Kettle fighting thread

Drunkard #1 said:
The only asshattery is you claiming that your Oakley Z87 tested specs are superior to my Afrox Z87+ certified specs.
Click to expand...

Really?

It seems your Z87+ certification is an indication that your welding goggles passed the impact portion of the ANSI tests, and nothing more - see here for clarification. That particular marking is no indication of the optical characteristics of the lenses.

Furthermore, assuming that you are the proud owner of either Medium- or Top-Range (lol) Afrox numbers, their claim is UV absorption only up to 380nm wavelength, happily leaving the upper reaches of UVA (380nm to 400nm) untested for. They also make no claims of protection against equally harmful near-UV light. But then what can one expect from construction goggles which are primarily tasked with keeping debris out of your eyes?

I don't spend my days in front of grinding wheels, so impact protection is somewhat secondary to my main requirements of comfort, optical protection and clarity and not looking like a knob who's misplaced his TIG welder. Thus, I'm happy to pay a premium for shades that block 100% of UVA, UVB, UVC and near-UV light, are designed not as workwear but to also be aesthetically pleasing, and trounce every other brand on the market when it comes to optical quality. Are your workmen's goggles polarised? Didn't think so... The fact that Oakleys exceed industry standards for impact protection is nice to know, but superfluous.

You still haven't watched any of the YouTube videos, have you? I'd like to see how your cheapies perform on Oakley's focal point test.
 
satanboy said:
both vehicles get you from point A to B...so they are the same (in your world)

/throws head back and guffaws
Click to expand...

Just in the interest of putting this little spat within a spat to rest, lemme attempt a clarification with regards to my world:

I judge any tangible item with regards to its ability to execute its primary purpose(s), contrasted with its cost. A kettle, in my world, has 1 primary purpose - that of boiling water efficiently. As long as it does that, I'm happy; which is why I can't envision ever spending vast amounts on one. A CITI Golf similarly has only 1 purpose, getting you from A to B in a moderately economical fashion.

However, a Porsche has multiple purposes:
1. getting you from A to B
2. doing so quickly
3. doing so safely
4. doing so comfortably
5. sometimes taking you via Z, just for the hell of it
6. looking good while performing all of the above, and of course
7. making up for a small penis

Thus, you can't compare it to a CITI Golf. You can, however, compare it to a Lambo or Ferrari as they set out to accomplish the same kind of thing.

There's a glimpse into my twisted psyche for you. :p
 
My kettle... stays on 24/7:

884Try-On-Right-Bottom.png

http://www.tevo.co.za/product.aspx?pid=78
 
enigma243 said:
A kettle, in my world, has 1 primary purpose - that of boiling water efficiently.
Click to expand...

Please time how long it takes your kettle to boil 1 litre of water then, and let me know its power usage (or whats its specification is, its usually 1kw). :twisted: Ima gonna prove my kettle is betterer than yours!
 
The important question is: for what purpose do you require the sunglasses?

Not all sunglasses are created equally... deep sea has different requirements to flying, cycling, skiing, jogging, etc.
 
MickeyD said:
The important question is: for what purpose do you require the sunglasses?

Not all sunglasses are created equally... deep sea has different requirements to flying, cycling, skiing, jogging, etc.
Click to expand...

That's not my contention - the arrogance of arguing to the high heavens, against all provided information, that R29 safety glasses match the quality and precision of sunglasses from a company that built its reputation on the excellence of their products just annoys me.
 
enigma243 said:
That's not my contention - the arrogance of arguing to the high heavens, against all provided information, that R29 safety glasses match the quality and precision of sunglasses from a company that built its reputation on the excellence of their products just annoys me.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, as it relates to what I'm saying. For its stated purposes those R29 safety glasses are probably brilliant - just don't take them on a deep sea fishing trip...

http://www.best-polarized-sunglasses.com/polarized_fishing_sunglasses.html
 
Last edited:
MickeyD said:
I agree with you, as it relates to what I'm saying. For its stated purposes those R29 safety glasses are probably brilliant - just don't take them on a deep sea fishing trip...
Click to expand...

...which makes claiming superiority for 'not falling for marketing', whilst running around on the beach with your R29 welder's goggles thinking they offer the same levels of acuity and protection than precision sunglasses a bit dof, no?
 
enigma243 said:
Really?

It seems your Z87+ certification is an indication that your welding goggles passed the impact portion of the ANSI tests, and nothing more - see here for clarification. That particular marking is no indication of the optical characteristics of the lenses.

Furthermore, assuming that you are the proud owner of either Medium- or Top-Range (lol) Afrox numbers, their claim is UV absorption only up to 380nm wavelength, happily leaving the upper reaches of UVA (380nm to 400nm) untested for. They also make no claims of protection against equally harmful near-UV light. But then what can one expect from construction goggles which are primarily tasked with keeping debris out of your eyes?

I don't spend my days in front of grinding wheels, so impact protection is somewhat secondary to my main requirements of comfort, optical protection and clarity and not looking like a knob who's misplaced his TIG welder. Thus, I'm happy to pay a premium for shades that block 100% of UVA, UVB, UVC and near-UV light, are designed not as workwear but to also be aesthetically pleasing, and trounce every other brand on the market when it comes to optical quality. Are your workmen's goggles polarised? Didn't think so... The fact that Oakleys exceed industry standards for impact protection is nice to know, but superfluous.

You still haven't watched any of the YouTube videos, have you? I'd like to see how your cheapies perform on Oakley's focal point test.
Click to expand...

That's not how standards work. If a product is marked with a standard number, it complies with the whole standard, not just part (unless explicitly permitted by the standard). So even though the MSA document details the wrong standard (2010, not 2003), and there are no marks for optical performance - see table in the MSA document (because all lenses marked Z87 must comply), and the Afrox documents you found are marketing brochures not datasheets, I can still be sure that my glasses meet the optical performance requirements. If you're in doubt, contact Afrox and ask them for the certificate.

I don't really care what a company claims to do. I trust the folks that researched the standard (they've got a lot of experience) and if they say 99.9%, then 99.9% is good enough for me. Same as Afrox; I've never even seen those brochures before, but the glasses meet a standard developed by a standard setting authority which I trust, so they're good enough for me.

That's why we have standards. So we can be assured of quality products. You obviously prefer to trust a company with a vested interest in selling more glasses. I trust the independent authority. It's easy to make claims, but without scientific proof that 10000% UV blocking is better than 99.9%, those claims are just FUD.

I've watched the you tube videos. What standard is their focal point test set to? What are the requirements? Without a standard, who knows what outcome is good, acceptable or bad. If my safety specs need to meet a focal point test requirement, in order to keep me from driving a 30 ton machine into a building after wearing them non stop for 8 hours, then that requirement would be in the Z87 standard. If it isn't then you can be sure that focal point tests are just Oakley marketing FUD.

But you do mention the reason you chose your Oakleys over the Afrox specs; you're vain and want to pick up materialistic birds that appreciate the fact that you spent R 3000 on your "look". I don't care what my "medium" Afrox specs look like (they don't look too bad), and I'd rather find a more down to earth chick.

Edit: The reason that the Afrox glasses can compete with the Oakleys is because the Chinese factory producing them spits them out by the hundreds of thousands. Same reason Nokia 1200s are "perfect". Even if R&D costs $ 1 000 000 000, it's split over so many units that the marginal cost is insignificant. Oakley, on the other hand, has to cover their R&D on just a few thousand units.
 
Last edited:
Drunkard #1 said:
That's not how standards work. If a product is marked with a standard number, it complies with the whole standard, not just part (unless explicitly permitted by the standard). So even though the MSA document details the wrong standard (2010, not 2003), and there are no marks for optical performance - see table in the MSA document (because all lenses marked Z87 must comply), and the Afrox documents you found are marketing brochures not datasheets, I can still be sure that my glasses meet the optical performance requirements. If you're in doubt, contact Afrox and ask them for the certificate.
Click to expand...

Your latest is pair presumably quite new, seeing that you've earlier admitted that you cannot look after anything. Hence it is quite reasonable to think that they would be subject to the latest guidelines for adorning them with the necessary markings. The information presented on the nature of these markings is quite clear - you seem unable to interpret this. Your statement would translate to every item passing the standard needing every marking specified in the document because, hey, they passed the standard. To expand on the idea, welding goggles (ignoring for a moment that I've been calling your cheapies that) are also subject to the ANSI 87.1 standard. You are in essence contending that you can happily weld with the same clear goggles that you wear in front of a grinding wheel. Your goggles are impact resistant. That's all.

Drunkard #1 said:
I don't really care what a company claims to do. I trust the folks that researched the standard (they've got a lot of experience) and if they say 99.9%, then 99.9% is good enough for me. Same as Afrox; I've never even seen those brochures before, but the glasses meet a standard developed by a standard setting authority which I trust, so they're good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Do they say 99.9%? 99.9% of what, nogal?

Drunkard #1 said:
That's why we have standards. So we can be assured of quality products. You obviously prefer to trust a company with a vested interest in selling more glasses. I trust the independent authority. It's easy to make claims, but without scientific proof that 10000% UV blocking is better than 99.9%, those claims are just FUD.
Click to expand...
Can you manage a wiki search? If you can, you'll learn that wavelength determines penetration, so leaving the longest wavelengths of the UV spectrum unaccounted for doesn't seem like much of a standard to me.

Drunkard #1 said:
I've watched the you tube videos. What standard is their focal point test set to? What are the requirements? Without a standard, who knows what outcome is good, acceptable or bad. If my safety specs need to meet a focal point test requirement, in order to keep me from driving a 30 ton machine into a building after wearing them non stop for 8 hours, then that requirement would be in the Z87 standard. If it isn't then you can be sure that focal point tests are just Oakley marketing FUD.
Click to expand...
I see you also battle with very basic logic... Light curves when travelling through transparent objects not 100% perpendicular to the source, or the receiving end in the case of your eyes. Your brain has not evolved to contend with wonky bits of perspex in front of your eyes, hence any optics that bend light in unexpected ways would necessarily strain both your eyes and your brain in their effort to compensate. It's not difficult to figure out - you can do it.

But you do mention the reason you chose your Oakleys over the Afrox specs; you're vain and want to pick up materialistic birds that appreciate the fact that you spent R 3000 on your "look". I don't care what my "medium" Afrox specs look like (they don't look too bad), and I'd rather find a more down to earth chick.
Click to expand...
I'm happily married to a stunning woman, thank you. You'll find your welding goggles probably play a role in you still 'looking for chicks'. How... shallow.

edited for your edit:
Edit: The reason that the Afrox glasses can compete with the Oakleys is because the Chinese factory producing them spits them out by the hundreds of thousands. Same reason Nokia 1200s are "perfect". Even if R&D costs $ 1 000 000 000, it's split over so many units that the marginal cost is insignificant. Oakley, on the other hand, has to cover their R&D on just a few thousand units.
Click to expand...
Do you drive a Chery?

Chinese production, when not held to an independent measure of quality, is hardly a positive. When that independent measure of quality is only an industrial standard for workmen's eyewear which your fong kong welding goggles might meet, it hardly says anything about their ability to do anything more than keep errant bits of metal out of your peepers.
 
Last edited:
Cheap kettles take way too long to boil water. My kettle boils 2 cups of water in about 30 seconds. So yes, there is a huge difference in quality and the comparison between city golf and Porsche is 100% right.

I'm just not a big fan of cheap stuff. Everybody claims cheap stuff is doing the same job. Waya waya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X