I understood Michael to be saying that field testing is not realistic and that is
why standard lab tests are developed. The trick is to have lab tests that seem to
have a reality to them that could be understandable in a real world application.

My favorite concrete man, John Joseph Earley, got his opportunity be involved in
testing Portland cement stucco mixes in the early part of his career. The
National Bureau of Standards went through the process of testing Portland cement
stucco mixes. The results were so crazy that the Portland cement industry pulled
together a committee to redesign the tests.  The industry also contracted with
Mr. Earley and his crew to be the technicians/craftsmen to make sure the
installation and testing process was real world based.  (Time period was late
1910's through the first half of the 1020's)

Maybe as part of this BP process of pointing fingers, we could be to have the
ICRI test standards presented in a brief form so we could BP them to death. They
could end up being BP approved testing methods. Scary thought aint it.

Bryan
========

Ken Follett wrote:

> In a message dated 1/19/00 3:00:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > And you can't do one in the sun and one in the shade.
>
> Michael,
>
> In my experience you cannot easily do field tests by asking the individual
> reps to meet at the site at the same time, the same day, under the same
> weather conditions and do mock-ups on the same wall next to each other. There
> is either too much rancor in the air, or too much pulling over to the side
> for a little talk. I say this having years ago done it with cleaning mock-ups
> and having nothing to do w/ composite patching. If we can get past the
> negative attributes that pop up I agree that it would be interesting to see
> fair field tests and I would certainly support them. I'm not generally in
> favor of fist fights in the field though I have been known to do a few rude
> things from time to time. Without objective physical criteria materials will
> be selected for emotional reasons. I think we need to keep the emotional
> burden in check long enough to give each other room to be understood. Beside
> material performance, and emotions, there are management and supply issues
> that need to be considered when selecting materials. It bothers me, form a
> contractor's perspective, that supply issues are often not considered when
> materials are specified. A recent example I came across is when 3 suppliers
> are listed in the spec but with their old addresses... it immediatly leads me
> to believe that the design professional is not keeping up on developments,
> and makes the entire spec suspect for integrity. The red flag for me here is
> to question if I want to spend the time to bid the job. I could write a
> letter telling the SOB he is a dipwad etc., but then, where does that get us?
> Does not change the fact that the design professional is a dipwad, but it
> makes me out to look even worse. One thing I have learned is that today's
> dipwad can be tomorrow's friend.
>
> Any of you out there able to relate experiences with a materials rep that
> will stop the conversation, tell you his product is not appropriate, and that
> you should call their competitor? I got a few of them, and I'll buy more of
> their products because of it.
>
> ][<en