show differences and present field data or examples thereof, I am glad to do so.

I present data routinely, and the data is actually independent data. Again, I want to make it very clear that all of the commonly-used RH measurement devices do a very good job; some easier to use than others, and some faster or slower depending on design. They are all accurate, given that they are calibrated (or certified as such).

Wagner is very proud of its design, but we strive very hard to be objective and truly offer our time and instrumentation backgrounds to help installers, inspectors, contractors and so on to achieve the best results. I am grateful to all of you at this forum for providing your input and years of expertise to help Wagner better understand the needs and obstacles in the marketplace.

Again, let me know if I am free to elaborate much more. I just want to shy away from self-promotion.

Next, extensive, independent lab testing over the last 5 years has shown that 90% of the MVER for a calcium chloride test comes from the top half-inch of a slab. Lee, as you know, an uncovered slab will normally have a moisture gradient from top to bottom; normally drier at the surface and wetter as you go deeper. That is why the cc test is highly affected by the ambient RH and Temp in a room; RH testing not nearly so, in fact some recent independent lab data are indicating that short-term, significant fluctuations in ambient (room) temp have very little effect on in situ RH readings.

With a normal moisture gradient, a calcium chloride test could show a so-called "safe" level of vapor emission, when in fact the RH down in the slab may be quite high. When a non-permeable floor covering is placed on the slab, the emission of vapor ceases, the moisture in the slab will equalize throughout creating a higher RH at the surface than what it was when uncovered.

The 40% specified depth (slab drying from one side) in F2170 is based on university studies done in Europe that showed that the RH at this depth is what the surface would eventually see after being covered. The cc test is not a good indicator of moisture deep in the slab.

Lee, I believe that you are on very solid ground in utilizing RH testing as the best indicator of a potential failure due to high moisture. Thanks again. ---Ron

quote:

---

Ron,
Stephen is promoting your product,
you are posting in support of his promotion of your product,
I suggested, in fairness, others should be allowed to do the
same,

I find your product, as a professional inspector, more expensive
to use.

I have seen comparisons done in the field between your product
and theirs, and found them to have, within any degree of
tolerance for all "field" devices, similar. A client installed your
readers in a new grocery store, and I was asked to take readings
on the same day with mine. There was only a few 'points'
difference. Any field device, as stated, or implied, is not 100%
accurate.

I am sure, your data supports your equipment just as GE will
have data supporting theirs. So, are you suggesting, with the
offer of technical data, a side by side comparison with their
technical data?

I am not attacking you or your product. I simply asked, to be
fair, on a forum to share information without bias, others similar
products also shown or promoted?

Stephen,
I drill a hole, insert a sleeve, wait the required time, come back,
place in each hole one of the probes, by the time I have inserted
my five into five holes, the first one is ready to be read, I do the
five, start over,, my cost is only the plastic sleeve. The probes
are removed and reused. I have used it about 2 dozen times for
testing, but, never saved any photos of it. I can, if you like, post
a photo of the thermal hydrometer, which I find to be extremely
accurate in dual usages, like Rh in air and concrete.

Since, the test tells us when, if I remember correctly, the Rh test
is telling us there is more than 80Rh in concrete or is it 85Rh?
indicates free water still present? Would CC test also measure
that in the amount of vapor emissions? Not saying the probe
testing is inferior, I find it valuable tool, and with visual
observations and the CC tests all combined, a way to give me
more accurate data or "evaluation tools".

I am sure, Ron is working with you Stephen to help you learn
how to use your equipment correctly and learn more about
testing concrete. I salute this involvement and wished more
manufacturers were on line to do it. So, my question is, have
you contacted the others to ask them to come here to promote
their products so inspectors can make side by side comparisons
to decide which may be best for them?

I saw, at the NWFA this past Spring, three meter companies on
the stage sharing information and helping explain the different
types of meters in cooperation with each other. I am sure, if an
effort was made, others, if invited with the same enthusiasm
given to Ron, might also want to have the opportunity to display
their products also.

---

9/24/2008
10:30:45 AM 

Lee,

Thanks again for your patience, and all of this info. You are so right about those things you mentioned. Often the 'scientists' and even guys like me with instrumentation and process control backgrounds don't convey information well. Additionally, there is no way we have the experience background in floor installations and inspections that veterans like you have. Ray Thompson has been a big source of help to me regarding this, but nothing beats the experience.

Not only that, but the veterans who choose to continue to learn, which you have obviously done over the years are the ones that bring a ton to the table. I have spoken with a lot of inspectors and others who have chosen not to arm themselves well, and just have chosen to stay stagnant, and it frustrates me when I just try to convey some good science to them.

Regarding dewpoint, a very few people have spoken to us about it, but we are aware of it, and are trying to determine if providing this calculation in some of our instruments is a viable thing to do for us. Any comments about this?

Thanks again. --RS

9/24/2008
1:01:38 PM 

thank you Stephen,
I do need your help,,,,
thank you Ron,
and everyone,
I just like to see 'full disclosure',

and I am sure, with your help, Stephen and others will do fine with
your equipment,

later
slt

9/24/2008
9:51:24 PM 

hey,
dude,
you know, we play and we are tight,

you da man, always have been, you know more that 99.9% of the
so called expert inspectors out here,,,and this board is lucky to
have you,

Roger now, well, never mind, just never mind

9/25/2008
1:58:45 PM 

Mr Roland!
Sir! Roger is, Roger is, Roger is, oh well, never mind,,,,

9/30/2008
8:38:36 PM 

Ron, I have followed Peters writings over the years as well. He is right on top of it.

And for that matter, so is Bob Higgins. Bob has been kind enough to email me with excellent information concerning ph problems and concrete. I still have that email saved. Perhaps I could post it someday with his permission.

I only wish I had the mental capacity of those guys. I envy their logic and experience.