Pretty simple pass/fail criteria. What's there not to grasp?
Video: ADBV burn test on Subaru 15208AA12A
- Thread starter Soobs
- Start date
- Status
How about anyone who doesn't beleive this burn test doesn't work to distinguish nitrile from silicone rubber make a little wager. We will get an escrow to hold all the money for the cost of all the test filters, and a lab to test a bunch of nitrile/silicone ADBVs and compare their finding to the burn test. The guy who's wrong loses the money in escrow to the test lab, and pays the escrow fee and all other associated costs too.
Last edited:
Yawn..... this is a grade school level logical fallacy.
An Appeal to Ignorance is a flawed methodology that cannot be used to justify a position. The fact that you proposed something and others may or may not be able to disprove your statement does not make the thing you proposed a true statement.
An appeal to ignorance doesn't prove anything, instead, it attempts to shift the need for proof away from the person making a claim (you).
Try again....
Agreed. All the more reason to state or provide reference to a procedure including the passing criteria.
Just because something is simple doesn't meant it isn't warranted.
Standardized testing ensures tests are conducted similarly and passing criteria are well understood before any tests take place. Often they will provide guidance as to how results can be interpreted or applied across similar products.
Otherwise we'd all just be guys smoking in the garage. Just like the guy in OP's video is.
I’m the early days of ISO certifying the floor of my garage. There will likely be many more failures along the way in our quest for flawless scientific process that meets the exacting standards of a “guy on the internet.”
-“the guy in OP’s video”
No, but really. Let’s all just lighten up a bit.
Last edited:
Sometimes trolling is being disguised as willful ignorance.
Occam's razor......comes through again. 
LOLOL, now more of the same nonsense as in the past. If you don’t know anything of a technical nature in a thread it’s best to refrain from posting.
C'mon man.....
There's nothing technical in this thread.
But enough infighting.
Enjoy your day fellas!
Ahh yes the drive-by disclaimer.
It's completely on topic, so it's not even close to a "strawman argument". Something else you dont understand. Instead, you're backpedaling because you have no argument or can prove it's an invalid test.
You know you'd be the one flipping the cost of the lab bill. You afraid to take the challenge? C'mon man, do it and try and prove it's an invalid test.
BTW, the burning characteristics shown for nitrile and silicone rubber are all basically the same from many rubber industry sources. What's that tell you - that they are all wrong and "blowing smoke" like you?
Instead of blowing smoke, go do some more research on what multiple rubber industry companies say are the characteristics of burning nitrile vs silicone rubber - they all say the same thing. You claiming these rubber industry companies are all wrong? Nobody here made up with those rubber burning characteristics, the experts in the rubber industry are the ones showing that information. Can you, or any one else here prove they are wrong?
Last edited:
My posts in this thread have been about a guy in his garage engaging in an uncontrolled process and nothing more.
Please go back and read them for comprehension.
Anything other than that appears to be your own grandiose projection.
Cheers!!!
You claim the burn test is invalid because apparently you don't believe the information from the rubber industry on how different rubbers burn. Prove that all those rubber industry experts are wrong. It's about the most simple test in the world to distinguish nitrile from silicone rubber, yet there are skeptics that can't prove it's not valid - they just blow smoke for the sake of trolling instead.
It is bickering like this that makes BITOG a lesser place.
I don't owe you any proof regarding nebulous 'rubber industry experts'. That's your gig. It is a clear logical fallacy to make a statement and then conclude that it must be true if others cannot disprove it to your liking. Refer to the link in my previous post #26 for reference.
My previous posts were all in reference to a guy goofing around in his garage and I stand by them.
Cheers!!!
You are making the claim it's an invalid test. Prove that claim instead of blowing nonsense philosophical smoke. It's either a valid test or it's not.
The rubber industry says it's valid and you don't. Guess who's right, and it's not you. If you "think" you're right, then it's up to you to prove it. You can't, so you keep trolling and bickering your claim with zero backup information. At least go find something from a rubber industry source that says a burn test will not distinguish nitrile from silicone rubber by burning them.
To repeat my post #7....
I'm quite sure the rubber industry utilizes standardized testing techniques with clear criteria for what qualifies as passing and/or failing those standardized tests.
As an example, you can reference some very basic ISO standards here.
If you're claiming there's an industry standard for the test he performed, please reference that standard. Then, let's watch the video and compare the video to the standard procedure. From there we may be able to draw a conclusion based on what's shown in the video.
Cheers!!!
Last edited:
- Status
