<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Most moisture content is
measured by dry weight. The glass weighs 1 ounces before, and 6</font>
ounces after it is filled, means it has (6-1)/1 = 500%.<br>
A cubic foot of strawbale weights 8 pounds before wetting and 24
pounds after has (24-8)/8 = 200% MC.<br>
<br>
You might be thinking of moisture content by volume. An empty glass
is 0% and a full glass a little less than 100% (since some of the
glass is glass, and so it cant be 100%)<br>
We dont use volume measures much because they are hard to measure
that way.<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="0">Dr John Straube, P.Eng.
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BuildingScience.com">www.BuildingScience.com</a></pre>
<br>
On 12-01-29 8:39 PM, Bill Christensen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F25F4EF.3030207@sustainablesources.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I'm also curious about these numbers. What is the percentage of
moisture being compared to? The total weight of what it has
absorbed
into? A glass of water, in my book, is 100% moisture content.
100%
means "all water" in this case. Relative humidity of 100% in air
means
it can't hold any more for the current temperature, and begins
condensing. <br>
<br>
So are we comparing against the volume or weight of cellulose?
Or
what?<br>
<br>
Bill "90% of the game is half mental" Christensen<br>
<br>
On 1/29/12 4:56 PM, John Straube wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F25CE9C.1060704@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">300% is easy. A glass
of
water can have 5000%. <br>
Live wood regularly as 100-125% wood MC. Straw being lighter
could be
300%, but I would only ever trust a gravimetric measure, not
an
instrument, to read this.<br>
<br>
Some wood absorbs to 200% and will sink to the bottom of lakes
before
it makes it to the sawmill.<br>
<br>
</font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="0">Dr John Straube, P.Eng.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BuildingScience.com">www.BuildingScience.com</a></pre>
<br>
On 12-01-29 12:48 PM, martin hammer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CB4AC651.117C0%25mfhammer@pacbell.net"
type="cite">
<title>Re: [GSBN] SB Lighthouse, CMHC moisture research (was
Canadian research into straw bale swimming pools)</title>
<font face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
<br>
Speaking of % moisture content, and at the other end of
the spectrum
(way beyond, actually), in the CMHC Straw Bale House
Moisture Research
paper regarding bales in floors, as Habib mentioned, it
does say “<font color="#2f292a">Some were as wet as 300
per cent moisture content</font>
. . .”.<br>
<br>
I love and respect the whole series of CMHC research
papers and test
reports. But how can anything be 300% moisture content?</span></font><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GSBN mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GSBN@sustainablesources.com">GSBN@sustainablesources.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN">http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>