* 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.

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.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* 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.

there's 2 or 3 coats on , last year I simply 'touched' up
some spots. I'm going to change color this year.

Scotty

"Scotty" w@u wrote in message
. ..
some spots. I'm going to change color this year.

You'll never pass for a white man.

Wilbur Hubbard