I think the concept of quantifiable vapor
transmission is a hell of a lot more complex in masonry than it is in
homogeneous thin membranes for which E 96 is generally applied. Brick and
mortar have variable permeabilities dependent on where measured. Mortar is
even more complicated once original water content, tooling, and aging effects
such as carbonation are considered. My worry is having people hang their
hat on a single number without understanding the biases. Better method?...Full-scale
E 96. Seal your entire building with epoxy, heat to 90 degrees, fill your
bathtub with water, enclose the entire building in a Lucite bubble and measure
its weight changes over several weeks. But seriously, I don’t have
a problem with the method, only in how the results are applied to wholesale
masonry. Understand what you’re measuring and the results can be
illuminating. Otherwise, it’s like assuming that drinking single
malt is equivalent to sucking on a wet burnt log just because you had one sip
of Lagavulin.
Signed Balvenie
From: The listserv
where the buildings do the talking
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edison Coatings
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 3:09
PM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BP] Mortar
John,
I have
long argued that the method does not yield highly reproducible results for
mortars, but yet you see it referenced over and over in mortar studies and
histopresto grad students think it's g-d's revealed word. What can you
recommend as a better method?
I have
also long argued that because of the lack of inTERlaboratory precision, it is
virtually meaningless to compare various manufacturer's product data sheets.
The exception would be studies conducted in the same lab under the same
conditions, because the inTRAlaboratory precision is a hell of a lot better.
Edison Coatings, Inc.
Michael P. Edison
President
3 Northwest Drive
Plainville, CT 06062
Phone: (860) 747-2220 or (800)341-6621
Fax: (860)747-2280
Internet: www.edisoncoatings.com
www.rosendalecement.net
E-Mail:
---------- Original Message -----------
From: John Walsh <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:44:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [BP] Mortar
> Leland,
> I would not use that number with any confidence. The standard is not
> written for mortar and the reported precision and bias may not apply.
> To my knowledge, there has been no interlaboratory testing using E 96
> for mortar or brick. John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The listserv where the buildings do the talking
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leland
Torrence
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 8:03 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BP] Mortar
>
> Mike,
> Is it true that ASTM E-96 allows for a 76% acceptable variance for testing
> moisture vapor transmission?
> Best,
> Leland
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
------- End of Original Message -------