An idea of designing our own new moisture analyzers from scratch had surfaced here and there, when we were beaten by competition and learned the market acceptance of moisture analyzers made with top-loading balances was expanding. The advocates reported a rosy picture about the market potential adding to say new products were constantly being brought out by the competitors. The people who argued back always pointed out one very important issue saying we lacked application know-how to support customers. This is a solution business that requires intensive support. In other words we must be equipped with infrastructure through which we can propose solutions to customers in a timely manner.

To complicate the selling situation, moisture analyzers are put in a very harsh environment by nature (Refer to the editorial
“Test with The Best”, thus inaccuracies associated with a particular moisture analyzer in use have to be taken into consideration when choosing set parameters (heating temperature, time and etc.). When a weighing resolution of a moisture analyzer is crude, a large amount of samples must be used, which gives room for inherent uneven heating with some portion not being cooked or over cooked. Thus, even how to place a sample on the container must be considered. To overcome these problems, moisture analyzer manufacturers prefer receiving samples with information of what moisture content the customer is looking for. In other words, in case a customer is using a conventional oven system, for instance, manufacturers are expected to provide set parameters information, by which the customer can have similar or same results. Selling a moisture analyzer is a time-consuming proposal, which requires a good amount of time and know-how for pre-marketing.

We had three issues to attack when we finally decided to design a moisture analyzer of our own from scratch.
1) Design the most accurate and reliable hardware. 2) Make it competitive. 3) Propose how to sell. 

1) and 2) were great challenges themselves but our engineers’ determination has borne fruit. We have proved it by testing Sodium Tartrate Dihydrate, which has moisture content of 15.66% in crystallized form. The accuracy and reliability of the analyzer has minimized chances for errors associated with the instrument itself. Showing the superiority of the instrument alone, however, does not make it sell, as most often a customer knows the results he wants to have. He wants to be convinced with the fact it is a good enough investment to switch from the conventional method to the new method. When our moisture analyzer shows different results, how can we convince the customer the results he gets with our analyzers are more accurate than what he used to get, especially when he thinks he knows too well about the moisture content of the material he is testing? 

This is the very reason why we have gone through the troubles of developing “WinCT-Moisture”, by which one can monitor by PC how the moisture percentage changes as the sample is heated. “Visually seeing what is happening to samples while being tested must be most convincing to anyone,” said Yutaka Murata, General Manager of Weighing R&D. He added, “Besides, we ourselves learned a lot by graphically seeing what is happening to samples of all kinds.”

“Optimum Temperature Search” or “OTS” function (Patent pending) is the result of what we have learned through the analyses of the graphs that WinCT-Moisture has generated. When a sample is heated at a proper temperature, it dries fast initially, and then the rate of drying slows down as time passes. In other words it has a large change in moisture percentages and has less changes as it gets dried as shown in Graph (1). However, if the sample is heated at too high a temperature, it may get oxidized. In case of a material having flammable content and being heated at a higher temperature than its ignition temperature, it gets carbonized or burned, and its weight gets reduced drastically in a short time, whose behavior is similar to Graph (2). In case of a solid metal being oxidized, it may gain weight by absorbing oxygen, which is rare in normal moisture analysis. In case the material has volatile contents other than water, the behavior of the material differs at different temperatures or the graph will converge to indicate different moisture percentages with different temperatures.

Graph (1)	Graph (2)	Graph (3)

What differs in those different behaviors can be more clearly identified when the rate of the moisture percentage changes or the gradient of the moisture percentage graph or d (Moisture%)  at each point is mathematically calculated dt as the sample is heated.

As the rate of change of the moisture percentage approaches zero or the moisture percentage graph has no gradient, the material being dried releasing moisture content to air is converging to one result or the state “dried” indicating zero gradient. On the contrary when a material under test is being oxidized, the rate of change of moisture percentage does not converge into one result indicating a sudden increase in gradients. Instead it starts diverging continuously until it is “burned”.  Having observed those phenomena and experimented with numerous different materials, we have come up with the revolutionary concept of automatically searching for an optimum temperature for testing by software, which we named “Optimum Temperature Search” or “OTS”. A typical example of OTS analysis is shown in Graph (3). This should be the most innovative and powerful function built into WinCT-Moisture. We created the WinCT-Moisture so that a customer can do the self-learning without needing to rely on us too much, which we intended to make our response to the question of “how to sell”. We have learned so much instead in the process of creating WinCT-Moisture and have come up with the ultimate solution or the intelligent function of “OTS”, which, when properly used, would mean a new way of selling moisture analyzers.“WinCT-Moisture” and “OTS” let you go through the learning experiences quickly so that using or selling MX-50 will be fun.Sept. 2002

You may address any comments concerning this editorial by email to Mr. Eto