MASSIVE is a sonic monster – the ultimate synth for basses and leads. The analog concept belies the contemporary, cutting-edge sound it generates.
The high-end engine delivers pure quality, lending an undeniable virtue and character to even the most saturated of sounds. The interface is clearly laid out and easy to use, ensuring you will have MASSIVE generating earth-shuddering sounds from the very first note.Native Instruments Massive Crack is an application which is utilized for sound generation. You can use this software as a VST module in a DAW (advanced sound workstation). The blade is most famous in the music business. This product gathers ideas and impacts. You will have the capacity to create bass, and you can build entire track utilizing this software.
It contains much programming which enables you to deliver many sounds. Music expert and buyers are furnished with their decision of this product.
The things which are utilized primarily to make sound are secured with it. You can control numerous errands with one controller using this product.This unique synthesizer has its own uncompromising character that produces the most distinctive sounds.
From the deepest low end, MASSIVE is capable of the creamiest, punchiest basses to give your tracks a solid foundation. Razor-sharp leads that cut through the mix, even with grit and dirt piled high, set MASSIVE apart among analog style soft synths. And just beneath the surface, MASSIVE’s overwhelming array of wavetable oscillators, versatile modulation options, and bountiful filter and effects sections offer a sonic spectrum as broad as it is inspiring.All of a sound’s most important parameters are pre-configured and mapped to these controllers. A single controller can handle multiple assignments – for example, twist ‘Rhythm’ and watch how numerous underlying parameters change simultaneously. Moreover, the macro controls are the most critical interface to other applications. They are targets for MIDI assignments, which are easily set using the MIDI Learn function. They are also the first eight parameters that are reported to any host when MASSIVE is used as a plug-inThis is the most operational agenda in sky-scraping excellence and best music production for a high-quality reason.
In addition, it is used to make beautiful and great level beats for the internet surfers. This is a tuneful instrument. Further, it creates the most outstanding and high-class methods. In all, it offers the best voice records to the users to makes music wonderful. It has the newest skin tone for the users.
By consuming this, a lot of regulars and users hold more additional outstanding sounds of records and tools or newest plans.Native Instruments Massive serial key is a beautiful software to makes wonderful and big feature song means music in a better way. Including this, a lot of users can add files voices in the world of music in good manners. As well this, users can be applied that record voices to their plans. In all over the country tools, big Keygen is obtainable software in the world of multimedia. This outstanding application as compares to others. The interface is anything but difficult to-utilize all issues of music demonstrable skill from commanding leads, Metal parts, Pop successions, acoustic guitar.
Adaptable flag stream, offers an assortment of sounds, from the profound, severe sensitive crystalline BES. Make new sounds for Rap music, make Blues music for all intents and purposes and also, other music writes utilizing presets and instruments, for example, piano, guitar, percussion, kicks, drives, violin, woodwind, and so forth. The broad measure of instruments to enable you to accomplish your sounds.
First off, you have three oscillators; each has a silly add up to look over. You can pick force, wavetables, and intensification. Native Instruments Massive Crack keeps running for both x86, and x64 frameworks keep running as a VST, AU, RTAS or AAX module.
Additionally keeps running in Standalone Mode. Modify pitch, set the tweak mode for each oscillator, expel sound commotion and include channels.This software contains eighty-five wavetables. The signal flow is much flexible with it.
NI Massive Free Download Latest Version for Windows. It is full offline installer standalone setup of NI Massive Prolific Music Software for 32/64 Bit PC. NI Massive OverviewNational Instrument has emerged as the most prolific music software in recent times. NI Massive is one of the most talked about feature rich synths.
There may be many other competitors out there for massive but with its simple and accessible interface and altogether different engine massive has surely won the hearts of many. You can also which is great music software.NI Massive has a very straightforward interface with all the necessary tools right in front of you. On the left side of the GUI are three oscillators and one modulation oscillator along with noise and feedback control. There is a dedicated knob for morphing from one waveform to another. There is a Square-saw oscillator out there when you turn the knob towards the right the wave will be turned into a Saw-tooth shape and when it is turned towards left side the wave will transformed to square shaped wave. Is another great music application.Towards the right of the oscillators, filters are located.
These filter can be set to function in parallel or in series mode. You can also set them to filter in both modes at the same time.All in all is a very productive tool for generating music with simple interface and clever modulation system and packed features NI Massive has surely wins the hearts of many.
DillyTonto writes '? Count the number of characters and the type and calculate it yourself. Steve Gibson's Interactive Brute Force Password Search Space Calculator shows how dramatically the time-to-crack lengthens with every additional character in your password, especially if one of them is a symbol rather than a letter or number. Worst-case scenario with almost unlimited computing power for brute-forcing the decrypt: 6 alphanumeric characters takes 0.0000224 seconds to crack, 10 alpha/nums with a symbol takes 2.83 weeks.' You don't ask about your actual password.
You check one that's similarly complex.However, I noticed that he's not.checking. a dictionary file when evaluating password strength. The actual strength of a password like 'spastic-elongated-kremlinitude' is pretty good, but his checker's figure of four hundred thousand trillion trillion centuries to crack with a high-end cluster is optimistic beyond the bounds of all reason. That would be naively building it up character by character, and.nobody.
does naive character-by-character brute forcing for passwords that long. That's like building a skyscraper without power tools. Maybe, maybe not. I haven't checked.I have a couple pass phrase dictionaries and they have found a not insignificant number of pass phrases.Most of the time, I just need to find a password that hashes to the same as your password. That might not seem important, but when your password/pass phrase is longer than the hash and you are reduced to brute forcing the password a collision is not less likely just because you added more characters.md5 and sha1 are optimized to reduce collisions in the ASCII code space. I bet that every time news comes out of a password list that many people reach for the nearest online MD5sum / SHA1sum calculator so they can search the list to see if their password is on there. Of course now their password, however strong it was before is now is worthless since they've just given it to some random website which for anyone knows is run by a malicious operator or could be hacked in its own right.
Similarly, if you found some rainbow table sight and typed in your hash and it was not discover. Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong other than your first line.5 random lower case characters + one upper case = 52^6. It would be 26^6 if and only if you knew exactly where the upper case letter was, which is an unreasonable assumption.
Adding an upper case letter would eliminate a straight lower-case dictionary attack entirely and double the pool of possible characters from 26 to 52. There are 6 places, so 52^6.You make the same mistake in several other locations.To address your other claim, 'Adding one extra capital, number or symbol to a password does not increase password strength that much.' You make this claim only because your math is so hilariously wrong. Actually, no. 52^6 is 6 random mixed case characters - a much larger search space than 5 lower + 1 upper. The number you are looking for is much smaller = 26^6.
6. Here's why - with 5 lower + 1 upper, you have 6 alpha characters = 26^6. If exactly one of them is uppercase, then the search space is only expanded by - change the first character to upper, change the second to upper, etc = 26^6. 6. If you think there are passwords outside of that search space, then try to come up with a 5 lower + 1 upper password that cannot be found by looking at ALL combinations of 6 lower and make one of them upper.Gibson makes this type of error when he claims that haystacks are a good password technique.
He forgets that 1) people are lazy and 2) hackers tune their search strategy because of #1. People who use haystacks do so because they want something easy to remember. So they probably use a dictionary word with minor alterations (all lower+numbers, make one of them uppercase) and then add a bunch of periods. But they can't just add a random bunch of periods - they have to use a number that they can remember (in addition to remembering the password itself), so it's probably no more than 10 (probably 7). A search strategy tuned to this will find passwords much faster than he claims = do the normal 36^n search space of lowercase + numbers, then for each of them, change one of the letters to uppercase. Then for each of these passwords (all lower + all of the change one to upper), add 1-10 periods to the end. Assuming the base word is no longer than 8 and the number of periods is no longer than 10, the search space is at most 36^8.
9 (no lower + at most 8 ways to make one upper). 10 (number of periods) = much lower than 96^18.Of course, you can manipulate the algorithm, but most people are lazy and besides, you have to remember the algorithm you created.
If you are not using an easy haystack, you might as well use a nice strong password with a nice password vault. Even taking Gibson's original category of all-lowercase alphanumeric, his time-to-crack figure is silly (in that it's not realistic):36^6 = 2,176,782,336 possible combinations0.0000224 seconds to crack (given by grc)2,176,782,336 / 0.0000224 = 97,200,000,000,000So, somebody is going to devote a supercomputer capable of trying 97.2 trillion passwords per second to cracking a password for some service that I'd use? Right.For an idea of how big of a machine you'd need to try 97.2 trillion passwords per second, Toms had two high-end GPUs in SLI doing 1.5 billion per second, which means even with GPU acceration you'd need roughly 65,000 machines. Parent: 5 random lower case characters + one upper case = 52^6. It would be 26^6 if and only if you knew exactly where the upper case letter was, which is an unreasonable assumption. Adding an upper case letter would eliminate a straight lower-case dictionary attack entirely and double the pool of possible characters from 26 to 52. There are 6 places, so 52^6.The grandparent poster has done the calculation correctly, if it is assumed that the cracker knows that there is exactly one uppercase character.We're all agreed that if there is a 6-letter all-lower-case password, there are 26^6 possible passwords (26 possible character choices in each of six positions), right?
For five lower case letters and one upper case letter, we draw five lower case letters (26^5 possibilities) and one upper case letter (26^1 possibilities, because it can't be a lower case letter), and we have 6 choices as to where in the password we place the upper case letter: 26^5. 26^1. 6 = 26^6.
6 possible passwords.Alternatively, consider our six-letter all-lower-case password and its 26^6 possibilities. We have a dictionary that starts aaaaaa, aaaaab, aaaaac and ends with zzzzzz. If we add exactly one (no more, no fewer) capital letter, then each entry in our original dictionary is replaced by six new passwords, one with a single capital letter in each position: Aaaaaa, aAaaaa, aaAaaa, aaaAaa, aaaaAa, aaaaaA, then Aaaaab, aAaaab, aaAaab, aaaAab, aaaaAb, aaaaaB, and so forth-again giving us 26^6.
6 possible passwords.That said, it would be unusual for our hypothetical cracker to have access to that sort of specific information about a password. Why would he know that there was exactly one upper case letter? Far more likely would be some sort of rudimentary password screen that required our password to contain a mix of capital and lower case letters-that is, at least one upper case, and at least one lower case. In that more-likely scenario, the parent's calculation is closer to the mark. Each of six positions could have any one of 52 values (26 upper- and 26 lower-case letters), giving 52^6 possibilities, from which we subtract 2.26^6 options, representing the forbidden all-lower-case and all-caps passwords, leaving 52^6-2.26^6 possible choices. And if you don't understand the basic concepts behind the topic, applying any amount of mathematics will not overcome the initial limitation.When brute forcing passwords you don't (typically) know anything about them. It's extremely unlikely you will know '5 small letters and one capital letter' no matter how pretty it makes the calculation.
How To Crack Massive Synth
You have to search the random address space based on your criteria in increasing orders of complexity.Searching the lower case space is trivial compared to lower+uppe. If someone trying to crack my password knows it has exactly one upper case character, I'd assume they know because they have already cracked my password.Or, they'd just have to know something about human nature and the fact that humans tend toward lower entropy passwords. With any password guesser that's even slightly smarter than brute force, entropy matters.
I remember using wikipedia.org back in my college days (officially sanctioned - we were testing password security as part of a security audit), and it h. Based on what?
You're arguing that Gibson is wrong, but your reasoning amounts to saying 'nuh-uh'.The attacker knows that there are 6 characters in a password. I'd want a hashing algorithm that hides the password length by turning any password length into e.g. A 64-character hash.Even assuming he knows it's 6 chars, how can he know there are 5 lowercase + 1 uppercase? Assuming the hash doesn't give clues (which would be a weakness in the hash function) I see no way the attacker can infer 5 lowercase + 1 uppercase (and guess correctly at which position the uppercase will be).Therefore he has to assume a search space of lowercase+uppercase for all positions, which leads to 52^6. '5 random lower case characters + one upper case = 26^6.
6 NOT 52 ^ 6' Wow, who told the hacker that it is a 6 char password with 1 upper case and rest lower case?If someone is bruteforcing your password, they can make no assumptions. (alphabet size)^(number of spaces)Where (alphabet size) = group your char is in. Is is part of a 10 char group, so using! Gives your alphabet an extra 10.ILets see, upper and lower, that's 26.2, then ', that's another 12, '3', that's 10,. makes it another 10, '+' is at least 6 but not sure which group. That's an alphabet size of 90 and is 17 chars long. 90^17 = 1.666569e+33.
Almost as strong as a GUID, but easier to remember. The man is an idiot.
Adding one extra capital, number or symbol to a password does not increase password strength that much. The algorithm assumes that all places in the password can be all characters.Disagreeing with you doesn't make him an idiot.Since we don't know what position a capital letter might occupy, I think we can agree that this expands the MAXIMUM search range above 26^6 and below 52^6+1. That's the teaching point the tool is designed for.
It is not designed to be an accurate estimator, but more of a shock value tool to get the attention of users. It has some value in that role. There's still websites out there that limit you to 8 characters maximum. When Citi held my student loans (studentloans.com), their website would just use the first 8 characters of whatever password you entered. Of course, the field would accept more and they wouldn't tell you this so the first time you went to log in, it was a very WTF moment because you'd get a Password Incorrect error even though the password matched the one you signed up with. It was one of the main reasons I was actually happy when they sold my loan to Sallie Mae six months ago. (As an aside, the most heinous are the websites where you Forgot your password?
And they email it right back to you in plaintext.)No, I think the most heinous ones are those who require you to answer 'security questions' that you can't choose yourself.It's not very hard to find out your mother's maiden name or what high school you went to.The only sane choice is to make up answers, but it's harder to remember lies than truth, and a lot of sites that commit this atrocity, so you may end up having to write a list of all the questions and answers.Never mind that these types of questions tend to exclude or alienate a lot of people due to. Anytime I read articles like this, I just assume someone is trying to see something.The best way to limit an attack like this is to limit how fast the attempts can be made. Rerun his 'test' when the server only allows one password submit ever 10 seconds and see how long it takes.
More secure you say?? Well, after 5 bad attempts, lock the account for 30 minutes?? Please, however, never lock the account entirely like SOME companies do. That makes a script kiddies actions my problem.Good passwords can never stop common sense computing procedures. This is the reason I don't use my credit union as my primary account. As much as I like supporting the smaller local financiers, their web interface is not up to snuff.
And I cannot add them to Mint because they use a two-tier authentication system where you have to type an additional password displayed on the screen (not even a captcha, just a number displayed as text). It is important to me to have the ability of keeping track of my finances via Mint.com. I put everything on my debit card so I can track m. The summary is so stupid i'm not going even bother reading the article.
It might make sense to say password X takes 42 times longer to crack than password Y, but to put a real time against the cracking attempt only makes sense if the cracker has access to the hash of your password, in which case you have already lost.That said, account lockouts and login delays only make sense for a targeted attack. For a widespread brute force attack it doesn't matter - you can saturate your pipeline and still on.
I use binary for passwords, thus my password is 168 character long, only down side is it only has 10 digits!0001101text in the middle0111001text in the middle1111101text in the middle110001text in the middle01More text because /. Filter throws an error, I wonder how much more text I have to type?' Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.' 'Filter error. Sure, if you have some unknown password, and your brute strength computer can get a yes/no answer to each guess just as quickly as the guesses can be generated, then most passwords are shockingly insecure and can be cracked in fractions of a second.
However, in many real-world situations, each guess has some minimum time or cost associated with it, which severely limits the real-world speed of a brute strength attack. For instance, if you are trying to guess the password to a WiFi network, each attempted. I worked on a random desktop rollout contract that was paying stupid amounts of money, and one evening I observed one of my fellow contractors entering his password.clickity clickity clickity clickity.I said 'wow. Hardcore password', he replied 'yeah, I worked on a contract before this where we had to manually put in the MS Office CD Key across a few hundred desktops, so I've memorised it. The one for my email - trillions of years. Dumb sites emailing me my own private data means it needs to be secure.Slashdot, football forums, BBC - minutes. I honestly don't give a shit about these sites.Random websites that force you to sign up in order to download a crappy wav file - I'll just tell you, just to save you the hassle.
Username = [email protected], password is nonononono.My banking password? Because passwords are shite and obsolete. I use extra forms of authentication on banking web. Q:So, from the answer above, that means that our passwords should always contain at least one of each type of character?A:Yes, that's exactly what it means. Take, for example, the very weak password “news.” If another lowercase character was added to it (for example to form “newsy”), the total password search space is increased by 26 times.
But if, instead, an exclamation point was added, (making it “news!”), the total search space is increased by a whopping 1,530 times! That's how important it is to choose passwords having at least one of every type of character. If anyone ever does try to crack your password, you will have eliminated all shorter searches.Funny thing is, almost every example I've seen of how to increase the complexity of your password uses the example of putting an exclamation mark or a 1 on the end. Based on what I know about people, that's exactly what they'll do, which doesn't increase the search space by as much as the author thinks, and might even convince the user to use a shorter password with a! On the end of it, which is worse. I wrote a nice long reply rebutting every single point then lost it when I hit backspace and focus was in the wrong part of the window. Grrr.The author gets lots of things confused:- He seems unaware that a rainbow table is equally effective against a good password as a bad one.- He seems to think a dictionary attack comprises wholly and exclusively of words taken from a dictionary with no added numbers, symbols or punctuation.
schneier.com, and I'm far more inclined to believe Mr. Schneier.- He believes that a likely avenue for attack is constantly guessing a given user's password on a website. Any half-sane web service will block you long before you've tried a few thousand passwords against one username.- He fails to note that in the case of LinkedIn, the list of password hashes itself was leaked - and this is Bad News.- He also fails to note that in the case of LinkedIn, the password hashes were unsalted - Much Worse News.- He also fails to note that if an unsalted list of password hashes is leaked, then it doesn't really matter how strong your password is, it's going to get found rather quickly.
There's very little you or I can do about this. You could refuse to use systems that have such terrible security, but usually you only learn their security is this bad when it's far too late.- He tops it off by recommending 10 character passwords with symbols and/or numbers. In other words, he falls foul of the problem described by Randall Munroe in xkcd.com some time ago. then it doesn't really matter how strong your password isWell, thats not quite true. A password with 128 bits of entropy is still going to be strong even when hashed unsalted.Leaked hash material is really only helpful for finding poor passwords via one of the brute force methods.
Lack of salts, or poor salting, is only helpful for rainbow table or rainbow dictionary type attacks.Choosing a good password will still help you. The only problem is websites that do one of the various bad behaviors:. forcing an capital or digit reduces entropy. limititng the max length reduces entropy. Very nice, MD5 hashes can be cracked quickly in massive parallel on GPU hardware. This only matters after the hashes have already been stolen.Actual security should be more systemic - the cost of a wrong guess is more than a nanosecond of GPU.
There are at least network delays, and in many cases lockouts. The latter make random guessing too costly/slow, especially progressive systems that allow 5 wrongs immediately, 10 in an hour, 20 in a day, and lock hard (manual intervention) above that.My father had one of the early ATM cards but had me operate the machinery. It had an 8 digit assigned PIN, but dropped quickly to 4 when it was realized the 8 were hard to remember, and swallowing the card after 3 wrong guesses was more than adequate.
I have to wonder why anyone listens to Steve Gibson about anything, ever. He goes back a long way, making sweeping claims about things he kind of understands based on research done by actual security professionals. Has he gotten better at things in the last decade or so? He always had a tendency to hear something, run off on a tangent creating press releases and small tools, and then get shouted down by the security community at large. Examples including who did the heavy lifting: Raw Sockets (l0pht/@stake IIRC and whoever the initial researcher was, they did NOT spin it as the apocalypse, as Gibson did), WMF (Ilfak Guilfanov), SYN Cookies (djb), DNS (Dan Kaminsky), and this article right here.Slashdot always seems to be his willing dupe and publicizes whatever he is concerned with at the moment.
Let's say you know 100% for sure that somebody is using xkcd's method.there are 15,222 words in the english language according to oxford english dictionary. How many are common 5, 6, and 7 letter words? Hard to say for sure.
I think 3000 or 4000 would be a good conservative guess, what do you think? Let's say 3000 to err on the side of caution.how many combinations of common 5,6, and 7 letter words does that give us to build a password based on xkcd's suggestion?3000^4that's 8.1 x 10^13 discrete combinations, counting the ability to reuse the same word.I'm asuming you didn't build a plaintext dictionary with all those possible combinations. At 1 byte per letter, and an average of 6 bytes per component word, that's 4.86 x 10^14 bytes, or a 442 terrabyte dictionary file. Where the hell are you storing that?no, i'm assuming you probably built a program specifically to build combinations of component words and brute force using that.
Sure that will eventually work, after it goes through its 8.1 x 10^13 itterartions (worst case). But hell, why are you trying to crack that hard a password when there are thousands out people out there whose password is just 'Password1'? The club doesn't make your car theftproof, it just makes it less inviting to the thief than the car next to it. You don't need to outrun the lion, you just need to outrun the slowest person in your group.and this is all assuming:1.
You somehow -know- which password generation method the person is using2. They didn't do what I do with that method, and throw a few uppercase and numbers in there anyway. My personal favourite is to translate some of the words into random languages after I have made the passphrase. It's not difficult to learn a few foreign words, but since the attacker doesn't know which languages you used he gets the fun task of trying ALL languages that use the latin script. Since there is more than 100 languages using latin characters in the world, even a moderate dictionary size of 10000 or so would give you a total of more than a million words, resulting in the generated passphrase havi. Took the advice from XKCD and I now use nonsense pass-phrases, eg 'purple grass grows on my bedroom ceiling'.
It is not too hard to remember, does not contain special characters (other than spaces) since they are hard to remember. Grc.com says that that pass-phrase has a search space of 6.94 x 10^70 and that the Massive Cracking Array Scenario (one hundred trillion guesses per second) would take 2.21 hundred billion trillion trillion trillion centuries - that is good enough for me. What system would allow someone to make thousands of attempts per second to login?That's not the problem.
The problem is that the lists of user logins and corresponding hashed passwords get in the wrong hands, whether it be due to bad design and/or coding, insecure software, or unfaithful servants. When you have that list, you run brute force against it to get the actual passwords.Breaking into servers is much more attractive than breaking individual user accounts, simply because the yield is so much higher. Make a good trojan delivered through good social engineering, and you may catch 1% of the users. Breach the server, and you get the account info of all of them, and by running a crack session, you likely have 20-50% of the passwords within hours.
Choose a very hard to crack password, and they may never get it even if they have the hash.This happens a lot more than what we think. A server breach doesn't have to leave traces that anyone actually sees.
We mostly know about the cases where the culprits brag about it or publish lists, which is unlikely to be more than the tip of the iceberg.Companies are going to insist that their data is safe until proven otherwise, but you're stupid if you believe them.Sony, Steam, LinkedIn, eHarmony - there are hundreds of server breaches with stolen user/hash lists that we know about. And likely an enormous amount we don't know about. Security assessment for password 'Parse error: syntax error, unexpected TPAAMAYIMNEKUDOTAYIM'Thanks for disclosing password 'Parse error: syntax error, unexpected TPAAMAYIMNEKUDOTAYIM' to us!Password Parse error: syntax error, unexpected TPAAMAYIMNEKUDOTAYIMScore0% - InsecureAssessmentYou just disclosed password 'Parse error: syntax error, unexpected TPAAMAYIMNEKUDOTAYIM' to an untrusted third party (us).
You have no way to find out what we intend to do with it. Maybe we logged it and intend to publish it or to use it against you?
For this reason, password 'Parse error: syntax error, unexpected TPAAMAYIMNEKUDOTAYIM' is now compromised. It is therefore insecure and should not be used in any situation.SuggestionsDo not disclose your passwords to any untrusted third party for any reason.If you are actually using password 'Parse error: syntax error, unexpected TPAAMAYIMNEKUDOTAYIM', stop using it and change it immediately.Change any other password you may have compromised in this way before you used the Estatis Password Security Checker.
Concrete cracks are repaired using different techniques and methods, such as epoxy injection depending on how wide, long and/or deep the crack is. Most of the concrete cracks are related to shrinkage, heat, wrong joint placements, over stress and loading conditions and movements caused by external factors. Some of these repairs are completed by using epoxy injections applied directly to the crack. The procedure is different and varies depending on the crack location and whether the concrete cracks are horizontal or vertical. When cracks go, and there is visibility from both ends of the concrete element, the epoxy can be injected from both ends. Sometimes the application might require to make the epoxy more flowable or use another method to inject the epoxy into the concrete. The builder might also want to inject the epoxy more closely than usual so it gets into the deepest part of the concrete crack.
Before deciding whether or not to use the epoxy repair, you will need to confirm that the cause of the crack is solved and no further movement is permissible. You should start by cleaning the extending up to half an inch to each side of the crack. This is needed to secure a proper bonding to the existing concrete crack. It is recommended to use wire brushes to clean the area or use a high-pressure water jet to clean the area, but allow it to dry before starting the process. If you are under time constraints, air dryers can be used to eliminate the moisture and water from the crack faster.
Mechanical tools are not recommended as additional debris might fall into the crack. The epoxy is injected using the ports, two at a minimum, that eliminates the need for drilling. The ports are to be spaced properly allowing the epoxy to be injected at the right locations. The recommended spacing for the ports is eight inches apart along the concrete crack. Once the ports are installed, you will need to seal the top of the crack. Cover the concrete crack using an epoxy paste (can be applied using a putty knife) along the crack length that will dry in about 30 minutes.
Crusader kings 2 crash loading flags. This paste needs to hold up during the pressure injection process. Start by injecting at the lowest port and keep applying until the epoxy is coming out of the next port or when the epoxy is no longer flowing. On horizontal cracks, start at the widest point of the crack to inject the epoxy. You might want to close the second port as this might help to accommodate the epoxy below the concrete surface.
Repeat the process until no more epoxy is flowing and then remove the cartridge. Move to the next open port or to the one that has epoxy coming out of it, and inject more epoxy. Start with a low-pressure injection setting and increase the pressure as needed.
Larger cracks require more epoxy injection pressure. When filling wide cracks, wait some time, not a lot, ensuring that the epoxy is filling the concrete crack. Remove the top seal using a chisel or scraper. You can also use a heat gun to remove the epoxy paste. Watch out for epoxy backflow as that could be a result of debris blocking the epoxy flow or perhaps the crack is not continuous. If there is a leak in the top seal, use a crayon to seal the small leaking area.
This is only recommended when it is a small leaking area. Garamond extra bold.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |