Investigating BioVALs BB Claims

[Azathoth]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Still, you can't peer review the document because the credentials are hidden. There is no way to validate the information presented, its simply all claims. Again, I don't see what they gain by doing this or making themselves anonymous other than to draw suspicion by someone being critical of the sources of the data, test methodologies, etc.

Keep in mind that the standards for doing business is different across the world. It will surprise you to learn how insanely different things are outside of North America, and even worse between Canada and the States. How companies account for "goodwill" in the states and in Canada are insanely different and is very misleading.

Just last week or two, that screwed up bank in the states (JP morgan?? can't remember) posted a surprise profit. What they failed to mention to everyone that they changed the type of institution and ergo, the accounting rules changed, and they could ignore everything that occurred in December 2008.

Swiss secrecy or "privacy" as they prefer to call it is the most important aspect of the way they do business. I'm not saying that what you are doing is wrong, just that they are different standards. What -IS- generally the same is the scientific method, and the levante lab tests have been done in a way that can be repeated, and replicated (as should all experiments)

EDIT:

I think this topic should read 'BBBmax claims' in the subject as bioval does produce several different types of BB's, and we should avoid confusion on a already hot topic in Canada

[Azathoth]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

So from a materials standpoint, is it correct to say this is a ceramic? What materials best describe this BB from what we know about it at this moment?

Since it seems to be debatable that you can validate the material, is it fair to call this BB Biodegradable? Their prior products release a materials list with a percentage and from that you can ascertain roughly that it is biodegradeable. When I do get some I will throw a few into the garden, but beyond that I don't know what other experiment you can do.

In my opinion and what little I know about materials science, it is possible the BBBmax is composed or ceramics.

Other possible materials IMO would be resin, acrylic, lexan. or:

that it is the bonding agent and manufacturing process that makes the BB's the way they are. A high temperature/pressure production process.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Still, you can't peer review the document because the credentials are hidden. There is no way to validate the information presented, its simply all claims.

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

1. Peer review of research is not credential review of researcher. Yes, knowing the credential helps screen out the science equivalent of crazy guy on street corner. However, no credential given is not the same as no credential. It is the research itself that must be reviewed.

2. Credential has nothing to do with the possibility of validating the "claims" presented. To validate the test results presented, you rely on the ability to consistently repeat (or not) the presented results through your own testing.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Sorry, but that makes no sense (clip).
...own testing.

No, what I am saying is I can't even get to a stage where I can review the credentials of those who've conducted the study to even establish if its worth proceeding with trying to duplicate their testing. In fact I don't even want to both reproduce their testing, I just want disclosure on who Levante Labs is, who their people are, what are their credentials, do they have a relationship with BioVAL (business/personal or are they the same people).

If they came back with this information and it showed BioVAL paid a flat fee to an independent lab and didn't dictate any of the testing and the lab releases the document outside of the control of the funder of the study, then I would say there is enough independence that the document isn't just a marketing shill - but I can't even do that. And if this is the case, then why don't they just disclose all that in order to address people's concerns regarding the independence of this Levante Lab? If they are up and up with it, I can't see it harming them, and in fact it would bolster their position.

The fact that this information is not readily available makes the pedigree of the document highly suspect. Fundamentally, if you have nothing to hide, show us your cards. The fact that the aren't I think speaks volumes.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Azathoth

acrylic, lexan

Thats what came to my mind, but that would be some wicked chemistry to get the melting point up from around 300 degrees to over 500. Lexan starts getting soft at 150 (I know that from putting an axe through it during a fire). Hit lexan hard enough and it shatters jagged, similar to the pictures posted. Thats all anecdotal though, I'm not claiming and scientific knowledge on the matter.

[The Saint]

But what you're suggesting isn't investigating the actual performance of BioVAL BBs, but their confidential business and marketing practices. I thought the point was to establish the quality of these BBs, because that's what matters first and foremost to airsofters?

You yourself have claimed that your BBs were made from a number of ludicrous materials, but that was OK because there was no real expectation of closely investigating your BBs, since they worked so well. I would expect the same for BioVAL: test them to see if they are as good as people claim. If they are, I don't think it matters if BioVAL claims they were forged with crystal steel by dwarven mastersmiths.

If the point all along was to investigate the business and marketing practices of BioVAL, then this thread should have been directed far differently than the way it has developed thus far.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Where did you buy your BBBmax from. I hadn't considered the possibility of knock off or imitation product. And given the supply drought, it worries me that knock off or glass/acryllic BB's can be substituted.

Airsoft Extreme. They came in the standard bag you see on their website. In my experience, AEX is one of the most reputable airsoft stores so it seems exceedingly unlikely that these are knockoffs.

Originally Posted by Azathoth

This is the first time i've seen such large debris and about the 10th or so BB i've crushed in a baggie.

That looks similar to every time I have crushed a BBBMAX. I've used both a pair of channel locks and a hammer, producing a mixture of powder and large chunks each time.

Originally Posted by Amoki

MikeG, while your argument may sound sound for your average joe, you're going to have problems convincing those who have done engineering degrees, in particular those with background in material science. The fact is, Bioval has stated that these BBB Max are made of 1) Resin 2) some form of hardening agent. Without knowing what base material it is you can't determine what material is.

For example, PVC with a hardening agent forms your hard, brittle PVC pipes. PVC with softening agents forms your gardening hose. Both will have different volume, density etc. but both are essentially PVC.

Another case in point: http://www.google.com/patents?id=_OqkAAAAEBAJ&dq , where you have a biodegradable resin composite at 250C.

I do have an engineering background, admittedly not in materials science though. My article was not meant to be definitive, but to encourage discussions like this one, given the available info on the 'net.

The suggestion of the PVC pipe is one of the better ones I've seen so far, as it has a tendency to chip, sometimes explosively, when impacted. However, it still is a type of plastic, made up of entangled polymer chains, and occasionally shows this makeup. If you've ever cut PVC pipe with a saw, you will see that it leaves frayed edges. I've never see that happen to glass or a ceramic. That's what I'm essentially saying, I don't believe it's possible to make a polymer into something that behaves like this. Most polymers have some kind of physical 'tell' that lets you know that they can only be what they are. For example, Lexan is almost rubbery - incredibly hard to fracture by hand and its surface easily scratches.

Further, I have never heard of a polymer that has a Rockwell hardness anywhere near that of glass and similar ceramics. (I've seen a pane of window glass scratched by a shard of BBBMAX. Please tell me whether you've ever seen any type of polymer scratch glass!) I highly doubt that Bioval has invented some kind of super-material here that externally behaves entirely like glass yet is cheap enough to package and sell to people as bbs.

Since you seem to know a good deal about materials science (at least more than I do, I've taken only an introductory course on the subject), perhaps you could help me devise a few physical tests to determine the makeup of these BBs.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Swiss secrecy or "privacy" as they prefer to call it is the most important aspect of the way they do business. I'm not saying that what you are doing is wrong, just that they are different standards. What -IS- generally the same is the scientific method, and the levante lab tests have been done in a way that can be repeated, and replicated (as should all experiments)

I simply don't accept that and I don't think many other Canadians will either. There is simply no reason to be secretive about the people doing the tests unless there is something there is something to hide. I can understand keeping information out of the MSDS sheets as trade secrets etc. (that won't do well if you try and fly with this stuff, but I suspect they would cargo ship it). I don't know if the information provided in the study would enable you to replicate their experiments exactly, there are no equipment manifests or anything like that to work from, its generally descriptive - but I am not even criticizing that! I can't get to that stage and I keep repeating this and sounding like a broken record on the matter. Until you can establish the pedigree of that document, you can't really go any further. You might as well buy a bag and try it and *hope* there isn't a problem and make sure if you game it, just like sniper rules here, that everyone votes okay for you to use those BBs. But given the controversy, I wouldn't try and quietly load my mags with them at a game without clearing it first with the host and the other players.

[Azathoth]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

No, what I am saying is I can't even get to a stage where I can review the credentials of those who've conducted the study to even establish if its worth proceeding with trying to duplicate their testing. In fact I don't even want to both reproduce their testing, I just want disclosure on who Levante Labs is, who their people are, what are their credentials, do they have a relationship with BioVAL (business/personal or are they the same people).

If they came back with this information and it showed BioVAL paid a flat fee to an independent lab and didn't dictate any of the testing and the lab releases the document outside of the control of the funder of the study, then I would say there is enough independence that the document isn't just a marketing shill - but I can't even do that. And if this is the case, then why don't they just disclose all that in order to address people's concerns regarding the independence of this Levante Lab? If they are up and up with it, I can't see it harming them, and in fact it would bolster their position.

The fact that this information is not readily available makes the pedigree of the document highly suspect. Fundamentally, if you have nothing to hide, show us your cards. The fact that the aren't I think speaks volumes.

We are starting to duplicate the arguments at arnies.

The credentials are irrelevant IMO, You can independently test the BBBmax under the same conditions that the lab did, I have shot these at everything aside from soft tissue comparison. The BBBmax perform as users describe.

Is it relevant if Levante Labs is just a giant marketing and sales ploy? Get yourself some BBBmax and shoot them, and duplicate the testing methodology.

I started at the same point you did when I did my BBBmax research (in regards to Levante Labs credentials), and I as I wrote in the PM to you earlier. I decided to just buy the damn things and shoot them and test them myself.

I am more curious as to what and how they are made, if anything just to shut people up. And again like i stated, unless they are 100% BTEX (which I doubt) I will use them were the field and conditions permit.

These could also be made of Clear Dupont polymer. or as stated in page 1, a combination of materials that net the BB. I still think the secret is in the manufacturing process.

For those who havent shot these BB's they are very smooth but not slick. If you are one of those people who wash their BB's doing so with the BBBmax will not change the performance of the BB, their is no fine graphite or powder on these BBs. When you rub them against each other their is quite a bit of friction.

Originally Posted by amoki

Another case in point: http://www.google.com/patents?id=_OqkAAAAEBAJ&dq , where you have a biodegradable resin composite at 250C.

Very Interesting. I will have to follow this.

[quote=scarecrow]Thats what came to my mind, but that would be some wicked chemistry to get the melting point up from around 300 degrees to over 500. Lexan starts getting soft at 150 (I know that from putting an axe through it during a fire). Hit lexan hard enough and it shatters jagged, similar to the pictures posted. Thats all anecdotal though, I'm not claiming and scientific knowledge on the matter.[quote]

Does lexan turn back into a powder when shattered? Aside from the posted BB i shattered yesterday my other shattered BBBmax are mostly powder, or small flakes (nearly 2 dimensional)

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by The Saint

You yourself have claimed that your BBs were made from a number of ludicrous materials,

As god is my witness, it really is rolled polarbear snot! I don't know why you guys can't accept that. Maybe I can get Levante Labs to do a study for me to prove it

Seriously, I've not made marketing claims, I've informally discussed what the materials and processes are with a few people, when they've shown an interest in it - its not part of a marketing campaign. In fact, my only marketing practice is sponsoring Canadian airsoft games and events across the country.

Originally Posted by The Saint

If the point all along was to investigate the business and marketing practices of BioVAL, then this thread should have been directed far differently than the way it has developed thus far.

Sorry to disappoint you, but feel free to start your own thread on the matter if my approach to it from your view has been subpar.

You're missing my point though Saint, I am quite willing to draw my own conclusions by buying the product and playing with it. Please reference my prior post on the matter, I think I've addressed my reasoning sufficiently. As Az says, we're beginning to resemble the Arnie thread.

[DonP]

I'm not entirely clear on what the issues actually are. Can it be clarified or put into different words?

The first posting says two issues so far:

1. The Levante Labs report
2. Certificate that their (Bioval's) BBs are "biodegradable"

I think I understand the issue behind #2. As I understand it "biodegradable" apparently technically can be a pretty wide range and it would be nice to know in layman's terms just what it means with regards to Bioval's BBBMAX product. But the mystery of the ingredients means you can either "take their word for it" or plant a bunch on and in the dirt and set up a lawn chair and go on watch duty... for maybe years. That about right?

But regarding the Levante Labs report - if it's the same report I read, it's a bunch of tests regarding the measurements of sizes and masses and deviations thereof across a whole bunch of different BBs. BBBMAX fared pretty consistently (i.e. well) in those tests. The BBBMAX ones stood out (from what I remember) mostly from the "ouch test" showing a smaller welt than expected given the BB mass compared with other ammo. They speculate on the reason.

So what's the "issue" with the report, exactly? I think that you want to establish whether you can "take their word for it" comfortably (hence credentials,etc) instead of the alternative of sitting down with hundreds and thousands of BBs and a caliper / scale to see for yourself whether Bioval's BBs really are that consistent in size/mass. Is that what it comes down to? Some report says BBBMAX BB's score really high on size/mass consistency and how can we know that's actually true without personally manhandling metric buttloads of BBs?

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by DonP

I'm not entirely clear on what the issues actually are. Can it be clarified or put into different words?

The first posting says two issues so far:

1. The Levante Labs report
2. Certificate that their (Bioval's) BBs are "biodegradable"

So what's the "issue" with the report, exactly?

The issue is a lab report you can't validate the source and credentials of and certificates that are manufacture self-issued certificates - both these issue go to the heart of the credibility of BioVAL and what is marketing versus what is actually a legitimate independent study.

Thats all.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

To assume that it is not an independant study and is nothing more than marketing.

BioVal paid for the study.. so obviously it is supposed to benefit them..

The fact that when you scratch the surface of the lab who did the work you find nothing indicates to me that this is much more marketing than science.

Add to that the seeming "supply shortage due to popularity" and it all adds up to a savvy marketing ploy.

a.b.c. A. introduce product B. put out independant study that illustrates the superiority of the product .C limit the stock so the market gets hungry and a "buzz" starts.

then release product so its freely available .. and capture market share..

did no one here take marketing 101? .. I never did ... but its obvious to me.

[Boche]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

To assume that it is not an independant study and is nothing more than marketing.

BioVal paid for the study.. so obviously it is supposed to benefit them..

The fact that when you scratch the surface of the lab who did the work you find nothing indicates to me that this is much more marketing than science.

Add to that the seeming "supply shortage due to popularity" and it all adds up to a savvy marketing ploy.

a.b.c. A. introduce product B. put out independant study that illustrates the superiority of the product .C limit the stock so the market gets hungry and a "buzz" starts.

then release product so its freely available .. and capture market share..

did no one here take marketing 101? .. I never did ... but its obvious to me.

Well, this marketing ploy sure is working, I'm dying to try these BBs!

[DonP]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

The issue is a lab report you can't validate the source and credentials of and certificates that are manufacture self-issued certificates - both these issue go to the heart of the credibility of BioVAL and what is marketing versus what is actually a legitimate independent study.

I am honestly not trying to be dense (and the scare-quotes I put around "issues" are meant literally, not as pseudo-sarcasm) but let me make sure I understand.

I think based on what you explained you're ultimately interested in whether Bioval is the kind of place that engages in, at best, shilling and misleading. (And the icing on the cake would be if the BBs are harmful in some way -- like made of glass that shatters into tiny razor-sharp ninja stars.) Is that right?

Put in other words, your spider-sense has been tingled and you want to know if Bioval is as shifty/untrustworthy as they seem to be acting.

If that's the case then all the sidetracking about observed BB performance in the field and stuff is kind of irrelevant (and probably frustrating to have show up in your thread), except where it might provide some kind of evidence contrary to the report or certificate statements, or evidence of possible harmfulness (e.g. shards, etc.)

I'm going to jump ahead of myself, and assuming that's right try to be helpful and itemize some things that would get closer to answering that ultimate question:

1. Establish credibility/non-credibility of lab report (what you're doing right now)
2. Find evidence that the BBs are clearly dangerous/harmful in some way (moreso than other BBs) and Bioval is conveniently not mentioning it.
3. Get different results than the lab report findings (actually measure size/mass consistency to see how it jives with report's table).
4. Establish just how "biodegradable" they really are or aren't. (Might be technically correct but essentially misleading to call them biodegradable.)
5. Anything else? Would it be worth trying to replicate their 'ouch test'? What would it mean if our findings differed from theirs?

#1 seems easiest. #2 is iffy. #3 and #4 - probably the most conclusive ones - would unfortunately need non-typical tools and a LOT of time/effort. (Or knowledge of the "secret ingredients") and probably are not practical.

Or am I completely misunderstanding all this and owe you an apology for shitting up your thread?