* Charlie Morgan wrote, On 3/25/2007 9:27 AM:
....
I feel your trust in PS is misplaced. They don't just do unscientific testing,
but they are totally capricious as far as their recommendations.
I've never found that to be true. Perhaps you could give us a list of
other marine product testing magazines that do a better job.


I am addressing Practical Sailor, which holds itself out to be something it is
not.

If your intent is merely to denigrate, you hold them up to an
impossible standard, and then show how they fail.

If you want to fairly evaluate their performance, you have to compare
them to others doing the same work.

I don't recall anything of the sort. I just went over their last two
reviews, Oct and Feb, and there was nothing like that. It sounds like
they disagreed with your choice - but that seems odd given that you're
a Micron fan and I've been using it based on their recommendations.

They openly stated that they were recommending one paint over another despite
the test results. In other words, they confessed in writing.

I went back a few more years and still didn't find anything like that;
it sounds to me like you made it up. Of course, since according to
you they explained everything, it sounds like they were being up front
in their choice. You should be applauding such honesty, not complaining.


Another example was a feature on small generators. They slammed one generator,
and wouldn't even include it in the test charts because it was not UL approved.
The manufacturer defended itself saying they had a very long history of safety.
Then P.S. proceeded to name another unit that was not UL approved as their top
pick, saying UL approval wasn't needed, because the unit had a long track record
for safety, and that was "good enough for them". They sure love to contradict
themselves. Makes one suspicious that they accept "gifts".

They list 3 genset tests in the last 10 years. I looked up all of
them and found nothing of the sort, not even a single mention of UL
approval. It does sound like someone is being unethical here, but it
isn't PS.

You're a sucker for every lame explanation. A gallon of paint has
about 5 pounds of copper. In the last year, the price has gone from
$2 per lb to $3, so that's a material cost increase of $5 per gallon.
So while it may be a good excuse to raise prices, it doesn't mean
the retail has to go up $50. To prove that, there are a number of
paints, including some from Interlux, that are half the price that
have just as much copper, or even more.

The price of Micron Extra did NOT go up $50. It went up about $20-$25.

As I mentioned in a different thread, my sticker shock is because its
been a few years since I've had to buy. The price has gone up $40
over the last few years, and the discounting has not been as aggressive.

There is
more than 5 pound of copper in a gallon of paint that contains over 40% copper.

Micron Extra does not have 40% copper. It has 39% cuprous oxide.

Compare the weight of a gallon of milk or housepaint to a gallon of Micron
Extra. The difference is a lot more than 5 pounds.

The "shipping weight" is 18 pounds, figure 15 lbs for the product.
Take 39% and you have 5.85 lbs. Take 88% to account for the "oxide"
and you have 5.15 pounds of actual copper.

The only issue might be the shipping weight adjustment, but the
shipping weight of lightweight solvents in the same can is 12 pounds,
and since I think these solvents float, this leads to a can weight of
over 4 pounds.


That is just ONE of the major
ingredients that is expensive.

So having lost that argument, you're making up a new one, so obscure
that it can't be refuted.

They can also charge a premium for being a proven
superior product.

True, but they can also be trying to cash in on customer loyalty by
offering a seemingly premium product at a top price. Since they also
offer less expensive, they're just covering all the bases. Actually,
the test do show that in Florida Micron is "Excellent" which is what I
found; it just isn't that good in New England.

Is the copper in your paint of the same quality, or is it
recycled, low grade, impure, scrap? Is it bound to the carrier as well? What
else is your paint lacking?

We'll find out. Since the tests say its better, and I save $200 by
using it, I really don't have much to lose, do I? The worst case is
that I'll have some extra growth at the end of next season.

* Charlie Morgan wrote, On 3/25/2007 9:27 AM:
....
I feel your trust in PS is misplaced. They don't just do
unscientific testing,
but they are totally capricious as far as their recommendations.
I've never found that to be true. Perhaps you could give us a
list of other marine product testing magazines that do a better job.


I am addressing Practical Sailor, which holds itself out to be
something it is
not.

If your intent is merely to denigrate, you hold them up to an
impossible standard, and then show how they fail.

If you want to fairly evaluate their performance, you have to compare
them to others doing the same work.

I don't recall anything of the sort. I just went over their last
two reviews, Oct and Feb, and there was nothing like that. It sounds
like they disagreed with your choice - but that seems odd given that
you're a Micron fan and I've been using it based on their
recommendations.

They openly stated that they were recommending one paint over
another despite
the test results. In other words, they confessed in writing.

I went back a few more years and still didn't find anything like that;
it sounds to me like you made it up. Of course, since according to
you they explained everything, it sounds like they were being up front
in their choice. You should be applauding such honesty, not complaining.


Another example was a feature on small generators. They slammed one
generator,
and wouldn't even include it in the test charts because it was not
UL approved.
The manufacturer defended itself saying they had a very long
history of safety.
Then P.S. proceeded to name another unit that was not UL approved
as their top
pick, saying UL approval wasn't needed, because the unit had a long
track record
for safety, and that was "good enough for them". They sure love to
contradict
themselves. Makes one suspicious that they accept "gifts".

They list 3 genset tests in the last 10 years. I looked up all of
them and found nothing of the sort, not even a single mention of UL
approval. It does sound like someone is being unethical here, but it
isn't PS.

You're a sucker for every lame explanation. A gallon of paint has
about 5 pounds of copper. In the last year, the price has gone from
$2 per lb to $3, so that's a material cost increase of $5 per gallon.
So while it may be a good excuse to raise prices, it doesn't mean
the retail has to go up $50. To prove that, there are a number of
paints, including some from Interlux, that are half the price that
have just as much copper, or even more.

The price of Micron Extra did NOT go up $50. It went up about $20-$25.

As I mentioned in a different thread, my sticker shock is because its
been a few years since I've had to buy. The price has gone up $40
over the last few years, and the discounting has not been as aggressive.

There is
more than 5 pound of copper in a gallon of paint that contains over
40% copper.

Micron Extra does not have 40% copper. It has 39% cuprous oxide.

Compare the weight of a gallon of milk or housepaint to a gallon
of Micron
Extra. The difference is a lot more than 5 pounds.

The "shipping weight" is 18 pounds, figure 15 lbs for the product.
Take 39% and you have 5.85 lbs. Take 88% to account for the "oxide"
and you have 5.15 pounds of actual copper.

The only issue might be the shipping weight adjustment, but the
shipping weight of lightweight solvents in the same can is 12 pounds,
and since I think these solvents float, this leads to a can weight of
over 4 pounds.


That is just ONE of the major
ingredients that is expensive.

So having lost that argument, you're making up a new one, so obscure
that it can't be refuted.

They can also charge a premium for being a proven
superior product.

True, but they can also be trying to cash in on customer loyalty by
offering a seemingly premium product at a top price. Since they also
offer less expensive, they're just covering all the bases. Actually,
the tests do show that in Florida Micron is "Excellent," which is what
I found; it just isn't that good in New England.

Is the copper in your paint of the same quality, or is it
recycled, low grade, impure, scrap? Is it bound to the carrier as
well? What
else is your paint lacking?

We'll find out. Since the tests say its better, and I save $200 by
using it, I really don't have much to lose, do I? The worst case is
that I'll have some extra growth at the end of next season.

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:27:49 -0400, Jeff wrote:

snip a bunch of weak rationalizations and backpeddling, similar to
those found
in unethical magazines, such as Practical Sailor

Best of luck to you with your bargain paint, Jeff. Maybe there really
IS such a
thing as a a free lunch, and maybe you CAN get something for nothing.

CWM

I used to ride a motorcycle. The saying back then was "Got a cheap head;
buy a cheap helmet." Jeff has a cheap boat so his major concern is
getting cheap bottom paint. I guess if I had an ugly catamaran that was
loaded down for cruising so it didn't perform worth a lick I probably
would want cheap bottom paint where growth happened in a hurry. That way
when somebody mentioned something about how slow my boat was I could
say. "Ah, the bottom paint is dead and it needs a good scraping. That's
why it's so slow. But you should see it go with fresh paint!"

Jeff gets something for nothing all the time. He gets roundly
disrespected. But, on second thought, he works pretty hard even for
that. I stand corrected.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 13:55:29 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

snip a bunch of weak rationalizations and backpeddling, similar to those found
in unethical magazines, such as Practical Sailor

I've been subscribing to Practical Sailor for at least 20 years now
and have no major issue with their testing procedures or reporting.
I think they try hard and usually do as well as could be expected. I
have PS to thank for my Spade anchors and they are nothing but superb.

Anti fouling paint is tricky to evauate however because of not only
local differences in fouling organisms, but also big differences in
boats and how they are used.

If you know of a better source of test reports on marine gear, I'd
love to hear about it.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:25:03 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

The quality of what they publish in their magazine
would not pass muster in first year journalism classes.

Are you criticizing their writing style, integrity or testing methods?

I've seen one or two cases where they've given the nod to a product
based on subjective perceived quality where all other factors seemed
about equal. That seems fair to me, and probably jibes with how most
of us would make the final decision.

* Charlie Morgan wrote, On 3/25/2007 1:55 PM:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:27:49 -0400, Jeff wrote:

snip a bunch of weak rationalizations and backpeddling, similar to those found
in unethical magazines, such as Practical Sailor

Typical of Charlie, when his lies are refuted, and his "facts" shown
to be false, he snips it all and calls it "backpeddling." It would
have been interesting if he could actually show a case where PS had
been unethical, but it appears that he just made up his claims.

Frankly, I understand that on occasion they are a bit sloppy, and
sometimes I don't agree with their conclusions, but they do show their
methods and seem to present data fairly. Even Charlie admits as much,
because in both of his stories he says they "confessed" to their
procedures.


Best of luck to you with your bargain paint, Jeff. Maybe there really IS such a
thing as a a free lunch, and maybe you CAN get something for nothing.

Micron may be worth every penny in some environments, as I said I was
pleased with how well it did in Florida. But this isn't a life or
death issue; its not like I'm using rotgut engine oil, or cutrate
filters. The worst case is a bit more slime to powerwash off next Fall.

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 3/25/2007 2:13 PM:
I used to ride a motorcycle. The saying back then was "Got a cheap head;
buy a cheap helmet." Jeff has a cheap boat so his major concern is

I guess you don't know much about boat value.

getting cheap bottom paint. I guess if I had an ugly catamaran that was
loaded down for cruising so it didn't perform worth a lick I probably

I seem to remember doing about 9 knots as I passed your anchorage.
That was loaded for a one year trip, with about a year on the bottom
paint.

Its true that all the cruising gear slows us down - the first Summer,
before she was loaded, we frequently got up to 12 knots or more. Now
we hardly ever see 10 knots.

Will one gallon cover a 30' boat?

SV

* Scotty wrote, On 3/26/2007 3:16 AM:
Will one gallon cover a 30' boat?


Probably, but if the bottom is bare you might want to put on two or
three coats. Then you can add one coat each year. But you should
really seek local advice - Chesapeake water is quite different from
New England.

Interlux has a calculator, where you give the boat dimensions and it
tells you how much paint they would like you to buy. Interestingly,
they never mention that one paint does better in northern or southern
waters, because that would imply that one of theirs is "bad" in some
conditions.

* Charlie Morgan wrote, On 3/26/2007 11:23 AM:
On 26 Mar 2007 10:11:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:43:09 -0400, Jeff said:

Then you can add one coat each year.
I would have thought the reason you get a multi-season ablative is so you
don't have to add one coat each year.

Normaly, that would be true, but he's using a cheap knock-off product.
He saved $50, though, so it's a sweet bargain!

If you had actually read my posts, you would have known that I've used
Micron Extra exclusively for this millennium. When I tried to skip a
season, I started getting barnacles, even though I still had lots of
paint. That's why I decided to try the cheaper stuff this year - why
pay all that money for something that doesn't perform better in in my
home water?

If it doesn't work as well, then my last trip home will take an extra
15 minutes. If it does work better, as the only reputable marine
testing magazine predicts, I will have saved $200.