LadyInBed
Well-Known Member
The often recomended product for green organic growth is Patio Magic
Have you tried a Pressure Washer?
But not too close!
Gullible Me
- Thread starter Frayed Knot
- Start date
Have you tried a Pressure Washer?
But not too close!
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Pointing out the flaws in a test protocol doesn't require producing a better one - that's the tester's job. I write as one who spend some years of my life developing international standardised test protocols in a completely different area.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Pointing out the flaws in a test protocol doesn't require producing a better one - that's the tester's job. I write as one who spend some years of my life developing international standardised test protocols in a completely different area.
Most testers think their protocols are as good as is practicable. If they could develop better tests - they would. If the arm chair experts think there is something wrong - it would be useful to put themselves in the role of the tester and offer support not simply being critical. Interestingly - when some product is found wanting the supplier protest innocence loudly and publicly, being critical of the tests - then quietly withdraw the product and/or change the specification.
And your point of the hook is?
The lifting industry would laugh at that hook. They discarded such designs decades ago. There are better designs that cost a similar amount to produce - why the leisure marine industry and chandlers sell such devices is a complete mystery. The hook is strong enough (though others are not, like the Witchard hook) but damages the chain. People might not like this hook because the chain 'falls out' and then they buy the Witchard hook (see earlier sentence) but the locking device for the Witchard hook can bend making disengagement of the chain impossible......
The specific hook you illustrate point loads the chain and reduces its UTS. The lifting industry use hooks that do not reduce the strength. Some people replace their G30 chain (when the original chain has reached the end of its useful life) with a G40 quality - because they think they will sleep more comfortably with a stronger chain - and then use a chain hook that reduces the chain's strength. Some people go out of their way to buy Crosby G209a shackles, because they are stronger (by a factor of 2) over more commonly available shackles and then use a chain hook that reduces the chain's strength. Find me the logic....
On shackles - I wonder how many people are conscious that the spiffy shackle on the chandler's racks and available in European chandlers is sold to an Imperial (short ton) specification - not metric tonnes. Its a small difference but it does raise questions (at least in my mind). Especially as the self same shackle was originally sold as meeting metric test regimes.
Thank you for the opportunity to air the results of some investigative work.
On tether hooks - people have been lost overboard and subsequently died as a result of hook failures. I suspect some of the same hooks are still on tethers.....
The tests and the results are all out there. The data is all published in magazines, sometimes (but not always) the publication is supported by advertisers and subscriptions - and some people do take notice. Seldom, in fact, are the tests supported by advertisers directly, or even indirectly, related to the tests. The results sometimes seeps into forum such as this - but much does not - because no-one gets paid for publishing data here - and testing costs time and money (as you will know).
Take care, stay safe
Jonathan
Graham376
Well-Known Member
I have the same feeling. Bought 500g of powder many years ago for under a fiver and still have a good bit left
Also useful for removing the light specs of rust on gantry and bimini frameElemental
Well-Known Member
Ditto. I have some from left from a tub bought off e**y (the auction site) ages ago. Last year I mixed up some, put it into a garden sprayer and mist coated the topsides and deck. Perfectly white in 10 mins...I have the same feeling. Bought 500g of powder many years ago for under a fiver and still have a good bit left
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
True. Some "testers" just aren't very good at it. It's probably a version of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The reader can either help them develop their skills, which is probably a lost cause, or use more reliable tests.
The point is that it is still for sale and not, as a result of claims by amateur testers, "withdrawn".
Hydrozoan
Well-Known Member
Just so. If a test is conducted on some randomly-chosen dirt or staining, it is of very limited value. To be remotely scientific, one would need to create uniform stains of different kinds - rust, algal green stain, black mould, hydrocarbon grime etc. - and test all relevant products against them. It's feasible, but very demanding of resources. I sometimes think that a more general article on how to assess the likely type of dirt/staining, and then choose and trial a likely product, could be useful.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Who said it had been withdrawn? As far as I know this design of hook has never been specifically tested nor has there been any focus on this style of hook, other than on Forum. Other hooks that are much 'worse', sharper cutting edges, weaker designs - have enjoyed focus - and the fact they have been withdrawn says - something? The specific hook you illustrate - as far as I know, has had no reports of being insubstantial.
If amateur tester had been prescient, or the manufacturers of tether hooks more rigorous, possibly individuals might still be alive.
Jonathan
Last edited:
Frayed Knot
Well-Known Member
Crumbs! How did my grump about some overpriced soap get us here?
LadyInBed - I’m reluctant to use Patio Magic as the fabric is light in colour & when I’ve used it before it left slight stains, rather like watermarks in paper.
BTW I’m a bit disappointed nobody seemed to appreciate my syrup of figs reference.
LadyInBed - I’m reluctant to use Patio Magic as the fabric is light in colour & when I’ve used it before it left slight stains, rather like watermarks in paper.
BTW I’m a bit disappointed nobody seemed to appreciate my syrup of figs reference.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
But JD - you make a point
Most people who test for the leisure marine industry are 'amateur' testers. They are not employed full time to test product, they have particular interests (narrow or wide) and they have varying levels of technical backgrounds. They have access to self funded equipment, though they may have some testing conducted (at a cost) by professional test facilities. They are working in areas that lack any detailed quantitative background (think seabed shear strength, or the speed of a yacht more accurate than plus or minus 1 knot. Testers are paid by the page - not be the level of numerical accuracy. Magazine reader ship seems to be diminishing (and magazines are closing) and novel products are becoming few and far between - except rapidly moving electronics.
They do the best they can.
What on earth do you expect?
The question you might care to mull over - how will products be evaluated when the final magazines close their presses (their technical editors and team of editors who provide the peer review (you of all people should know of peer review - I recall cold fusion) decide retirement is a less criticised) and the amateurs hang up their load cells and multimeters and enjoy time with their wives and children. You don't need me to point out the forum, not this forum, schills.
Do you really expect erudite PhD level, technical evaluation of leisure marine product, summarised into a few short and erudite paragraphs posted for free on a Forum.
You are living in dream land - or are aerobatic pigs now common 'north of the border'?
Join the real world - and enjoy and support what you have. Even better - use your skills and background - and show how it could, should, be done. As I said easy to be critical = damned difficult to do it. In the spirit of building and encouraging your input, and input of others, would be welcomed. As far as I know building, encouragement etc are more greatly welcomed than criticism.
Now - excuse me, I'm off to check up on the uses of syrup of figs. We have a fig tree, maybe it will be more satisfying and focus than trying to pander to a grumpy Scot
Jonathan
Most people who test for the leisure marine industry are 'amateur' testers. They are not employed full time to test product, they have particular interests (narrow or wide) and they have varying levels of technical backgrounds. They have access to self funded equipment, though they may have some testing conducted (at a cost) by professional test facilities. They are working in areas that lack any detailed quantitative background (think seabed shear strength, or the speed of a yacht more accurate than plus or minus 1 knot. Testers are paid by the page - not be the level of numerical accuracy. Magazine reader ship seems to be diminishing (and magazines are closing) and novel products are becoming few and far between - except rapidly moving electronics.
They do the best they can.
What on earth do you expect?
The question you might care to mull over - how will products be evaluated when the final magazines close their presses (their technical editors and team of editors who provide the peer review (you of all people should know of peer review - I recall cold fusion) decide retirement is a less criticised) and the amateurs hang up their load cells and multimeters and enjoy time with their wives and children. You don't need me to point out the forum, not this forum, schills.
Do you really expect erudite PhD level, technical evaluation of leisure marine product, summarised into a few short and erudite paragraphs posted for free on a Forum.
You are living in dream land - or are aerobatic pigs now common 'north of the border'?
Join the real world - and enjoy and support what you have. Even better - use your skills and background - and show how it could, should, be done. As I said easy to be critical = damned difficult to do it. In the spirit of building and encouraging your input, and input of others, would be welcomed. As far as I know building, encouragement etc are more greatly welcomed than criticism.
Now - excuse me, I'm off to check up on the uses of syrup of figs
. We have a fig tree, maybe it will be more satisfying and focus than trying to pander to a grumpy Scot Jonathan
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Snake oil salesmen are not going to substitute syrup of figs for anything, too expensive (the syrup of figs). However it was suggested a number of years ago the skills of the fair ground shyster were being used to sell anchors, not hair restorer, but much mention of smoke and mirrors - It merits note - it does not appear to have done the sale of the specific product any harm - its now one of the best known marine brands. At the time 'google' the name and it was even used for a pornographic site - fame indeed. Syrup of Figs never reached such exalted heights.
Take care, stay safe
Jonathan
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
I've just had a surprise. Having been part of the International Standards community, in a VERY different area, I knew that any ISO standard (and most national standards that aspire to being ISO standards, or which depend on ISO standards) has to include criteria to determine whether it has been met. So, I thought to myself, one way of resolving part of this would be to look for a standard for anchors, and see what the criteria are to meet the standard. I was amazed to find that there doesn't appear to be such a standard! There are standards for strong points to be used for anchoring, and also for chain, but I can't find one for the anchor itself (there are standards covering quality of manufacture).
No doubt the various classification societies have their own rules, but they don't have the clout of a national or international standard. I'm amazed that such an important piece of safety equipment doesn't appear to be covered by an appropriate standard. I may well have missed something - my search was very quick - but if there is such a standard, it would be the basis for a more uniform testing regime.
No doubt the various classification societies have their own rules, but they don't have the clout of a national or international standard. I'm amazed that such an important piece of safety equipment doesn't appear to be covered by an appropriate standard. I may well have missed something - my search was very quick - but if there is such a standard, it would be the basis for a more uniform testing regime.
Alfie168
Well-Known Member
We await reports of out of control foam incident on the Deben ?
Caraway
Well-Known Member
That is just the natural tendency for flesh to lose its elastcity as you age.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I don't expect anything. I have no right to expect anything. However, that doesn't mean that I have to take shoddy tests seriously or that I am under any obligation to design better tests for people. Although at my usual consultancy rates I might be tempted ...
Now - excuse me, I'm off to check up on the uses of syrup of figs
I love you too.
wully1
Well-Known Member
Magazine tests...
I ‘observed‘ one for a now defunct magazine which was an utter joke then many years and a change of staff got to take part in one and this one was 2 solid weeks of hard work after a week or so of prep. I learned a lot on that trip. I shudder to think of how much it cost to run that test and how many adverts were needed to pay for it.
Magazines tread a narrow path between honestly informing their readers and keeping their advertisers business..
I ‘observed‘ one for a now defunct magazine which was an utter joke then many years and a change of staff got to take part in one and this one was 2 solid weeks of hard work after a week or so of prep. I learned a lot on that trip. I shudder to think of how much it cost to run that test and how many adverts were needed to pay for it.
Magazines tread a narrow path between honestly informing their readers and keeping their advertisers business..
thinwater
Well-Known Member
What was the soil type on your cover (mildew, rust, atmospheric dust)? If you don't know, it's unlikely you will be able to match up the correct cleaner. Additionally, they may have been cleaning different soil type. Re-read the article.
Cleaning fabric covers and sails is often a multi-step problem. Remove the loose stuff with any soap. Remove rust stains with weak acid (not on nylon). Kill the algae or mildew with BAC, borax, or some other, and then clean. Sometimes it helps to leave it in the sun for a day or two--the UV loosens the algea, now that it is dead. Finally, bleach with percarbonate (not chlorine bleach). This is the main ingrediant of Oxiclean and most pro sail cleaners. This will require a multi-hour soak, probably at least 4 hours. Then leave it in the sun a few more days--oxygen bleaches don't remove all of the color, but they weaken it enough that UV can finish the job. I've been able to clean practically any stain, but not with one cleaner.
Cleaning is all about the details. The soil. The cleaner chemistry. The method. Soak times. The sequence. There is no such thing as an all-propose cleaner. This should have been obvious in school chem class. As a result, I hate testing cleaners and avoid it when I can.
And as a general rule, if there is a lot of scrubbing involved, you have the wrong cleaner. Reather like fishing; If there are no bites in 15 minutes something is not right and waiting won't help.
Last edited:
TiggerToo
Well-Known Member
avoid the wall paper paste. It can be a mess to clear up (it is glue, after all). Try mixing OA (saturated solution) with a thick dishwasher liquid, like "Fairy Liquid", instead. A One to One mix usually results in a thick enough gloop that stays on a vertical surface of GRP long enough to work.Y10 is good but, I think you would have been more impressed if you had bought oxalic acid crystals and some wallpaper paste, enough to make up a gallon or more, at half the price of small can of Y10
[70521]
Well-Known Member
No. Just not enough detail and a total lack of methodology.
Stemar
Well-Known Member
One detail. I've always been taught never to use detergent on anything you want to be waterproof in the future. It's next to impossible to get rid of completely, and destroys water repellence