Well the question then would be if its just variation, or if it's
consistantly heavy? I agree that Roy White has been a great benefactor.
I have often spoken to others about him and his film: great service, the
film is VERY cheap, i had thought it was one of the lightest (althought
it's still fairly light), and it was fine to work with. Overall i had
been very happy with it. The problem is thought that for some people
the difference of 61 mg/100 sq.in. to 133 mg/100 sq.in can be a big
difference and can be the deciding factor in picking a different film.
Also, by saying "fooled" I didn't mean to defame Roy in anyway; i see
how it could have been taken that I was blaming him but im not. I dont
know him at all so i wont even go there.
Chris D
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Rszanti" <Rszanti@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > This thread interests me a lot since i've been using PPP almost
> > exclusively over the past few years. After i read the posts i
decided
> to
> > test it out myself. I too was surprised. I got 133 mg / 100 sq in
+/-
> 3
> > mg or 2.06g/m^2. I actually used a piece that was close to 100 sq in
> > (8.25"x12.125")so i would say it's accurate. This makes me wonder
how
> > many people including myself could of been fooled about this for so
> > long?
>
> I'm not sure "fooled" is the proper word. I'm sure there is a great
> variation in film that is this difficult to make and get. Considering
> the service Roy White is providing, as a benefactor to us modelers, I
> can't criticize at all. I appreciate what he is doing and am happy to
> get the PPP film whether it's 61 mg/100 sq.in. or 133 mg/100 sq.in.
>
> Of course, Ray may not even have noticed this variation and I'm sure
he
> would like to know.
>
> Richard
>
Received on Sun May 16 2010 - 16:41:55 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET