> I have seen pure crap from Strand and Penn as well.
> Please refrain from making statements that are not proven.
>
(Peter Marshall wrote)
>>>>>>Plenty of people have tested these materials, not least Henry Wilhelm.
>
>So what? In the opinion of a number of experts in the fields of
>photochemistery, there are questions being raised by some of the claims
>certain often quoted people have made. Tests for example might not have
>been done as accurately as they should have been. I know that a number of
>recent studies done on current materials used in Ink-Jet printers are also
>being questioned. Results are not repeatable; a requirement for any testing
>of materials.
>Wrong, there have NEVER been any tests that can be repeatable or
>conclusive. Often certain experts are quoted; one was mentioned already in
>this post. The problem is that the efforts are being reviewed by better
>experts and some early conclusions are false. Regardless of if you want to
>believe it or not, there is absolutely no proof that any of the current Ink
>Jet materials will have any live beyond a few years. This is simply a fact.
Mr. Maxey,
Perhaps you could pause in your chest-pounding long enough to follow your
own advice and refrain from "making statements which are not proven" ("This
is simply a fact"..."pure crap from Strand and Penn"...."there have NEVER
been any tests that can be repeatable or conclusive"). If Mr. Wilhelms
work is flawed and is being debunked by "better experts," I'm certain many
readers of this list would like to know of it, and to be able investigate
for themselves. You would support your arguments much more persuasively by
offering names and sources than by beating us over the head with your
hyperbole and unsupported assertions of Truth. If we are to believe you
rather than Mr. Wilhelm, whose work and methods are published and easily
accessible, you'll have do more than simply insist that you know better.
Sincerely,
Mitch Valburg