Thanks for the personal attack. It seems its all you have to offer. SMDH

False! I have happily discussed this evaluation but at no time did I label it "scientific" nor have I labeled it "research" Mine was a simple comparison and evaluation. I cant understand why this is such a difficult concept to wrap your head around. I have been forthcoming and posted in clear and easy to understand terms including pictures and methods including a "final thoughts" wrap up of the results. Everybody got it and understood except you and that dolt Webly on the other sight. You hope to manufacture a scenario where I am not willing to discuss. That is BS. We both know that. Its as if you have a desire to be difficult for the sake of being difficult. I dont have time for such nonsense.

They might be the very people sending me PMs with very unkind words for you. Multiple people have used very unkind words to describe you and how your abrasive, rude and obtuse ramblings are the norm and to simply ignore you and not to be discouraged. I would rather try to educate you as I think there is still hope for you but the hope is growing dimmer and dimmer based on your tedious replies.

Your pal Rancid.

Rancid,

I have nothing more to discuss. Be well.

Adam

While I fear it comes far too late, I suggest it is for the best.

Rancid a couple of points of order. At no time did Adam ever indicate that he didn't read, OR understand your documentation, yet you have continued to insinuate that because he insists on a good summary he is somehow lacking. I have known Adam through huntchat for more than a decade, and he has only ever given good positive criticism when discussing posts. Yet you have continued to be insulting for reasons I can't fathom to a guy who is both respected and intelligent. I enjoy reading your posts and work, and I enjoy when HC members and moderators are able to have good conversations. That being said I privately expressed concerns very early on that when a summary was requested, or advised you were particularly insulting to not only Adam, but in such a way that would have alienated anyone else who would also have liked a brief summary of your findings. In the future I hope that you can take constructive criticism with more grace.

thanks for your work

Richard

Thanks for the comments. That does not however jive with the volume of PM’s I have been getting from people here that have been very critical of Adam. Many warned me of him. Many offered the apology that should have come from the source. The common theme in all those PM’s was that that is just how he is or that is what I should expect from him. I did not seek out comments from those people. Those warning, negative comments (language that ought not be posted in a public forum) about Adam and the apologies came unsolicited into my inbox so it appears many others here saw something different than you did. They saw the same abusive, antagonistic, abrasive, condesending and borish actions I saw.

We have been experiencing torrential rains and flash flooding. When it isn’t raining its very humid. Its certainly been a wet spring. The UV rays have now completely erased the sharpie marker labels on the boards but I know which is which from prior photos. Here is a picture of the two boards with board #1 at 15 days (360 hours) and board #2 at 14 days (336 hours). The top 3 performing products are continuing to protect the steel plates.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ps3731a808.jpg

Hey Rancid, just curious, Board #1 Top Row third from the left, and Board #2 Top row, third from the right. What are those two? They seem to be holding up well enough to perhaps be a decent tool coating.

As for the other part, I said my piece, I hope everybody will make peace, and move on.

Thanks again for the hard work on the testing.

Richard

Both of those plates carried the Rust Prevent product.

http://www.shooters-choice.com/rust-...ativelubricant

In regards to corrosion, It performed well lasting 192 hours on board #1 and 72 hours on board #2. It was in the middle of the field in regards to lubricity (ranked 20 of 46). Its negatives were a strong odor and it ate through foam like a hot knife through butter.

In regards to Adam. The volume of (all) negative comments and apologies given by other people to my in box speaks volumes about how he is viewed here. It appears my low opinion of him is pretty universally shared here but I appreciate your lone positive comments about him.

If it ate through foam it makes me think it might have an acetone base which would force away water, but could be bad for good quality wood stocks. I don't know if it would cause a stock shrinkage or not, but it makes me leery of it.

Richard

Its been 20 days since I started board #3 which is the indoor board with the (hotdog) fingerprint.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ps842e322f.jpg

The first (and only) sample so far to exhibit corrosion has appeared. The rust is only in the fingerprint area. The sample plate is the one coated with Eezox.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...psb6784f4b.jpg

For all the positive comments about Eezox, it has been a complete disappointment.

Update on the two outdoors corrosion boards. Hornady One shot has finally failed on Board #2 Leaving Frog Lube and WD 40 Specialist but the Hornady product is still going strong on board #1.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ps72072f55.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...psde01b770.jpg

Well at this point I think that the 3 are still doing well. even with the one failure..A long time in the wet wonderful out of doors..It ain't real wet here though..Going to a gun show this weekend..There is a guy at this one that sells all kinds of gun lubs etc..some I have never heard of.

I am in the process of designing an experiment, process and device to do further lubricity evaluations on these products. The first evaluation was for the coefficient of “static” friction but I fear it was lacking (even though it was a reasonable side by side evaluation) so Im working on evaluating “dynamic” friction forces. The long holiday weekend should provide me with time to get this going.

Static coefficient of friction was pretty straight forward with the weighted sled and the addition of water to eventually break free the friction forces between the two metal plates but I am devising a constant motion evaluation so I can capture the friction forces between two metal plates that are continually moving to gauge lubricity of the products as well as wear over a great duration than the static friction evaluation.

Ive completed the device I assembled and plan to use to measure dynamic friction forces. There are some refinements I need to make but I think the concept is pretty straight forward.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...psc9ca3705.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...pse53da0f4.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...psae6a188b.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...psf420a892.jpg

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ps594eb3f5.jpg

Here is a video of the dynamic coefficient of friction device in action. Its clear I need to work on the consistency of the smoothness of the big saw blade. You can hear and see the variations in smoothness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ll66unVgMo

In the coming days I will evaluate the friction reducing properties of the products I have previously evaluated for lubricity and corrosion resistance.

That's a really impressive bit of engineering!