Difference between revisions of "Talk:Corrosion Inhibitor"
m |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Nah, if they CBA to read through not a lot of text I CBA to spoon-feed 'em :-) | Nah, if they CBA to read through not a lot of text I CBA to spoon-feed 'em :-) | ||
| − | BSF I also don't want anyone saying "John Stumbles has proved that XXXX is no good". I did what I think is a sound test, but I'm aware that it hasn't been peer-reviewed or repeated by others so it's just an indication that there | + | BSF I also don't want anyone saying "John Stumbles has proved that XXXX is no good". I did what I think is a sound test, but I'm aware that it hasn't been peer-reviewed or repeated by others so it's just an '''indication''' that there '''seems''' to be big differences in the efficacy of different products. Maybe I had a duff sample of the poorly-performing brand (which wouldn't completely invalidate my findings: it might show the manufacturer has poor quality control) or maybe something was wrong with my methodology - maybe Brand X works fine when there's copper in the system - who knows? |
I've a few bottles of other brands and I'll rerun the tests when I get a full set of Round Tuits. | I've a few bottles of other brands and I'll rerun the tests when I get a full set of Round Tuits. | ||
--[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 14:02, 2 January 2007 (GMT) | --[[User:John Stumbles|John Stumbles]] 14:02, 2 January 2007 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 14:14, 2 January 2007
Nice to see this has been fleshed out so well.
2 minor suggestions: a) price £15 - £15 b) What do you think about having a 1 or 2 line summary at the top for impatient / busy readers? NT 05:45, 2 January 2007 (GMT)
Nah, if they CBA to read through not a lot of text I CBA to spoon-feed 'em :-)
BSF I also don't want anyone saying "John Stumbles has proved that XXXX is no good". I did what I think is a sound test, but I'm aware that it hasn't been peer-reviewed or repeated by others so it's just an indication that there seems to be big differences in the efficacy of different products. Maybe I had a duff sample of the poorly-performing brand (which wouldn't completely invalidate my findings: it might show the manufacturer has poor quality control) or maybe something was wrong with my methodology - maybe Brand X works fine when there's copper in the system - who knows?
I've a few bottles of other brands and I'll rerun the tests when I get a full set of Round Tuits.
--John Stumbles 14:02, 2 January 2007 (GMT)