High Moisture Readings / Old Boat

External Since: Dec 11, 2004 Posts: 537

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:52:00 -0500, Marley <none.DeleteThis@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

>Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
>
  >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:36:54 -0500, Marley <none.DeleteThis@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>Izmack wrote:
   >>>
   >>>>Hi Everyone,
   >>>>
   >>>>We are looking at at late 80's Trojan F32 with very high moisture
   >>>>readings in the hull, but zero signs of blistering either currently or
   >>>>in the past. Our surveyor, who was VERY thorough, said the following:
   >>>>
   >>>>"Bottom was found in above average condition, having no signs of
   >>>>blistering,crazing or delamination. High moisture levels were noted,
   >>>>ranging between 80-100 and some crusty deposits were noted, indicating
   >>>>laminate hydrolysis. Recommendation to dry store vessel each winter off
   >>>>season to maintain current good condition. If vessel is left overboard,
   >>>>some blistering or delamination could be expected over time."
   >>>>
   >>>>I know I'm asking for a barrage of opinions, but, considering it's a 16
   >>>>year old boat and the fact we are first time boat buyers and that the
   >>>>rest of the survey was above average, what do you all think? And -
   >>>>will future buyers balk at resale?
   >>>>
   >>>
   >>>You need to better understand moisture meters and readings.
   >>>
   >>>Moisture meters have to be calibrated very carefully.
   >>>
   >>>For example they are used extensively in determining the amount of
   >>>moisture in lumber when it is being or has been cut or kiln dried. In
   >>>order to make that determination the user first sets the calibration of
   >>>the meter against a known standard. In other words, using a piece of
   >>>identical lumber of a specific known moisture content that is kept in a
   >>>controlled environment.
   >>>
   >>>In the case of a boat, that is not easily accomplished. In fact is
   >>>impossible. You don't have a standard upon which to calibrate the
   >>>meter. Bottom line, the actual NUMBER read is completely meaningless. I
   >>>repeat, it is MEANINGLESS.
  >>
  >>
  >> ~~ snippage happens ~~
  >>
  >> The fact is that you can't calibrate a meter if you don't know were
  >> zero is. I can only conceive of one way that a meter measure would be
  >> invalid and that is if zero wasn't zero - as in your illustration.
  >> Why somebody would use a meter that wasn't zero is beyond me.
  >>
  >> Your wood sampling example is not calibration, but comparative
  >> measurement. You have a zero meter, you measure the standard, then
  >> measure the test piece and make the evaluation. You just can't walk
  >> up to the standard and test it without having a baseline - which is
  >> zero.
  >>
  >> For straight measurement, it is most certainly accurate and it's done
  >> all the time to determine set times for aggregate mixes, core moisture
  >> in building roofs, materials density and many other types of
  >> structural conditions. You walk in with a zero meter, take your
  >> measurement and make your recommendation. What you are measuring, by
  >> what ever method from doppler to resistance, zero has to be zero for
  >> any measurement to be valid.
  >>
  >> It is most certainly not meaningless.
>
>I hope you'll take the time to reflect upon this in a logical manner.
>If not, well... at least I tried. Last post on the subject from me though.

Obviously you are much smarter than I am and have it figured
perfectly.

But as you seem to have so much more knowledge of the subject than I
do, allow me to ask a couple of questions which I'm unclear on.

1 - What is the meter baseline and how to you set it?

2 - How can you make a content analysis of any material without first
starting at a reference point? If that reference point isn't zero,
then was is it?

3 - If the baseline is not zero, how do you determine what zero is?

I am very interested in your response - I wish to be enlightened.

Later,

Tom

External Since: Dec 11, 2004 Posts: 537

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:34:10 GMT, "Geri"
<izmack<delete>@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I knew I'd be opening a can o' worms!
>
>The Tramex reading he go on the cockpit was virtually zero, to give an idea
>of calibration. The foredeck was a spotty 60-100, but Trojans have always
>been weak in this area. All soundings were good (including the hull),
>except for two small foredeck spots w/ compromised soundings.

Well, in any case, good luck with it.

And don't worry about the little side track - sometimes it's hard to
get a point across - in particular when you are dealing with somebody
who "designed" something.

Regardless, moisture readings are not meaningless. It's kind of
interesting going through the Tramex site and checking out the meter
specs. It's an education.

The meter I have, by the way, is the Skipper. I kind of inherited it
from somebody who was going out of the survey business. :>)

Good luck.

Later,

Tom