Originally Posted by
ilikenails
Did I miss you saying that the MB barrel was from a 149?
MB use the same plastic in all their standard pens. It isn't going to magically turn into armour plate because the tube it's being moulded into has a different serial number. It's fine if you like MB branding enough to pay their prices, but you shouldn't try to cover up objective fact.
No, didn't think I had. Do I think you have ignored references to how thin the components are in the size of the models referenced? I do. Do you concede that the relative thickness of a material may be a factor in how resistant it is to breaking? Attempting to change the subject to the
Did you recognize who asked the question, and the sarcasm in the response, about the lab test?
I prefer not to comment on badly written humour. In this case, it's very badly written. As well as being unfunny, you don't need a population sample for material tests like that - they're very simple and extremely robust. To dumb this down to a level you can hopefully understand, if I want to compare the weight of a 149 and a Prera, I can reasonably just weigh one of each pen, not several hundred. Population sampling is for things like medical tests where you should expect a large number of confounding factors and you're often trying to measure a small effect.
You don't comment, yet you're willing to pass the "test" as being genuine? You would cite to a "test" written in jest as proof? Is that the best you can do? Or did you think that no one would actually bother to check your citations?
Now, it's *possible* that the test might have hit on an unusually weak MB - but it's not the smart way to bet. Especially given all the other evidence and basic materials science: you simply can't do what MB have done without expecting the resulting material to be much more brittle than it was before the fibres were added.
Bookmarks