Gludy
Active member
Nicho
What a fantastic contribution you make to the thread ... thank you. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
What a fantastic contribution you make to the thread ... thank you. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Waterbuoy
- Thread starter nicho
- Start date
nicho
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is a perfect project for a future PBO/YM Test????
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh! I think after this thread, you can guarantee it!!
Maybe this is a perfect project for a future PBO/YM Test????
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh! I think after this thread, you can guarantee it!!
nicho
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Nicho
What a fantastic contribution you make to the thread ... thank you. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Paul, you had my utmost sympathy and admiration for the way you conducted your fight with Trader, but I'm sorry, I think you've gone a bit over the top with this one!!
Cheers
Mike N
Nicho
What a fantastic contribution you make to the thread ... thank you. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Paul, you had my utmost sympathy and admiration for the way you conducted your fight with Trader, but I'm sorry, I think you've gone a bit over the top with this one!!
Cheers
Mike N
Gludy
Active member
Nicho
Ok that your opinion but it truly baffles me.
First of all you do not have to read the thread. it does not make sense to read it if you are on the point of losing the will to live! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Secondly the bulk of this thread was a discussion on physics which some people did not understand. I conducted that matter in a very patient manner until. it seems, the penny dropped. The science was far more important than waterbuoy. After that and towards the end. Waterbouy chap joined and frankly was evasive and ignorant on every issue. It was clear that he either did not understand the basic physics involved or was intentionally misleading. Thinking it was the former I even offered my unpaid time to help him.
To me therefore the main discussion was about some simple physics not Waterbuoy as such - I took all that in a light hearted manner. I then asked simple direct questions of Waterbuoy none of which he answered.
I think the thread will make the physics clearer for some and it may stop a misleading magazine review leading to people wasting their money or worse. It does not rate high on my importance list I was just having a bit of fun with explaining basic physics whilst at the same time exposing some misleading claims about a product …. That’s all. Maybe in writing these things come over in a more serious manner. Had I been discussing this in a pub it would have been a good laugh.
So now please explain to me how that is over the top? And then explain to me how some people object to a thread when they have no need to read it in the first place?
Ok that your opinion but it truly baffles me.
First of all you do not have to read the thread. it does not make sense to read it if you are on the point of losing the will to live! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Secondly the bulk of this thread was a discussion on physics which some people did not understand. I conducted that matter in a very patient manner until. it seems, the penny dropped. The science was far more important than waterbuoy. After that and towards the end. Waterbouy chap joined and frankly was evasive and ignorant on every issue. It was clear that he either did not understand the basic physics involved or was intentionally misleading. Thinking it was the former I even offered my unpaid time to help him.
To me therefore the main discussion was about some simple physics not Waterbuoy as such - I took all that in a light hearted manner. I then asked simple direct questions of Waterbuoy none of which he answered.
I think the thread will make the physics clearer for some and it may stop a misleading magazine review leading to people wasting their money or worse. It does not rate high on my importance list I was just having a bit of fun with explaining basic physics whilst at the same time exposing some misleading claims about a product …. That’s all. Maybe in writing these things come over in a more serious manner. Had I been discussing this in a pub it would have been a good laugh.
So now please explain to me how that is over the top? And then explain to me how some people object to a thread when they have no need to read it in the first place?
Gludy
Active member
Nicho
In the opening post of thsi thread you wrote of waterbuoy
"The balloon lifts up to 2KG from the seabed. Looks really good, retails at £12.99, and can be seen on www.waterbuoy.com"
I replied to correct that misleading stetement and that started the dispute on the physics.
In the opening post of thsi thread you wrote of waterbuoy
"The balloon lifts up to 2KG from the seabed. Looks really good, retails at £12.99, and can be seen on www.waterbuoy.com"
I replied to correct that misleading stetement and that started the dispute on the physics.
nicho
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
So now please explain to me how that is over the top? And then explain to me how some people object to a thread when they have no need to read it in the first place?
[/ QUOTE ]
Paul, it's simply that to me, in the grand scale of things it's really not that important. To you, maybe it is. You threw out some challenges that he answered by quoting test results. You patently do not believe his answers, and that's for you to decide, but there comes a time surely when you have to accept test results that have evidently shown that it works? He's been called a con man and by inference a liar (not by you in fairness)
Do you challenge everything in this way? If you are prescribed a drug by your GP, do you demand to see test results before agreeing to take them? I don't know, maybe you do......
My honest view is that you've been a bit mischievous here, and enjoyed the argument for the fun of it!! For the record, I've kept up (well almost!) with the arguments 'cos I started the thread in the first place, but whilst it's true that no one has to read the thread, it's also true that you don't have to buy one! However, I bet you might do now, to prove once and for all it doesn't work!!
Cheers,
Mike N
So now please explain to me how that is over the top? And then explain to me how some people object to a thread when they have no need to read it in the first place?
[/ QUOTE ]
Paul, it's simply that to me, in the grand scale of things it's really not that important. To you, maybe it is. You threw out some challenges that he answered by quoting test results. You patently do not believe his answers, and that's for you to decide, but there comes a time surely when you have to accept test results that have evidently shown that it works? He's been called a con man and by inference a liar (not by you in fairness)
Do you challenge everything in this way? If you are prescribed a drug by your GP, do you demand to see test results before agreeing to take them? I don't know, maybe you do......
My honest view is that you've been a bit mischievous here, and enjoyed the argument for the fun of it!! For the record, I've kept up (well almost!) with the arguments 'cos I started the thread in the first place, but whilst it's true that no one has to read the thread, it's also true that you don't have to buy one! However, I bet you might do now, to prove once and for all it doesn't work!!
Cheers,
Mike N
Sundays_Child
New member
I don't know about Gludy's background, but it seems that he has good knowledge of product development.
As a designer/developer/manufacturer, my responsibilities are not just to our international buyers, but also to the end users. The goodwill of the end users is always paramount. It's a business.
As a someone experienced in bringing products to market, it's natural to have a stronger opinion when another is deliberately vague.
If someone in a forum members' area of particular knowledge weren't sounding right, maybe others might find the issue worth discussing.
Anyway,we do tests upon tests upon tests. And when a buyer needs an answer, boy do we need to be quick and clear.
I still wish Water Buoy all the best. Having not seen the show, I have no idea about the inventor other than what's been written here. Well done for joining in, though perhaps not so well done for lack of specifics. Could that change? Could be in everyone's interest if it does. Taking me as an (OK, uncommon) example, sales would increase 3-fold.
As a designer/developer/manufacturer, my responsibilities are not just to our international buyers, but also to the end users. The goodwill of the end users is always paramount. It's a business.
As a someone experienced in bringing products to market, it's natural to have a stronger opinion when another is deliberately vague.
If someone in a forum members' area of particular knowledge weren't sounding right, maybe others might find the issue worth discussing.
Anyway,we do tests upon tests upon tests. And when a buyer needs an answer, boy do we need to be quick and clear.
I still wish Water Buoy all the best. Having not seen the show, I have no idea about the inventor other than what's been written here. Well done for joining in, though perhaps not so well done for lack of specifics. Could that change? Could be in everyone's interest if it does. Taking me as an (OK, uncommon) example, sales would increase 3-fold.
Sundays_Child
New member
Hi Nicho,
I'd guess that Gludy would do relevant tests for his own curiosity.
I'd also presume that he'd be FAR happier reporting positive results.
So would I.
FAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRK... what a thread. Can someone please inject some humour?
I'd guess that Gludy would do relevant tests for his own curiosity.
I'd also presume that he'd be FAR happier reporting positive results.
So would I.
FAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRK... what a thread. Can someone please inject some humour?
MapisM
Well-known member
Re: Breaking news - breakthrough product announcement
[ QUOTE ]
A rope? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[/ QUOTE ]Naaah...
OK, I'm going to disclose also the major feature:
it won't even require a direct connection with the objects to be protected!!! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Watch out, more details on the first prototype will soon follow.
PS: waterbuoy, don't waste efforts in marketing your solution, it's already a thing of the past.
[ QUOTE ]
A rope? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[/ QUOTE ]Naaah...
OK, I'm going to disclose also the major feature:
it won't even require a direct connection with the objects to be protected!!! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Watch out, more details on the first prototype will soon follow.
PS: waterbuoy, don't waste efforts in marketing your solution, it's already a thing of the past.
nyx2k
New member
Re: Breaking news - breakthrough product announcement
what about a foldable net like structure like they have in between hulls of a catamaran. if you put it around your hull then anything you dropped would bounce back into the boat
what about a foldable net like structure like they have in between hulls of a catamaran. if you put it around your hull then anything you dropped would bounce back into the boat
Gludy
Active member
Mike
I have a long background in products development and have dozens of inventions brought to market and many patents.
For the record Waterbuoy did not provide any test results nor even describe in any proper way what the tests were.
I am a chartered engineer who specilaised in water resources and maybe it my simple direct way of looking at things that I find myself being taken aback when I see silly claims that go on to mislead people as was the case in your opening post on this thread. This was not your fault - you believed the hype.
Had Waterbuoy had the decency to directly answer my questions he would have had a friend in me. My training, is to seek scientific proof and that was why i never called him names, I never lost my cool - I kept repeating the questions trying to get him to answer. I now realise that he is evasive on purpose. I aslo think he has little to no grasp of the simple physics.
"Do you challenge everything in this way?"
The simple answer is no - I accept most things but having deveoped products within the fishing industry concerned with flotation and sinking physics this one just caught my attention on TV. I left it at that, I did not start a thread. However when a thread starts with claims I know to be untrue - I react with a simple openeing statment. I then find my physics challanged hence the long thread. That was me simply trying very hard to get people to accept something that is true and trying to get them to understand the simple physics involved.
Do not forget in this case my physics are totally correct - Waterbuoy is wrong with their claims which are misleading. The claims misled you and your openeing post is evidence of that.
"My honest view is that you've been a bit mischievous here, and enjoyed the argument for the fun of it!! "
Partly true but once into battling post after post with the physics I was sorry i had posted anytghing at all. However the subject was not life and death and in the scheme of things not at all important.
Nope I will not buy one because:-#
1. I do no trust it.
2. The only way to verify it is to destroy it.
3. There are far better products out there doing the same job at a fraction of the price.
4. I am not interested in proving Waterbuoy right or wrong anymore. I have done my bit to expose the truth - the market can take care of the rest /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Cheers
Paul
I have a long background in products development and have dozens of inventions brought to market and many patents.
For the record Waterbuoy did not provide any test results nor even describe in any proper way what the tests were.
I am a chartered engineer who specilaised in water resources and maybe it my simple direct way of looking at things that I find myself being taken aback when I see silly claims that go on to mislead people as was the case in your opening post on this thread. This was not your fault - you believed the hype.
Had Waterbuoy had the decency to directly answer my questions he would have had a friend in me. My training, is to seek scientific proof and that was why i never called him names, I never lost my cool - I kept repeating the questions trying to get him to answer. I now realise that he is evasive on purpose. I aslo think he has little to no grasp of the simple physics.
"Do you challenge everything in this way?"
The simple answer is no - I accept most things but having deveoped products within the fishing industry concerned with flotation and sinking physics this one just caught my attention on TV. I left it at that, I did not start a thread. However when a thread starts with claims I know to be untrue - I react with a simple openeing statment. I then find my physics challanged hence the long thread. That was me simply trying very hard to get people to accept something that is true and trying to get them to understand the simple physics involved.
Do not forget in this case my physics are totally correct - Waterbuoy is wrong with their claims which are misleading. The claims misled you and your openeing post is evidence of that.
"My honest view is that you've been a bit mischievous here, and enjoyed the argument for the fun of it!! "
Partly true but once into battling post after post with the physics I was sorry i had posted anytghing at all. However the subject was not life and death and in the scheme of things not at all important.
Nope I will not buy one because:-#
1. I do no trust it.
2. The only way to verify it is to destroy it.
3. There are far better products out there doing the same job at a fraction of the price.
4. I am not interested in proving Waterbuoy right or wrong anymore. I have done my bit to expose the truth - the market can take care of the rest /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Cheers
Paul
KevB
Active member
I can imagine that this thread will put of other manufacturers from contributing on here. Surely Gludy must realise that his style of posting just alienates the unfortunate recipient?
As sad as it may seem I actually tried a basic experiment on Sunday where I tied 2kg of stones (weight out of the water) to a 2 litre coke bottle which I guessed was equivalent to a 1 kg weight and 1000cc of water displacement of the balloon. Now I admit this was at surface pressure but the coke bottle barely went a third under the water. This leads me to believe that only about a 750cc filled balloon would manage to keep 2 kg afloat.
So I think it totally reasonable for the waterbuoy to do what it says on the tin.
As sad as it may seem I actually tried a basic experiment on Sunday where I tied 2kg of stones (weight out of the water) to a 2 litre coke bottle which I guessed was equivalent to a 1 kg weight and 1000cc of water displacement of the balloon. Now I admit this was at surface pressure but the coke bottle barely went a third under the water. This leads me to believe that only about a 750cc filled balloon would manage to keep 2 kg afloat.
So I think it totally reasonable for the waterbuoy to do what it says on the tin.
RupertW
Well-known member
A 750cc balloon would keep me afloat, and I weigh many kgs out of the water. I will therefore also be buying the Waterbuoy which I will attach to my collar.
rickp
Active member
[ QUOTE ]
4. I am not interested in proving Waterbuoy right or wrong anymore. I have done my bit to expose the truth - the market can take care of the rest /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
The irony being you've done no such thing, which is why this was all a waste of time. On the one side, we have a product claiming to lift 1kg and advertising such on their website. I see no reason not to believe that from what we saw on Dragons' Den and whats been said here.
On the other hand, we have lots of posts from you saying it couldn't possibly lift 1kg but your "evidence" is less credible than water-buoys as you've not even got the volume of the balloon and avoided that question, twice I think (though I can't be arsed to read back and count).
I may buy a water-bouy - I have 3 of one of the cheaper keysaver product on various sets of keys and they've all broken having been dropped a few times (usually the cap of the float pings off). Do I believe the water-buoy would do as a replacement? Absolutely. Do I care if it could lift 9 tins of mushy peas? Not one jot.
Will your treatment of water-buoy (based on such little evidence) put other manufacturers off? I'll bet it already has. Now if you'd bought one, and found it didn't perform as advertised - then I'd think you were being reasonable - and would suggest you call the Ferret again to get your money back....
Rick
4. I am not interested in proving Waterbuoy right or wrong anymore. I have done my bit to expose the truth - the market can take care of the rest /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
The irony being you've done no such thing, which is why this was all a waste of time. On the one side, we have a product claiming to lift 1kg and advertising such on their website. I see no reason not to believe that from what we saw on Dragons' Den and whats been said here.
On the other hand, we have lots of posts from you saying it couldn't possibly lift 1kg but your "evidence" is less credible than water-buoys as you've not even got the volume of the balloon and avoided that question, twice I think (though I can't be arsed to read back and count).
I may buy a water-bouy - I have 3 of one of the cheaper keysaver product on various sets of keys and they've all broken having been dropped a few times (usually the cap of the float pings off). Do I believe the water-buoy would do as a replacement? Absolutely. Do I care if it could lift 9 tins of mushy peas? Not one jot.
Will your treatment of water-buoy (based on such little evidence) put other manufacturers off? I'll bet it already has. Now if you'd bought one, and found it didn't perform as advertised - then I'd think you were being reasonable - and would suggest you call the Ferret again to get your money back....
Rick
KevB
Active member
That's because you weigh less than the water you're displacing and nothing to do with a waterbuoy /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Now if you weighed more than the water you're displacing you'd sink /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Now if you weighed more than the water you're displacing you'd sink /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Aardee
Well-known member
So if I can find a cruising ground with heavier-than-average water...
wakeup
Active member
Hmm, I think WB did actually answer Gludy's orignal gripe. Gludy claimed it couldn't lift a 1Kg weight because the weight shown on DD would weigh less in water and therefore the lift demo was misleading. WB has since told us the box actually weighed 3.2kgs in air as the box was full of coins and that it did weigh 1kg in water when demonstrated on DD.
QED the WB can lift a 1kg (of reasonably dense material) as demoed on DD. I will buy one as I believe it would support the weight of my hand held VHF and certainly my keys. Game over, 1 nil to WB, Gludy 0. AIMHO /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
QED the WB can lift a 1kg (of reasonably dense material) as demoed on DD. I will buy one as I believe it would support the weight of my hand held VHF and certainly my keys. Game over, 1 nil to WB, Gludy 0. AIMHO /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Gludy
Active member
Kev
I am sorry but your physics are just plain wrong.
I could go on and exlain but feel I have done enough of that already. I give in and if anyone wants to live in a world without Archimedes they can.
I just find it surprising that after all the factual explanations you can still not grasp the basic science.
I am sorry but your physics are just plain wrong.
I could go on and exlain but feel I have done enough of that already. I give in and if anyone wants to live in a world without Archimedes they can.
I just find it surprising that after all the factual explanations you can still not grasp the basic science.
Gludy
Active member
Rick
I am really surprised by your comments.
What the TV showed was a large 1 kg object - that does not mean that Waterbuoy can lift a more dense 1 kg object - from the outset i have stated and agreed that Wtaerbuoy can lift 1 1 kg object of the right low density. That is waht i beleive I saw on TV.
So please do not try and misquote me - just accept the simple science, its your failure to do this that surprises me.
I am really surprised by your comments.
What the TV showed was a large 1 kg object - that does not mean that Waterbuoy can lift a more dense 1 kg object - from the outset i have stated and agreed that Wtaerbuoy can lift 1 1 kg object of the right low density. That is waht i beleive I saw on TV.
So please do not try and misquote me - just accept the simple science, its your failure to do this that surprises me.
RupertW
Well-known member
I think it was you who mentioned the weight of the stones "out of the water". My point is that you proved very little by that except that they must have weighed about 750g more than the water they displaced, not the 2kg they weighed out of the water.
I don't think anybody is disputing that a 750cc balloon can lift a downward force of 750g at the surface of the water, least of all Gludy. The real point is that the "out of water" weight is a daft measure of the downward force of the same body in the water, whether stones, a box or me.
I don't think anybody is disputing that a 750cc balloon can lift a downward force of 750g at the surface of the water, least of all Gludy. The real point is that the "out of water" weight is a daft measure of the downward force of the same body in the water, whether stones, a box or me.