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: Are you mad?

[ QUOTE ]
you have no concept of what you are dealing with here

[/ QUOTE ]Yeah, I see what you mean.
I have some experience with other Italian pudding-like bombs (apologies, don't know how to translate them).
It's hard to believe I know.
But my device will handle also such ultra high density items, I promise.
 
Re: Consider it done

Neale
I agree with much of what you have written.

I agree that most things are lost in harbours and shallowish water etc
I agree that there is little need to take the 1 kg lead test out to sea. It was The WB chap who started that one – I never mentioned lead before that. He claimed successful tests doing just that. I frankly do not believe a word.

But I have to disagree on other things.

The first is the can of beans. A can of beans is actually very low density because the contents are neutral density, it is basically the displaced weight of the empty tin that is pulling down and that is tiny. All you have to support if 80 grams for every kilo of beans or about 35 grams lift of one can of beans. On the other hand 150 grams of keys or 600 grams of a radio because if their higher density require a bigger lifting load than a can of beans. So the device that can be purchased for about £2 claims a lifting load much greater than the one you exhibited in your test.

A reasonable test would be what weight of keys the device could bring to the surface in ten foot of water. Steel spanners are also a good way to test. Agreed?

Because keys are steel they have a fairly high density. Tests will low density beans are misleading. Taking a 400 gram tin of beans and a 400 gram weight of steel it takes ten times the force to lift the steel compared to the beans.

I also think that if a product is claiming it can lift a kilo weight it should be able to do so. It has to perform to what it states on the packet to be fair to the consumer and other products. The other device sold for as little as £2 a go can lift about 4 tins of beans but that demonstration would be misleading. They sensibly state the lifting power as about ten keys.

Nor does the buoyancy just depend on the balloon size. The cheap device has no heavy cylinder etc that reduces its surplus buoyancy.

I think you should measure with a spring balance what force is required to submerge the inflated balloon and state that as it surface lifting power. I also think you should warn users that if dropped into deep water then the device may not return with the higher loads. This very much depends upon how fast the device triggers.

Throughout this discussion I have been at pains to point out the physics, which are just statements of fact. Had WB himself been more cooperative then the issues could have been put to rest. My main concern is to stop users believing in untrue claims and that is I believe what your first review is guilty of doing.


This has BEAN an interesting discussion anyway and a good laugh with some fantastic contributions from forumites.
 
Re: Consider it done

[ QUOTE ]
Neale
But I have to disagree on other things.

The first is the can of beans. A can of beans is actually very low density because the contents are neutral density, it is basically the displaced weight of the empty tin that is pulling down and that is tiny. All you have to support if 80 grams for every kilo of beans or about 35 grams lift of one can of beans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Paul but I think you are wrong there. Firstly the contents do not have neutral density. Chuck some beans in the water and they sink, fairly quickly. Also a full tin of beans will sink at a much greater rate than an empty tin, in fact having only recently dropped a spanner into St Peter Port marina, I can say that the speed of descent of the full bean tin was similar to the spanner. An empty tin will sink noticably slower.
 
Re: Consider it done

Neale
I measured a tin of mushy peas and weighed it - the desnity was 1.08 - just 8% denser than water - steel is about 600% denser.

Ok beans may have a very slightly postive buoyancy but there is not much in it and all that matter is the overall SG which I have measured. My only assumption is that beans are the same as mushy peas - do you accept that or shall I measure o tin of beans? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

An empty tin will have a lot of drag for its weight so it may sink slower but what I was trying to say is that its only the tin and now I concede maybe a slight negative buoyancy in the contents that causes the total negative buoyancy. Measure a tin yourself, work out the voume and weigh it and you will see just how low the SG is.

I have left shape and drag out of all the physics to date as it was bad enough getting the basics over.
 
Re: Consider it done

Look what I found. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

The Editor—Sir,
I noted with interest the Case of the Month in February [1], demonstrating multiple high density filling defects in the stomach, which it transpired were baked beans. I was surprised that they could find no reference to this in the literature (though when I looked I was equally unsuccessful). This appearance was brought to my attention by senior colleagues when I was a research fellow in CT some years ago. The explanation, I suspect, is largely not the presence of high atomic number materials (the authors mention iodine, iron sulphate, other trace elements such as magnesium, manganese and molybdenum amongst others). Unless high atomic number elements are present in high concentrations, it is the electron density of a material that most markedly affects its CT number, this is closely related to the physical density of the material. Baked beans are dense! They sink in the tomato sauce. It is for the same reason that a fresh blood clot is of high CT number – not the iron content but the physical density of (haemoglobin) blood cells compacted together with serum excluded.
 
Re: Consider it done

Perhaps Neale is a bit embarrassed at his "test"?

Don't feel so bad, I read it when it came out and took it for its word. Didn't even think about SG.

Lots has been learned! I've also enjoyed the ride.
 
Re: Consider it done

Gludy I'm shocked and appalled that you used a completely different entity from that used by MBM, and then you had the audacity to publish your findings without revealing this!
Yours, Appalled of Wimbledon, oh, and shocked as well.
 
Re: Consider it done

Well Fred, I can assure you I am not in the slightest bit embarassed. I stand by what I am saying, the WB has its faults but it does pretty much what you would expect it to do, albeit possibly not with lumps of lead in 100 ft of water, although this has not been proved yet.
 
Re: Consider it done

Unit 18, you know I was just thinking maybe mushy peas and beans may have a different density.

Gludy, I think you do need to measure the density of beans, but you should in these fora, details your exact test method and have the results independantly verified before I will accept them. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: Consider it done

Of course they are Neale, yer bean is dense and hard and your mushy pea is....well mushy. Not the same at all. He should be ashamed of himself!
I think video evidence, which Gludy is always quick to offer, is needed here.
 
Re: Consider it done

[ QUOTE ]
beans may have a very slightly postive buoyancy

[/ QUOTE ]You surely meant slightly negative, don't u?
[ QUOTE ]
An empty tin will have a lot of drag for its weight so it may sink slower

[/ QUOTE ]Absolutely. I'm not as expert as you in physics, but in reply to neale: just think about putting the tin in a pressing machine, and see how it goes down afterward: same material, same mass, just different shape.
 
Re: Consider it done

I've got a terrible feeling that as Gludy has gone quite he's having a rummage around in his Fortnum's Hamper in a desperate bid to find the Beans for a match up with the Mushy peas.
 
Re: Consider it done

I did declare my density tests were carried out on mushy peas and I did declare the assumption that mushy peas were the same density as baked beans. In fact I have been accsued of mentioning lead, which i did not and then accused of not mentioning mushy peas which i did. - it a very unjust world.

Its seems to me that Neale has placed to much weight on his baked beans and this fact when combined with the other fact - it took 15 minutes to surface can only lead to one conclusion and that sir is based upon what everyone know what happens to baked beans after a time - they generate gas!!!

Mind you mushy peas have also been know to generate gas but not as much. I mean a film (Blazing Saddles) has been made about the properties of baked beans but not one film to date about mushy peas (unless someone knows better). So it could be my assumption needs to be tested but this time I have to determine the SG of the beans after they have beanz immersed in water for 15 minutes.

No matter what now, after this long thread I shall never be able to look at the mushy peas on my plate without my mind drifting off to water boy and his antics. In a way this will spoil my consumption of this favourite food item purchased from Asda at only 9 pence per tin!!!

I dare say that if Neal should ever receive some new WB's in his hands, he will set about his testing with shaking hands and consdierable care knowing just how much every word he writes will be digested and analysed. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Consider it done

Mapism
Someone else claimed beans floated - I think - so did O concede a point that I should not have conceded? Or am I becoming confused?

Thank you for the support offered about the drag on baked bean tins, which I always have thought was the same as that on mushy pea tins - that is sahpe for shape as it were.

I still think that Neal's write up was at least half baked. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Consider it done

[ QUOTE ]

Mind you mushy peas have also been know to generate gas but not as much. I mean a film (Blazing Saddles) has been made about the properties of baked beans but not one film to date about mushy peas (unless someone knows better).

[/ QUOTE ]

buhahahahah /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif great film reference.

I was put off Mushy Peas at a tender age after my older brother thought it would be good to make me watch the the film "The Exorcist". Every time I look at a plate of mushy peas my mind cuts to the "head turning and throwing up mushy peas" scene.
 
Re: Consider it done

Thanks for that film reference Take 5 ... hot on movies aren;t you.

Any offers on 6 tins of Asda mushy peas? (unused)???

PS SG is 1.08

One tin was made famous on a boating forum
 
Re: Consider it done

Gludy, I feel that you have bean less than thorough in your research, and indeed how do we know that the contents of one tin of beans are the same density as another brand, let alone using a completley different vegetable for comparison.
Yours, shocked and now dismayed of Wimbledon.
 
Re: Consider it done

Dismayed of Wimbledon
At no piont did Neale in his review provide the make of baked beans. Given this glaring case of journalistic negligence I was left with no choice on what I had to do.
Knowing that its possible for one make of mushy peas to be closer to another make of baked beans than one make of baked beans is to another make of baked beans, I chose to go the mushy peas route not because of any mushy thinking on my part but because of Neal's negligence ...... in other words - its Neals fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top