JEBland
INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
Agreed 100%. I've had it bookmarked and shared it several times over the last couple of years. There is a lot of value in simply putting something to the test Mythbuster's style.He did a great job at analyzing the data.
My previous post was attempting but failing to state that I think everything except the density/displacement test has value for gun owners. To clarify what I believe is an issue with that particular test: He says,
But this is a buoyancy test and not a test of the bonding to the surface at the microscopic level where the manufacturers are making water displacement claims. A more fair comparison to examine the pieces of steel that had the water "bead up" since the effect of the water beading is directly related to wetting vs. nonwetting at the surface where the cleaner/CLP/whatever was applied.Many of the products I purchased for this evaluation make claims in regards to being a water displacer or that they have water displacing properties. Its an interesting claim but it got me to wondering why I should care?? ... This is a pretty easy claim to prove or disprove since the very definition of displacement occurs when an object that is introduced to water, pushes the water out of the way and takes its place (displacing the water). If a product simply floats on top of water, it does not 'displace' it.
Interestingly, he gets to this a little bit, but he misses that this thin film sticking to the steel is the point of the claim:
He circles back to the idea that these products are more dense than water and don't mix with water.There was no floating compound on the surface of any of the 3 products. I then rolled and tilted and shook the bottle to see if the compound clung to the metal surface and kept water off the metal part. In all cases, the metal part was coated in the compound and resisted water clinging to the metal. After this agitation I allowed the bottles to rest for an hour to see if the compound separated or changed in any way after being exposed to the water. No change was noted.
Again, it's a great article and an even better first test of these ideas, but that particular aspect of water displacement testing is lacking. It doesn't invalidate the rest of the work, just gives me motivation to create a similar test after this school thing is done with.