Additive Tests This Issue PBO

[Gludy]

I have read with interest the fuel addative test this month.
I am told by the test was carried out in labs owned by the winner of the additives.
So my question to the ditor of the PBO is - is that true?

 

[Salty John]

Re: Additive Tests This Issue PBO

Yes, it says so in the article. It also says the tests were blind so the lab doing the tests did not know the identity of the products it was testing.

 

[Gludy]

Re: Additive Tests This Issue PBO

Thats absurd because Soltron is not biocide - the lab owners is a biocide hence they must know.

I frankly am amazed that the mag did this and cannot accept the outcome. The blind test is rubbish as well anyone who thinks about it must know.

 

[Guest]

Re: Additive Tests This Issue PBO

[ QUOTE ]
Thats absurd because Soltron is not biocide - the lab owners is a biocide hence they must know.

I frankly am amazed that the mag did this and cannot accept the outcome. The blind test is rubbish as well anyone who thinks about it must know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own and run a Petrochem Lab and we do Additive testing .... it would be difficult to disguise a product especially if you are in the biz !

I can throw a Fuel Oil sample at my lab .... and they will tell me the source quite easily. I can throw an additive ... that is a bit harder as many additives for same job are very near same ... OOOPS shouldn't have said that !! They do have extras added .. so they give the game away !

I'm not saying Mag was being naive ... but maybe some pertinent questions should be raised ?

 

[Gludy]

Re: Additive Tests This Issue PBO

I agree and in this case it is even worse because of the manner in which Soltron worked was different to at least 8 of the othjers and thus had to be tested differently.

Amaongly the product that is hardly available anywhere but comes out tops is the very same product as owned by the Lab but how were they to know their own product? .... they would have to be idiots not to know.

I really think that the magazine's integrity is at stake here and I would like the editor to answer these points.

 

[steverow]

Re: Additive Tests This Issue PBO

A fully independent test would have cost serious money I suspect, so therefore I guess that the "lab" did this on the cheap or maybe even free.
Anyway it can hardly be called independent and must have given the lab a good chance to promote it's own products, which it would appear they exploited.
Anyway they got five pages of good copy out of it...what does it matter if they ruin the reputation of a few products in the process.
Ive used Soltron for a number of years like many others had no problems.

 

[Gludy]

Re: Additive Tests This Issue PBO

Steve
Just an updat off thread.
Trader got my HF arial working - they had installed a capactor or condensor and it worked after they removed that - I will be able to chack it this weekend.

 

[Robin]

I've just read the article too. Even IF the lab were absolutely honest their results MUST be doubted and the test worthless for the simple reason that they are NOT independent or simply not SEEN to be so. To claim the tests were blind is quite frankly incredible, if they couldn't recognise their own not to mention one that was an enzyme not a biocide they should not be in business.

The last comparitive test that I recall from PBO was on antifouls and if I recall correctly there were some strange results tabulated in that too. Comparitive product testing is something we are all interested in, but publishing results that can be suspected as biased just make them all worthless, even if they were correct.

 

[BrendanS]

The magazine is not staffed by scientists, so probably unlikely to understand how to set up a true blind procedure, never mind a credible scientific test.

 

[Robin]

That may be so but commonsense says it is rubbish, do they not have that either? If in doubt ask someone who knows, this just makes them look incompetent.

 

[BrendanS]

there is so much interest in this that surely someone can set up a true and credible test?

 

[steverow]

Surely Nigel would know firms in the industry that will be able to do a fully independent test for them..I'm sure they would only have to ask!

 

[BrendanS]

There are several people here that could set up an independent test.

 

[gjeffery]

Unfortunately, PBO is too often technically incorrect, and frustratingly, they don't appear to attempt to conform with established standards. Technical articles deserve to be refereed.

The scientific ignorance of many UK journalists is matched by an insulting indifference. I even offered to proof read!

 

[Aja]

In an already murky area where there have been numerous claims/counter claims and much rubbishing on the PBO forum, it seems that PBO have shot themselves in the foot here. A missed opportunity for progression.

Bad, amateurish, journalism.

Donald

 

[Gludy]

I very much agree and would add that such articles can actually damage the good products and reward the poor products. A disservice to the readers.

I would welcome a comment from the editor.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely Nigel would know firms in the industry that will be able to do a fully independent test for them..I'm sure they would only have to ask!

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I could ... and as I am not in conflict or the market on retail add's - could even do the testing myself.

But the costs are high ... you also have to create a fuel sample that is contaminated, bug'd, water in suspension etc. So it takes considerable setting up and time.
Control would have to be implemented as well where clean fuel is also tried against each product ...

I can give you an approximate - an individual test for "bugs" on diesel can run to several 00's of $'s to perform and takes 5 days to complete with constant temp. / incubation monitoring.

Who's going to Pay ? Are the Additive Co's going to pay ? I doubt it. Will the Mag pay ? Doubt it. Me ? Sorry but it's a competitive and "tight-margin" world out there .. I would love to provide the service and answer the question once and for all ... but economics prevents me.

What I will say is this ... Product is available to Oil Company's that does work ... and it is at a price that some could if they were inclined buy in and re-package ... sell on Retail at greater price. But I'm sure no-one would do that ?
It is also possible that dose rates are higher quoted to unsure no "returns / arguments" with product providers etc. I always advocate careful use of any additive whatever the reason for use ....

Example - I have a product that is advised by producer to use at 15 - 20ppm dose rate .... per 1ppm contaminant reduction required. Field use has actually shown consistently that 11 - 13ppm dose rate exceeds quantity required to have 1ppm reduction.

Finally ... if someone has been using Soltron ... Fuel Set ..... Xxxxxx ........ and they have had success - what is the problem ?

Isn't it a bit like a Rope Cutter on the Prop ... you only know about a problem when you don't use one ...

Oh ... me ? I don't use add's in my fuel !! Except for odd Injector cleaner or dose of Winterisation agent ... But that's me ....

 

[Jake]

Hi everyone

The Ed is away having a well earned break at the moment, and I'm sure she'll comment when she gets back. Just for the record, in my days as Ed of MBM we also ran a comprehensive diesel bug test. It was a nightmare. First, the cost. A minimum of £2,500 for an independent lab to put it all together for us, plus a lot of expenses for the technical staff to run back and forth to get pix and updates over a two-week period.

We footed the entire bill, and got some back from YM who also ran a feature based on our findings.

I remember that some treatments, such as Soltron and a magnetic 'filter' fell outside the MBM test parameters, and ideally needed a test of their own.
I'm sure the Ed will fill you in on how this one went. I do know we agonised over it, and had a great deal of trouble finding a lab that could actually run it, and at a cost that wouldn't blow our annual contributors budget! We were also acutely aware of the fact that this lab produced their own product, but were assured that it wouldn't affect the findings. The writer spent literally weeks talking to a whole panel of independent experts - who often disagreed with each other!

All feedback is welcome, of course - but rest assured that PBO has a huge resource of known and trusted professionals that we run our in-house stuff past for checking. It's vital.

 

[Gludy]

I am sorry Jake but that answer is simply not adequate.

The fact is you allowed a test to be conducted by a lab owned by a company who not only tested their own product but placed it at the top of the list!!!

What you have achieved is a disservice to your readers by producing such a biased article.

It would have been better not to do it than do it than do it in the manner you did.

Now please answer this - soltron requires a different test method, as you yourself admit, so how is it possible for the test to be blind? It simply cannot be.

I am now questioning the entire technical ability of your mag - can I ever believe anything you write again?

I know why don't you hand over boats to be tested to competitors?

 

[BrendanS]

[ QUOTE ]
why don't you hand over boats to be tested to competitors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's not such a bad idea. You might not get the highlights, but every fault would be illuminated, and they'd have to be factual or they'd get sued!