Watermakers (and smileys)

[peterb]

Got my February YM today, and found an interesting survey (by JJ) on watermakers.

I've always been a bit chary of watermakers, because of their high power consumption. But one of the watermakers in the survey takes no power at all, because it's towed. Apparently, at the average water-driven performance, the Waterlog will produce more thah half a gallon per hour. And, from the photo, it's not very big either.

On a completely different subject(?), isn't it a pity that there isn't a 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley?

 

[tudorsailor]

I found that the Waterlog has been discussed elsewhere including this disgruntled thread

TudorDoc

 

[BlueSkyNick]

I think thats why Peter wanted the 'tongue in cheek' smiley - something I have mentioned several times in the past, too. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[peterb]

[ QUOTE ]
I think thats why Peter wanted the 'tongue in cheek' smiley

[/ QUOTE ]

See, he can read minds, too

 

[zefender]

Maybe we can ask Dan nicely to add this one to the library?

 

[AndrewB]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always been a bit chary of watermakers, because of their high power consumption. But one of the watermakers in the survey takes no power at all, because it's towed. Apparently, at the average water-driven performance, the Waterlog will produce more thah half a gallon per hour. And, from the photo, it's not very big either.

[/ QUOTE ]Isn't this the one that forumites complain doesn't work? See for example here. YM really ought to have addressed these concerns. But it wasn't a proper critical review, just one of those compilations of manufactors' blurbs.

 

[arni]

Its not true that watermakers use a lot of power. I have a Spectra Catalina 300, that makes around 12 US gallons an hour, and consumes 12 amps when operating. Its done that, pretty much, for 3 years. That's 1 amp/hr per gallon. Most cruising boats can afford that, without running a generator or engine to charge, if they have solar panels. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I added the appropriate smiley too!

 

[jamesjermain]

A yacht took one across the Atlantic in the ARC ths year

What's that about a tongue in cheek icon?

You're right Andrew, it wasn't a critical review as I haven't been able to assemble all the relevant watermakers and put them to the test. It was based on research and personal experience with a factual review of the market at the end. I hope that some readers, thinking about installing a watrmaker, might have found some food for thought in it.

There will be a critical review of the Seafresh watermaker in the next issue. This was the model installed on Gipsy Moth during her circumnavigation.

 

[Sundays_Child]

If I wanted to do a comparison of manufacturer's claims, it might take a couple of hours... possibly interesting ones at that.

A paid-for magazine has to do MORE than that!

Absolute balls.

What would you say if a dishwasher review gave the manufacturer's exaggerated claims? Obviously of far less importance than your primary ocean freshwater-source, but relevant in that PAID reviews should provide INDEPENDENT information.

Un-effing-believable.

 

[pvb]

I'm surprised that you'd include Waterlog in a "factual review", as you were obviously aware of the controversy surrounding it, and were indeed reminded of this controversy last November in this thread.

 

[jamesjermain]

Good Grief, Fred, you credit me with putting in far more effort than I deserve.

I didn't even bother to compare manufacturers claims, I ignored them completely and just reprinted a few random fasts and figures aboout their products.

 

[PhilipH]

Hm - you also missed the popular HRO watermaker. To be honest, I don't see much point in these kinds of articles as it's easy enough to get all the details that you printed from the internet. What we really want to hear (and I am actively deciding which one to buy) is about tests and experience.

So you are right - not much effort put in on this occasion. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif