Talk:Floor slip resistance testing

Creation

I'm going to work a bit more on this article to address the concerns of whoever posted onto the page. Apparently it's not technical enough (essay-like) AND too technical (for most people to understand). Ugh! I'll work more on it tomorrow, but does anyone want to give me some advice on how to make it less essay-like and less technical? Thank you. Jack Trumpet (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Attempted some edits to modernize and expand upon the information in this page, which has many obsolete and obscure references. Attempted to remove the cheesy promotional language, misleading hyperbole, and selectively slanted (towards NFSI) inclusion of information. Attempted to insert references where readers could go to learn more. But the page originator merely reverted it back to its old form - and added some new (and technically incorrect) language - because facts are not on his side. No point in getting into a back-and-forth with such an intellectual amateur. Like teachers tell schoolkids, Wikipedia sometimes just can't be trusted. I am outa here! 24.99.90.150 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the fact that you insult someone because he calls you on your B.S. I know you are intimately related to the Brungraber, so I could probably guess who you are. The Brungraber had an ASTM standard for a very short while...and then was found to be unable to submit a reasonable precision statement. Until the Brungraber CAN submit a reasonable precision statement AND it is recognized in the international community as a valid and reliable slip test instrument, it will NOT be included on this page as one. This page is written for the world...and although several people have tried to change this page so that they can sell their instrument and lie in court more effectively, this page only endorses those instruments which have INTERNATIONAL acceptance as being valid. America has long been the laughing-stock of the world as our slip test devices are too often geared toward selling tile and allowing professional expert witnesses to lie in court and defend whoever has the most money. We are only trying to bring some sense to slip testing. When test devices and methods such as ASTM C1028, the Brungraber and the English XL have their test methods WITHDRAWN by official agencies, then we will point that out here. This page is meant to give people the TRUTH about slip testing, and is not meant to be an advertisement for whoever is trying to sell the latest device meant to promote courtroom purgery. If you would like to point out what "facts" are not correct, please feel free to start a discussion about that. We would LOVE to know what is incorrect on this page. We believe, as we are in regular contact with almost all highly respected slip testers in the international community, that we have written this article based on accepted facts due to extensive research. All research with the Brungraber so far reveals that it is NOT a reliable slip test device. Please let me know if you have some evidence to the contrary. Jack Trumpet (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherently Written

Some of this is almost completely unintelligible and needs to be rewritten. For example this sentence, "The safety standards ANSI specifies for a level floor using the B101.3 dynamic test method is a “high slip resistance” minimum dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) of 0.43 and a “low slip resistance” minimum DCOF of 0.30."

Is this what is intended to be written? "The ANSI safety standard specifies that a level floor being tested using the B101.3 dynamic test method is considered to have "high slip resistance" if the minimum dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) is 0.43 or greater and is considered to have "low slip resistance" if the minimum DCOF is less than or equal to 0.30." 8-21-2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.1.196 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write

That could be stated better so it is more easily understood. But the way you are saying it is redundant. You say "if the minimum dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) is 0.43 or greater". When you say the word "minimum" it is no longer necessary to use "0.43 or greater" since the sentence already states that 0.43 is the minimum (so greater than 0.43 would be greater than the minimum). I'll make the change so that it makes sense, describes the categories in the ANSI standard more fully, and is not redundant. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Trumpet (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and editorializing

Please have a read of WP:NOR - Wikipedia is not a place to add your personal opinions - this applies to everyone, experts and non-experts alike. Everything needs to come from a source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. You cannot cite a standard and then give your opinion on it. That is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia's core content policies. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]