Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main thread

Would you consider purchasing a second hand Trader with a good survey report from Tarquin?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Np

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

[ QUOTE ]
I read it as it was tested 9000 times and a 1 kg lead weight was used. It states after lifting THIS object. The only this it can refer to is the 1 kg lead weight it stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll have to disagree on that then.

[ QUOTE ]
However,leave that aside and see the bigger picture about the point I was making. It is that after testing 9000 times the one given to the magazine failed because instead of less than ten seconds it took 15 minutes!!! That to me casts doubt over it all.
Why test something 9000 times? - 9000 gas cylinders etc. On every test it worked!!! Then give one to the mag and it does not work!!! Get real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you make claims that you can't possibly know are true based on what I've seen. It seems to take ages for magazines to get a review out of the door - its very possible that the magazine had a very early unit and testing (and refinement) has continue since. I've not read the particular review concerned though. Perhaps we can get an indication of when the review was carried out?

[ QUOTE ]
You are bending over so far backwards on this one you will fall /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No - I'm trying to be fair. You claim the product couldn't possibly work from a position of never having handled one, used it or tested it. Based one 5 minutes of edited TV footage of a pre-production unit (and you of all people should know how TV can be editted). You avoided any discussion on balloon size - there's been no discussion of the gas used I think. Certainly no engineer I know would be so bold as to make the presumptions you are making (guessing?).

I really think you've lost the plot on this Paul - why don't you just buy one, test it and make your solicitor even richer by suing Water Buoy?

I'll take you off ignore when you've done that, okay?

Rick
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Rick
[ QUOTE ]
Again, you make claims that you can't possibly know are true based on what I've seen. It seems to take ages for magazines to get a review out of the door - its very possible that the magazine had a very early unit and testing (and refinement) has continue since. I've not read the particular review concerned though. Perhaps we can get an indication of when the review was carried out?


[/ QUOTE ]
The mag review was in August this year - Neale when was the review carried out?

I really, really doubt if the 9000 succesful tests have been carried out since the magazine was supplied with the sample. That does not make sense but by all means choose what you wish to beleive, I think common sense points in my direction on this.

[ QUOTE ]
No - I'm trying to be fair. You claim the product couldn't possibly work from a position of never having handled one, used it or tested it. Based one 5 minutes of edited TV footage of a pre-production unit (and you of all people should know how TV can be editted). You avoided any discussion on balloon size - there's been no discussion of the gas used I think. Certainly no engineer I know would be so bold as to make the presumptions you are making (guessing?).


[/ QUOTE ]
Not true at all. I base everything on the simple science of what was claimed and the information or lack of it supplied since. A very balanced view that gave the maker every opportunity to answer dimple questions.

I did not avoid discussion on balloon size - i stated what size would be needed to change the SG to neutral with water. What I did not do was try to guess the size on the show as it was not required- the show displayed a 1 kg weight that it just lifted from a few inches deep. I alter discussed how much baloon size would be needed to lift a 1 kg steel weight from a standing depth - and then onto what would be needed to lift it when descending at depth and speed and clearly the size reuirments were well outside what WB could possibly be.

The fact is Rick that a litre baloon will not lift a 1 kg lump of lead dropped into the water. On the calc done on the other thread about 1.6 litres would be needed to lift from a standing start at the surface but much much more if you had to wait up to 10 secs for deployment.

Without even looking at Waterbuoy it is possible to reach sensible conclusions about what size balloon wouild be required to do this and that would show that the tiny gas cylinder inside WB could not possibly manage to get the volume of baloon at any depth past a few feet nor the volume to stop the descent. The sceince is independent of WB.

So I have not lost the plot /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I felt the WEB chap was out of his depth as it were and weven offered to help but I now feel that its not as simple as that. All I wanted him to do was explain a test EG we dropped it into 100 foot of water with a 1 kg of lead weight attached and it came to the surface in X seconds. I could not get that out of him - it was always vague. That, I beleive was for a reason.

I am more than happy to discuss baloon sizes required to do the job with you on thsi thread. You cannot buck the science. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Hi Rick

I'm (to a certain degree) with Paul on this.
From the technical viewpoint anyway.
If the device only just works with an effective 80g pull on it how could it possibly work with a 1000g pull on it.

However, Paul is being totally unreasonable.
Here is a technology that could be usefull to us.
For keys anyway - and how many of us would want to protecg a big bunch anyway.
Just the important ones - and I should think the device is great.

Back to Paul's point though - they shouldnt missrepresent what the device actually does - IMHO

Mike
PS
I dont know how to put anyone on ignore - well - I could probably find out but my system accepts everyone. If I dont like something - I just dont read it - Paul, I'm certainly not reading everything you post!!!
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Hurricane
I have already stated that if the trigger worked Ok then IMHO the device is fine for a typical bunch of keys but so too is another device deploying as baloon at a quarter of the cost. My only point is that the physics dictate the claims made for heavier weights, as you agree, are nonesense.
The alternative product claims a pulling power consistant with its size etc. WB does not.
So please tell me just what is unreasonable about that stance - a stance I have taken all the way through? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Gludy, I'm surprised you aren't suffering from Bi-thread disorder yet, posting a reply to the wrong one. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

At the risk of adding fuel to the flames I too was given three of these pre-production devices to test for MBY some months ago. I personally tested two of them using steel spanners weighing approx 500g in around four feet of saltwater. Neither one inflated at all, nor did the third one tested by a colleague, so I can't tell you whether it is capable of lifting a 500g spanner or not. Strangely they did appear to work for some of the other yachting titles.
I returned our failed ones to the company and was assured that it was a faulty batch caused by a manufacturing error affecting the trigger of some pre-production examples. In light of this I said that I wasn't prepared to feature them in Tried and Tested until the production versions were ready for re-testing. Hopefully these will be with us shortly. Rest assured that I will test a substantial number of them with a variety of weights, depths and water types. Personally I still think it's a useful little gadget but only if it is 100 per cent reliable and does what it says on the tin.

Hugo
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Hugo
If you do decide to test them at all can you please establish the pulling power at the surface - that is what they pull on a spring balance to submerge the inflated baloon.

If the trigger even dealys ten seconds in deep water then you will have increased the pressure on the baloon probably three or more times atmospheric- reducing the lifting power three or more times and now having the additionakl downward inertia of the load to stop.

I have no problem, providing the trigger work fast enough, to use this item for keys etc but the suggestion that it can lift heavy loads like 1 kg in real life conditions is silly and needs to be tested so that consumers are not misled.

I would also point out that as the item is not yet in production all devices to date including the 9000 ones claimed to have been tested are pre-production. Yet all we have heard about under test by mags have failed triggers!! So your apparoach is spot on.

A fishing hook maker friend iof mine sent out a pile of empty envelopes to a number of fishing magazines claiming that he had produced the world's smallest fish hook a size 32 - two magazines gave serious reviews foer the hooks!!! He posted the envelopes on 1st April but none noticed. The polyherne packets were empty!
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Oh dear, err...perhaps I'll postpone my purchase. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
You are indeed wise O Gludy and know much that is hidden.
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Using the KISS principle...

9,000 tests??? All successful!

Why?
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Unit 18 - no please go ahead and buy one - i will video the test but must point out that my tapes are only 90 minutes long /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

[ QUOTE ]
Using the KISS principle...

9,000 tests??? All successful!

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it sounds good and takes almost the same time to type 9 tests! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

No use over here Gludy, as we only have a very limited amout of areas with a depth of more than a foot, if you throw it in it will probably get stuck in the mud! Crikey, didn't need one in the first place!
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Well in that case just put your arm in without wasting anytime as there is nowt but skin to get wet!
Also if you cannot afford sleeves how could you afford a WB?????? Me thinks you are caught out!!! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Spent all my money on Waterbuoys that dont work! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: Err..Waterbuoy was tested by MBM (Please ignore its in the main th

Rick
we now know that a few montsh back samples were sent to MBY and all failed.
We know the sample in the MBM review failed.
We also know that MBY have yet to recive samples that work.
Do you not think that if they had tested 9000 succesful trails in the last few months after those failures they would have say after test 6000 beeen conficent enough to have sent samples that worked to both mags? Or am I still being unfair and over the top? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top