then keep some type of a check on his workmanship. Because that's really what a unit is all about... selection first of materials and then using them properly for your construction.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you.

Participant: I just wanted to say that we are manufacturers, and I suppose there are many of us in SIGMA, who have been manufacturers for over ten years now. I can assure you that we are very grateful to the manufacturers of sealants for their having upgraded their sealants because I know they have. With the help of the sealant manufacturers and their standard quality control, and SIGMA, and the testing that we have done, units today are much better than they could possibly have been ten years ago. It only stands to reason that in-plant quality control must be taken care of.

Mr. Robinson: Well, here's a question that we've discussed at some length and with many views expressed, so unless someone feels very strongly I would suggest we retire that particular question for this meeting. I see a hand.

Participant: Could we hear from Mr. Stout about his feelings as a consumer of insulating glass? He's one of the few here . . . what his feelings are on specifications and what he's going to look for.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Stout, do you care to comment on this?

C. C. Stout: The manufacturing of high quality insulating glass units, as we have seen it, depends on the combination of materials, the combination of design, the combination of production techniques, and of in-plant quality control and testing. I brought that out earlier. It seems to me that perhaps you're looking for the government or some Joe Smoe or someone to solve your problems, and I think a lot of them have to be solved by yourselves. There is one thing that I would like to impress upon you. I go back to that little analysis I made on the board concerning value vs. price. May I read something to you-It comes out of Webster's Dictionary. The word is value and one way they define it is this . . . "the quantity of money which an article is likely to command in the long run, as distinct from its price in an individual instance."

Participant: I think Mr. Stout and the preceding manufacturer who spoke are both correct in what they said. Mr. Stout and I think the problem is that of manufacturers here today. We can learn a good deal from manufacturers, and I think it will be interesting to learn what I do as specifier, how I go about specifying material to be used in the buildings we design. There are hundreds of materials that go into a building and I couldn't possibly become conversant with all of them. Now for each of these hundred materials that are manufactured, there are at least two dozen manufacturers of that material. So I would have to be conversant with 25,000 manufacturers

in this country, and I couldn't possibly expect to have knowledge about every material.

What do I do if I don't have a suitable standard, and apparently we don't have the standard today that I would use.

I go to the most eligible manufacturers that I know and use their material because I don't have the time to look into and investigate all of the materials that are made. And so, I have to limit myself to those people that I think can do the job based on their own research, their own know-how, and their capability.

I don't want those specifications by the customer. I like to have competition. I don't want my clients job-priced out of the market if I have choice of specifications. Specifically, there are individual manufacturers' specifications, that are used in the absence of the manufacturer's name. If I don't like that particular specification I am not obliged to use it directly if I can find a manufacturer who can meet the qualifications. And so for your own welfare, if you want to get the right specifications, you had better adopt a standard because I don't have the time to look into your own material when I have hundreds of other materials to look into. I couldn't possibly begin to have time to investigate all these materials and so we must abide by or rely on a standard that is acceptable to the manufacturer, the consumer, and to all of the general interest that made that standard.

Mr. Robinson: Gentlemen: I am sorry to say that there are only 18 minutes before lunch. I think as moderator I should attempt here to summarize matters at least as they look to me.

It appears first, in regard to standards for sealed insulating units, that there is one possible course of action somewhat independent of your industry directly. The needs of Governmental agencies in procurement and investment for this advantageous product may require them to adopt some present specification, or something else, depending on what it was thought would provide the best results, to assure their procurement of high-quality units. Such unilateral action might not be the best way-it would seem preferable that there be joint action by industry and Government, to assure that the similar needs of both the private and the public purchasers of insulating units are recognized and met. If the industry has developed, is developing, or will develop, a standard that can be generally accepted, and that can be implemented feasibly, then the immediate need would be met, and a necessary progressive step accomplished.

At the same time, in the report given yesterday, I was not able to tell you that meeting the specifications now existing provides assurance, at present, as to the prospective satisfactory life of units in service. Inversely, there is a better case for the conclusion that units that fail present specifications have weak prospects for long satisfactory service. It is of interest that one of our panel

members, having the consumer point of view, has reported to us that in the experience of his company if failures occur in service they tend to occur in the first year or two.

It seems to me important to emphasize the longterm need of the industry-correlation of data on field performance and accelerated laboratory test performance. Much work and considerable time are required to develop reliable correlations. Nevertheless, the acceptance and growing use of insulating glass products depends on satisfactory performance in the field, and on predictable durability from laboratory testing. I interject here the comment that the immediate need of the industry for a good standard or specification is related directly with the need for correlations. Field experience with units that would not have passed the laboratory tests would not assist in developing reliable correlations; on the contrary, it would obscure the effort.

The laboratory techniques that are selected or developed to conduct accelerated laboratory tests on units for determination of compliance with specifications are quite important for another reason. A good deal of expenditure, and a large testing capacity for determining compliance of the units of the various manufacturers in a reasonable time, will be required. For this reasonand in addition to the need that the selected test methods be realistically meaningful and reasonable there is need for selection or development of testing apparatus that is well standardized so that it can be duplicated in several places at not too much cost, and can handle a large number of units, preferably of various sizes, at one time under uniform and controlled conditions. There is also a need for assurance that the testing equipment and procedures at one testing-facility yield test results satisfactorily comparable or equivalent to those of another, if there is more than one.

The round-robin that Mr. McKinley suggested, to be undertaken under the auspices of ASTM Committee E--6, is aimed at an evaluation of existing test methods and procedures for laboratory testing of insulating glass units. It would appear, from the discussion that took place, that many in your industry would like to participate in it. Let us take a sounding. How many here would be interested in cooperating with the Task Group in conducting this round-robin? I see 15 hands. Now, can we ascertain what percentage these represent of all the unit manufacturers that are here? Will all such manufacturers present make a show of hands? It looks to me that, in round numbers, about 75 percent are interested, and willing to participate. That is very promising. If we can elicit a similar response from others who are not present, the round-robin will have a fine potential. May I suggest that each of you who has indicated an interest in participating drop a line to Bob McKinley so that he can keep you informed and keep in touch with you. I think we can assume that Bob would equally like to hear from

any others of similar mind who may not have been represented here this morning.

Before we conclude, does anyone here wish to make a further comment or statement? . . . Mr. Pearl.

Mr. J. Pearl: I would like to summarize here the position and attitude of SIGMA. We are going to continue working on our present and prospective association programs. We want to cooperate in every way as regards establishing a standard, and to cooperate in the round-robin with Mr. McKinley of ASTM. At this time I cannot state that SIGMA can involve itself in something like the Research Associateship. However, it will be taken under consideration. That is essentially what I have to say.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you very much... Mr. Stout.

Mr. Stout: Just a comment. We obviously would heartily support a good performance improvement beginning in the industry. We think it is essential, and I am sure there are many others who recognize the need for a good standard. I think that most people in this industry are trying to improve their products and I am sympathetic with them. We go to the people that have the talent to produce a good performing part that will last for the life of the structure. And don't get frightened about this "life of the structure" thing. I think you have to take a step. We stuck our neck out 11 years ago. We're glad we did, we didn't go broke, and we did make some progress. The day of recognition came when we started to depend on the capabilities of good producers.

But standards are important. I have worked on a few committees and I am familiar with, and I encourage that you work with, the Canadians; and because I am a Swede, I would add a few Swedes too. Finally I want to say that there is an awful lot of insulating glass business in the world and the future. Tremendous.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Stout. That has a good sound. Gentlemen, the future beckons and what will happen depends on what you do now and tomorrow. I want to thank you as an audience, and as a most participative fifth element of this panel, and I now turn the meeting back to Chairman Bob McKinley.

Mr. McKinley: Thank you very much, Henry. I really believe that most of you have had almost as good a time as I have had and we have learned a great deal. It has been pleasant to be with you. The National Bureau of Standards' hospitality certainly has been wonderful.

I think Dr. Wright can report to Dr. Astin that you all deserve credit for personal hospitality. All Americans can be proud of our NBS facilities and I suspect that all of our foreign visitors are pleased that we have set a good standard. The number of people here from the Construction Specifications Institute makes it apparent that their interest is active. The Building Research Institute, another one of the sponsors, helped also

to build attendance. Mr. MacLeod's active participation, representing the ASTM Board, has been a major contribution.

Mr. McKinley: We are going to adjourn immediately. Luncheon is scheduled. The joint seminar committee will be meeting around the lunch

eon table to wind up their assignments. Among the things we will do is prepare a brief formal report to our sponsors. We will arrive at some decision on publication of the papers and material presented here, which, I believe, each of those who registered will receive. I thank you all.