Gludy
Well-Known Member
That could be right!!! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Additive Tests This Issue PBO
- Thread starter Gludy
- Start date
Birdseye
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not "commonsense" but cynicism. We used to do lab tests of our materials and of competitors, providing the full results to our customers. We were always totally honest and if the competitors product was better we said so. Anything other than that would have been both unscientific and dishonest. It would also have been bad business because honesty built trust.
I dont buy the idea that everything has to be independant because everyone is basically dishonest particularly in technical areas. Yes we all know that PBO et al mince words in boat tests but these are opinions not technical facts.
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not "commonsense" but cynicism. We used to do lab tests of our materials and of competitors, providing the full results to our customers. We were always totally honest and if the competitors product was better we said so. Anything other than that would have been both unscientific and dishonest. It would also have been bad business because honesty built trust.
I dont buy the idea that everything has to be independant because everyone is basically dishonest particularly in technical areas. Yes we all know that PBO et al mince words in boat tests but these are opinions not technical facts.
misterg
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
I've just re-read the article, and frankly struggle to understand what you're getting your knickers in a twist about - do you have links with Soltron??
The article clearly states that it is testing (quote):
"..the products' ability to:
a) Decontaminate heavily infected marine diesel (..) and
b) Prevent microbial growth"
They also state that the lab produces its own additives, which makes one suspicious, but, IMHO, they have gone about the testing in a scientific manner, and the results are assessed quantitively using automated equipment. What more can they do? Are you accusing the lab of falsifying data? That would be an extremely risky course of action for any commercial laboratory!
I would be interested to know how many of the contributors to this thread have read the article. You are casting a lot of aspersions around, and I for one don't understand why. Soltron may work well as an injector cleaner, or a substitute for viagra, but that isn't what the test was evaluating.
I've no connection with PBO, or anyone else involved, I don't even buy diesel.
Dons flameproof suit.
Andy
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
I've just re-read the article, and frankly struggle to understand what you're getting your knickers in a twist about - do you have links with Soltron??
The article clearly states that it is testing (quote):
"..the products' ability to:
a) Decontaminate heavily infected marine diesel (..) and
b) Prevent microbial growth"
They also state that the lab produces its own additives, which makes one suspicious, but, IMHO, they have gone about the testing in a scientific manner, and the results are assessed quantitively using automated equipment. What more can they do? Are you accusing the lab of falsifying data? That would be an extremely risky course of action for any commercial laboratory!
I would be interested to know how many of the contributors to this thread have read the article. You are casting a lot of aspersions around, and I for one don't understand why. Soltron may work well as an injector cleaner, or a substitute for viagra, but that isn't what the test was evaluating.
I've no connection with PBO, or anyone else involved, I don't even buy diesel.
Dons flameproof suit.
Andy
Vara
Well-Known Member
I think that that your reaction is a little OTT,Some research would indicate that the Lab in question is reputable and pretty well regarded.
They would be absolute mugs if they ruined their reputation by distorting results in such a way as to "puff" their products.
On a strictly commercial basis I doubt whether the amount of fuel treatment sold to the boating community would make a significant difference to their turnover.(guessing here).
Usual caveats etc etc.
They would be absolute mugs if they ruined their reputation by distorting results in such a way as to "puff" their products.
On a strictly commercial basis I doubt whether the amount of fuel treatment sold to the boating community would make a significant difference to their turnover.(guessing here).
Usual caveats etc etc.
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
Jake.
If the lab have ended up suggesting their own product, which seems pretty obscure stuff from what I have read, can you simply charge the article as a large advert? Might cover the costs at least, or get them to reconsider their level of fee.
If the lab have ended up suggesting their own product, which seems pretty obscure stuff from what I have read, can you simply charge the article as a large advert? Might cover the costs at least, or get them to reconsider their level of fee.
davidfox
Well-Known Member
Well said Andy
misterg
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If the lab have ended up suggesting their own product
[/ QUOTE ]
From reading the article, the lab didn't make any suggestions, they merely provided 4 pieces of information:
1)The number of 'bugs' in contaminated fuel samples 3 hours after dosing with a 'shock' treatment
2)The number of 'bugs' in the same samples after 3 days
3)The time taken for these 3 day samples to flow through a standard 0.8µm filter
4)The number of 'bugs' in another (less) contaminated fuel sample 14 days after dosing with a 'preventative' dose
Andy
If the lab have ended up suggesting their own product
[/ QUOTE ]
From reading the article, the lab didn't make any suggestions, they merely provided 4 pieces of information:
1)The number of 'bugs' in contaminated fuel samples 3 hours after dosing with a 'shock' treatment
2)The number of 'bugs' in the same samples after 3 days
3)The time taken for these 3 day samples to flow through a standard 0.8µm filter
4)The number of 'bugs' in another (less) contaminated fuel sample 14 days after dosing with a 'preventative' dose
Andy
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I think you will find a lot of background history between the firm that did the testing and Soltron.
Frankly if some of you think that its OK to have a lab test its own products and use a a flawed method for testing Soltron - then we live on different planets. I think you will find PBO having to publish the truth about this matter in a future edition of the mag.
The product that won is a very hard to find product that was on the market a while back and died a death - its hardly available from anywhere and it just so happens that this obscure product came top!!!!!! Its just so happened that the lab owns the producty that came top!! its just so happens that the test cwas claimed to be blind when a different method had to be used for Soltron - cannot be blind.
Well each to their own opinion, as far as I am concerned I have lost a lot of respect for the mag and will not be renewing my subscription unless they admit mto the mistake and then put the matter right.
Frankly if some of you think that its OK to have a lab test its own products and use a a flawed method for testing Soltron - then we live on different planets. I think you will find PBO having to publish the truth about this matter in a future edition of the mag.
The product that won is a very hard to find product that was on the market a while back and died a death - its hardly available from anywhere and it just so happens that this obscure product came top!!!!!! Its just so happened that the lab owns the producty that came top!! its just so happens that the test cwas claimed to be blind when a different method had to be used for Soltron - cannot be blind.
Well each to their own opinion, as far as I am concerned I have lost a lot of respect for the mag and will not be renewing my subscription unless they admit mto the mistake and then put the matter right.
Robin
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Not "commonsense" but cynicism. We used to do lab tests of our materials and of competitors, providing the full results to our customers. We were always totally honest and if the competitors product was better we said so. Anything other than that would have been both unscientific and dishonest. It would also have been bad business because honesty built trust.
I dont buy the idea that everything has to be independant because everyone is basically dishonest particularly in technical areas. Yes we all know that PBO et al mince words in boat tests but these are opinions not technical facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
I 'm not saying that they are not honest. What I am saying is that they not only have to be honest but that have to be SEEN to be honest.
In ths article the magazine claims that the tests were conducted 'blind' implying that even a properly competent laboratory would still be unable to identify which product was which, whilst at the same time saying that one or two of the products were different and therefore not subject to the same tests, thereby immediately identifying those 'blind' products. I believe that is a serious contradiction and one that rightly or wrongly sheds doubt on the results.
As I said, the laboratory may indeed have performed genuinely independent tests and it is but mere chance that their particular products came out tops.
BTW I have no connection with any of the companies or their products other than as most forumites as a very interested user.
Not "commonsense" but cynicism. We used to do lab tests of our materials and of competitors, providing the full results to our customers. We were always totally honest and if the competitors product was better we said so. Anything other than that would have been both unscientific and dishonest. It would also have been bad business because honesty built trust.
I dont buy the idea that everything has to be independant because everyone is basically dishonest particularly in technical areas. Yes we all know that PBO et al mince words in boat tests but these are opinions not technical facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
I 'm not saying that they are not honest. What I am saying is that they not only have to be honest but that have to be SEEN to be honest.
In ths article the magazine claims that the tests were conducted 'blind' implying that even a properly competent laboratory would still be unable to identify which product was which, whilst at the same time saying that one or two of the products were different and therefore not subject to the same tests, thereby immediately identifying those 'blind' products. I believe that is a serious contradiction and one that rightly or wrongly sheds doubt on the results.
As I said, the laboratory may indeed have performed genuinely independent tests and it is but mere chance that their particular products came out tops.
BTW I have no connection with any of the companies or their products other than as most forumites as a very interested user.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
From what i am hearing on the grapvine there seems to be a question of the company doing the lab tests as having some history in as much as it lost its NATO supply business to Soltron. If that is the case then it is even mmore incredible.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It is more than just Soltron that is affected by the 'blind' issue. For any test to be worthwhile each product needs to be used strictly, to the letter, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; are we saying that all the products had identical instructions on the pack?
It sounds wrong to me and begs an explanation.
It sounds wrong to me and begs an explanation.
Vara
Well-Known Member
I would be interested to see any documented proof of Soltron being supplied to NATO other than as an evaluation sample.
Grapevine doesn't cut it.
If you have a good product,then back it up.Most of the evidence and advertising from products like Soltron seem to rely on anecdotal evidence from users.This may be valid/or not.
It's a bit like the towed watermaker,it would be great if it worked but hard evidence is hard to come by.
In the past I've used Soltron and had no problems with the bug,but the aura of mystery that surrounds it leaves me uneasy.
Grapevine doesn't cut it.
If you have a good product,then back it up.Most of the evidence and advertising from products like Soltron seem to rely on anecdotal evidence from users.This may be valid/or not.
It's a bit like the towed watermaker,it would be great if it worked but hard evidence is hard to come by.
In the past I've used Soltron and had no problems with the bug,but the aura of mystery that surrounds it leaves me uneasy.
