Friday Fax A Weekly Summary of Polywater® News of Incredible Importance | ||
---|---|---|
Issue #756 |
![]() |
          | Last week we described 4 competitive advantages of new Splice Shield over 3M's Scotchkote, all relating to the latter's solvent content. So, why does Scotchkote contain solvent? Scotchkote uses strong-smelling MEK/toluene--or acetone in Scotchkote FD--as "carrier" solvents. The product is wiped on a connection, and the solvent evaporates, depositing the remaining sealing components. Scotchkote is approximately 25% solids--75% of the product evaporates! Their 15-oz can contains only ~3.75 ounces of solid sealant. Multiple coats are required to ensure a waterproof seal. Each coat must dry for ~15-20 minutes before the next coat is applied to achieve optimal results. Splice Shield is chemically very different. Its 2-part sealant formulation is 100% solids. Nothing is wasted. It doesn't evaporate and "dry", it "cures" without loss. One coating of Splice Shield is equal to ~10 coatings of Scotchkote. Splice Shield's 3-oz self-dispensing cartridge yields more seals than the 15-oz Scotchkote package. Both products are tack-free in ~20 minutes, but Scotchkote requires mores coats ... and more waiting. Competitive Advantage #5: Splice Shield contains 100% solids with no evaporated solvent waste. Competitive Advantage #6: Solvent-free Splice Shield has a mild odor for a more pleasant work environment. Competitive Advantage #7: Splice Shield's thicker coating requires fewer applications for immediate labor savings. Competitive Advantage #8: Splice Shield's lighter package saves on transportation costs. Competitive Advantage #9: Splice Shield's smaller package totes easily and saves on storage. Stay tuned for yet more competitive advantages next week. |
![]() The Joke |
                              | Best Lawyer Story of the Year. This took place in Charlotte, North Carolina. A lawyer purchased a box of 24 of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "... in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued ... and won! Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, the lawyer held a policy from the company, in which it had warranted the cigars insurable and guaranteed it would insure them against fire. Without defining what is considered to be unacceptable "fire," so was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure the lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars that perished in the "fires." However, after the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine. This true story won First Place in last year's Criminal Lawyers Award contest (Very funny but not true, according to Snopes.com --Editor). |
Click here to View This Issue Online With Images
Click here to View Back Issues by Number or View Back Issues by Topic
Copyright © 2013 American Polywater Corporation -- Issue Date: 4/12/13 |
P.O. Box 53 | Stillwater, MN 55082 USA
1-(651) 430-2270 (Voice) | 1-(651) 430-3634 (Fax)
1-(800) 328-9384 (Toll-Free US/Canada Only)