| Author | Message |
Stephen Perrera 
Posts: 823
Since: 5/27/2008
|  2/13/2009 11:36:39 AM 
Anyone know the maximum amount of depth one is limited to for conditioning the surface prior to setting the test per ASTM F 1869?
How about testing for ph? Sand or not to sand? How deep?
|  |
|
Roger Gerber
Posts: 327
Since: 3/17/2008
| 2/13/2009 10:35:12 PM
Just enough to break the slurry cap, 1/64-1/32 inch, Sanding doesn't usually get it, a diamond cup wheel is recommended.
| |
|
Selva Lee Tucker
Posts: 634
Since: 5/25/2008
| 2/13/2009 11:02:19 PM
i take the diamonds out of my front
teeth and rub them across the surface,
does good enough for me,
slt
| |
|
Darian Brown
Posts: 712
Since: 2/5/2008
| 2/15/2009 11:09:35 AM
Selva that's funny, wouldn't it be easier to smile lean over and move your head back and forth? lol
| |
|
Stephen Perrera
Posts: 823
Since: 5/27/2008
| 2/15/2009 12:44:32 PM
If there's nothing wrong with the surface your going to be adhering to then why grind it?
Fact is your changing the surface your testing on or will be adhering to.
Fact is that a steel troweled surface emits less MVE than a broomed surface and grinding the cream off the top of the slab is changing the surface allowing more MVE to move throiugh it.
Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it. 
Many inspectors know this and so do the manufactures of the dome tests.
| |
|
Stephen Perrera
Posts: 823
Since: 5/27/2008
| 2/15/2009 12:46:30 PM
Note, plus notice Tayor changed the spec for depth of grinding on the ph part from 1/8 to 1/16....think about it. Why did they do that?
| |
|
Selva Lee Tucker
Posts: 634
Since: 5/25/2008
| 2/15/2009 6:19:04 PM
yea, I guess bending over but I don't
trust some of the people in some of
the houses I go in not to kick my rear.
| |
|
Stephen Perrera
Posts: 823
Since: 5/27/2008
| 2/18/2009 10:18:21 AM
So, did you ever figure out what the problem was on that hardwood job where you cut open the floor where the CaCl test was?
Was it a ph problem or just mositure? The adhesive looked pretty much crystalized.
| |
|
Selva Lee Tucker
Posts: 634
Since: 5/25/2008
| 2/18/2009 3:45:29 PM
It was a manufacturing issue,
the engineering wood substrates, ie,
plies, was too high in MC when
glued/pressed
| |
|
Stephen Perrera
Posts: 823
Since: 5/27/2008
| 2/18/2009 4:51:10 PM
That opinion never would flew over at LN. LOL
How'd you come to that conclusin?
| |
|
Selva Lee Tucker
Posts: 634
Since: 5/25/2008
| 2/20/2009 9:29:39 PM
simple, first, eliminate other causes,
such as mopping = no endchecks or splits and no film or haze , mopping streaks, so, not maintenance
next, not moisture from the concrete or a water base glue, no endjoint peaking from the wood swelling,
so, we have eliminated two possible causes, what have we left? ummm, the stress of the substrates under the veneer, if different in mc at time of glueing and pressing will cause stress as
the substrates (= plies) shrinks it opens up lath checks as it pulls against the top veneer, this stress also causes the veneer to "move" or the stress on the veneer will crack the UV cured
brittle finish.
This is documented as far back as 1945~!!!!!!! and you too, can find the lit.
Now, if they knew this over 60 years ago, why the heck don't they know it now? In fact, they do. And, those papers the associations try to hid, are by wood scientist. They also tell how to avoid
this problem but, guess what, they are also trying these days to say science does not apply, and they attack the science with this great great great come back,
"we have decided it does not exist". Think of the billions involved.
Last Edited 2/20/2009
9:31:47 PM
| |
|
