Dolan-Jenner Fiber Lite, Illuminators & More - dolan jenner

 2024-08-23 04:20:49

Information from OEOSC (who are developing a new standard due outearly next year) indicate that the old scratch dig comparisonstandard is carrying over to the new standard.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com

2. The pinhole will be partially or fully hidden under the surface paste. In the case of the fully exposed pinhole a spray membrane will be able to coat the surface of the pinhole without leaving any membrane discontinuities.

Information from OEOSC (who are developing a new standard due outearly next year) indicate that the old scratch dig comparisonstandard is carrying over to the new standard.

On the more exposed portions, it would be advisable to prepare the surface of hardened concrete with a high-pressure (15,000 to 20,000 psi) hydroblast or such other method as might effectively remove the hardened paste. If the water blast is performed shortly after removal of the forms, while the concrete is still relatively green, the paste can be much more easily removed with lesser pressure.

Rudi just sent me wonderful news about making the decision to run all 4 samples. Thank you & the Lab so-o much for getting our samples done so quickly. Would you pass along our thanks & gratitude to whomever made the decision to add the 4th sample as a bonus.

I have been to many Manufacturing training/certification courses, this course is by far the most valuable I’ve attended. I will be sending my employees!!!!

If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

John, Thank you so much for taking time to email me AND following up with a call to me when everything I needed was in your email. Now it’s time for us to choose a color & move forward resurfacing our pool.

GENERAL PHENOMENON: Where vertical formed surfaces are involved air pockets and water bubbles are trapped at the form face. When the concrete hardens these defects remain at the surface of the formed concrete. They may be regular in shape or elongated in any plane, fully or partially exposed or completely hidden. These defects are called pinholes or bugholes.

> According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?> > If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?> >

In the case of the partially or fully hidden pinhole a spray membrane may fully cover the defect, but more often one of two events will occur. Event one occurs on a partially hidden pinhole; a small portion of the very deepest part of the pinhole (not accessible to the spray) will not be coated. Event two occurs on a fully hidden pinhole; an outgassing pinhole will form.

Recently we've had some (Japanese) vendors insist on an ISO callout ratherthan the MIL standard for scratch and dig...We're told by our main lens vendor (China) that they're seeing 35-40% (andincreasing) ISO format drawings"gac" wrote in messagenews:416ccabf$1...@127.0.0.1...

Perusing different websites and optics suppliers shows that everyonewants to link the scratch number to a width. Some go with the 10 =10 theory and some go with the 10 = 1. My original question on themaster samples was due to these two different schools of thought iecan anyone do the correct calibration or are companies just measuringthe width of their standard samples and saying they are calibrated? If it is the latter then the scratch criteria has changed to reflectMIL-F-48616 - which allows for the actual measurement of the width ofthe scratch but uses letters instead of numbers eg F-F.

RESOLUTION: When relatively tight working conditions on the project exist, it might be reasonable to install additional coating material rather than performing surface blasting and additional surface preparation on that surface.

I realise that the scratch number doesn't actually define the width ofscratches (like many people beleive) but references the samples usedfor comparison. According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

If the laitance/paste is removed bugholes can be fully coated and a continuous membrane will result. This may leave a slightly non-planar surface, but is a fully smoothed surface that critical in below grade waterproofing?

Polyurea spray will cover many of these defects in a continuous membrane. Some pinholes will not be fully covered without defect in the membrane. Primers will not fill these small cavities or alleviate the resultant defects.

From my understanding the inspection is, as you mentioned, with a 40Wlight bulb etc. Also, as I read the spec, the scratch number is very subjective and isa comparison to standard samples. However the dig number does relateto the actual width of the dig. The drawing I mentioned in my firstpost describes how to make the set of samples. This drawing has hadmany revisions that state many different things ie, "Scratch numbersdo not denote width of scratch. The numbers indicate that thescratch has the same weight or visual appearance as the masterscratch bearing the same weight number", "Scratch number denoteswidth of scratch in microns", "#10 Scratch = 1um +/- 0.1....", andthe ever popular "Dimensions are for reference only". Anyway as Iunderstand these dimensions on the drawing should be used as a guideto preparing your samples but they must be calibrated against themaster set.Perusing different websites and optics suppliers shows that everyonewants to link the scratch number to a width. Some go with the 10 =10 theory and some go with the 10 = 1. My original question on themaster samples was due to these two different schools of thought iecan anyone do the correct calibration or are companies just measuringthe width of their standard samples and saying they are calibrated? If it is the latter then the scratch criteria has changed to reflectMIL-F-48616 - which allows for the actual measurement of the width ofthe scratch but uses letters instead of numbers eg F-F.

I would contend that this is the industry standard. It is true thatthis MIL spec keeps appearing but in my experience of manufacture ofhigh end optics this does not apply. I'm a little rusty about theactual methods used to apply this spec but doesn't it state that itshould be a visual comparison by eye to the scratch/dig standard undera 40 watt light in a darkened booth viewed at 45 degrees.If I was to inspect and pass optical surfaces in that manner I'd passeverything..... Oh wait what am I fighting it for !!??Taff

This comes from the paper, "The Scratch Standard Is Only A CosmeticStandard" by Matt Young."Additionally, the startling factor-of-10 change between Revisions Hand L has caused some users to speculate that the primary standardsmay have healed with the passage of time. Certainly the glass arounda scratch cannot flow (the viscosity of glass at room temperature iswell in excess of 10^15 Pa*s), but chemical weathering of the surfacedue to water vapor in the air is a possibility and could cause theprimary standard either to heal or to worsen. There is evidence,however, that most weathering would take place and stabilize within afew hours or days. In any case, a change has to be quite substantialbefore it is apparent to the naked eye and, I think, would be pickedup by the trained inspectors when they make repeated comparisons withsecondary standards. More probably, it seems to me, small scratchesthat are reported to have "disappeared" have been contaminated by thevolatile constituents of their wooden boxes and merely required a gooddegreasing,"Anyway it is the drawing that has changed with time, due to peoplesattempts to define the scratch number as a width. Revision H of thedrawing was the first define the scratch number as the width of thescratch in microns and also that calibration back to the masters isnot essential. However Revision H was quickly surperceeded two yearslater by Revision J which said the scratch width was one tenth thescratch number and all manufacturer generated standards must becalibrated against the master set. In any event nothing in thecertification procedure had changed, nor has it changed to this day. Remember that a certified set of submasters is boxed but nothermetically sealed and therefore it must be resubmitted periodicallyfor recertification - hence my question can you still get comparisonstandards certified against the masters?

1. The pinhole will be generally exposed to view with or without a circumferential paste crust that hides some portion of the interior of the pinhole.

Vibration to compact concrete causes portland fines and light aggregate to migrate to the form panel faces creating a laitance-paste at the surface when the forms are removed. During this migration trapped air and encapsulated water migrate with the paste. In many instances the pinhole may exist underneath a thin paste.

Just thought I’d tell you — everyone that’s been associated with helping us these past few months at VersaFlex has been terrific. You’re a great bunch of folks!

Our experience is that blasting the surface with high-pressure water, sand or other media will remove the paste and open the cavities so that the coating product can be sprayed uniformly across and into the areas. Certainly not all bugholes will be revealed and a few pinholes will occur even in the most rigorously prepared surface, but a significant reduction of the incidence will be achieved. This preparation coupled with use of additional spot applied coating material to overcome remaining problem areas can result in an optimum waterproofing system installation.

Rubbing the surfaces with special compounds is expensive. The use of general wall parging to cover pinholes is problematic. Pinholes, regardless of size, generally comprise something less than 3% of the total exposed wall surface. Pinholes that are not suitably covered and that cause some defect will result in a membrane that has less than 0.5% discontinuity.

"Additionally, the startling factor-of-10 change between Revisions Hand L has caused some users to speculate that the primary standardsmay have healed with the passage of time. Certainly the glass arounda scratch cannot flow (the viscosity of glass at room temperature iswell in excess of 10^15 Pa*s), but chemical weathering of the surfacedue to water vapor in the air is a possibility and could cause theprimary standard either to heal or to worsen. There is evidence,however, that most weathering would take place and stabilize within afew hours or days. In any case, a change has to be quite substantialbefore it is apparent to the naked eye and, I think, would be pickedup by the trained inspectors when they make repeated comparisons withsecondary standards. More probably, it seems to me, small scratchesthat are reported to have "disappeared" have been contaminated by thevolatile constituents of their wooden boxes and merely required a gooddegreasing,"Anyway it is the drawing that has changed with time, due to peoplesattempts to define the scratch number as a width. Revision H of thedrawing was the first define the scratch number as the width of thescratch in microns and also that calibration back to the masters isnot essential. However Revision H was quickly surperceeded two yearslater by Revision J which said the scratch width was one tenth thescratch number and all manufacturer generated standards must becalibrated against the master set. In any event nothing in thecertification procedure had changed, nor has it changed to this day. Remember that a certified set of submasters is boxed but nothermetically sealed and therefore it must be resubmitted periodicallyfor recertification - hence my question can you still get comparisonstandards certified against the masters?

Wow! Either I'm buying more optics than I thought, or someone else is using the Internationally Recognized but universally unrecognized standard.As far as the MIL scratch/dig spec, Jean Bennet argued years ago that it was a purely cosmetic spec. If you use it that way, it works well. For instance, if I want laser optics, I spec 20/10, but if I only need commercial grade, I order 80/50. Condensers are 120/80, etc. Just for total confusion, I spec the scratch/dig on my pseudo-ISO prints as 5/80/50!-- Best regards,Steve Eckhardtskeckhardt at mmm dot com

PROBLEM: Formed concrete wall surfaces are prone to produce pinholes [also known as bugholes]. Pinholes vary in size and physical configuration. Pinholes are not found on finished slab faces or the underside of elevated decks.

This Technical Note does not address the loss of aggregate at the time of form removal. Rock pockets, form seams and other such discontinuities are beyond the scope of this Technical Note. Simple outgassing of concrete, covered in pinhole resolution, is beyond the scope of this Technical Note.

Anyway it is the drawing that has changed with time, due to peoplesattempts to define the scratch number as a width. Revision H of thedrawing was the first define the scratch number as the width of thescratch in microns and also that calibration back to the masters isnot essential. However Revision H was quickly surperceeded two yearslater by Revision J which said the scratch width was one tenth thescratch number and all manufacturer generated standards must becalibrated against the master set. In any event nothing in thecertification procedure had changed, nor has it changed to this day. Remember that a certified set of submasters is boxed but nothermetically sealed and therefore it must be resubmitted periodicallyfor recertification - hence my question can you still get comparisonstandards certified against the masters?

According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

I have a question regarding the MIL spec that has become the industrystandard for specifying scratch-dig.I realise that the scratch number doesn't actually define the width ofscratches (like many people beleive) but references the samples usedfor comparison. According to the drawing C7641866 L, released in 1980, the mastersamples have moved from Frankford Arsenal to ARRADCOM. Can you stillget your samples calibrated against the masters as stipulated in Note6 of the drawing?If not how do all optics companies keep their scratch setscalibrated?Thanks.*-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com*-----------------------*

Just for total confusion, I spec the scratch/dig on my pseudo-ISO prints as 5/80/50!-- Best regards,Steve Eckhardtskeckhardt at mmm dot com

As far as the MIL scratch/dig spec, Jean Bennet argued years ago that it was a purely cosmetic spec. If you use it that way, it works well. For instance, if I want laser optics, I spec 20/10, but if I only need commercial grade, I order 80/50. Condensers are 120/80, etc. Just for total confusion, I spec the scratch/dig on my pseudo-ISO prints as 5/80/50!-- Best regards,Steve Eckhardtskeckhardt at mmm dot com

Information from OEOSC (who are developing a new standard due outearly next year) indicate that the old scratch dig comparisonstandard is carrying over to the new standard.

Also, as I read the spec, the scratch number is very subjective and isa comparison to standard samples. However the dig number does relateto the actual width of the dig. The drawing I mentioned in my firstpost describes how to make the set of samples. This drawing has hadmany revisions that state many different things ie, "Scratch numbersdo not denote width of scratch. The numbers indicate that thescratch has the same weight or visual appearance as the masterscratch bearing the same weight number", "Scratch number denoteswidth of scratch in microns", "#10 Scratch = 1um +/- 0.1....", andthe ever popular "Dimensions are for reference only". Anyway as Iunderstand these dimensions on the drawing should be used as a guideto preparing your samples but they must be calibrated against themaster set.Perusing different websites and optics suppliers shows that everyonewants to link the scratch number to a width. Some go with the 10 =10 theory and some go with the 10 = 1. My original question on themaster samples was due to these two different schools of thought iecan anyone do the correct calibration or are companies just measuringthe width of their standard samples and saying they are calibrated? If it is the latter then the scratch criteria has changed to reflectMIL-F-48616 - which allows for the actual measurement of the width ofthe scratch but uses letters instead of numbers eg F-F.

News

Dolan-Jenner Fiber Lite, Illuminators & More - dolan jenner

You Might Also Be Interested In