X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:31:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTP id 6356475 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:06:15 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=tednoel@cfl.rr.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=f9nK9ZOM c=1 sm=0 a=3ojic4p/4/GFVLdSTBAvnw==:17 a=lPzcwwf0IO0A:10 a=WIJ4OnAGe2cA:10 a=sDhFatF3PNcA:10 a=05ChyHeVI94A:10 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=DQRGZWVuz60A:10 a=svEfptN6ToBs7D3VJRgA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=xPqyumZSfhp_gvCUqGcA:9 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=T70Nt34o4F7V32kf:21 a=3ojic4p/4/GFVLdSTBAvnw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 184.91.178.101 Received: from [184.91.178.101] ([184.91.178.101:53657] helo=[192.168.1.5]) by cdptpa-oedge03.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 41/BA-05415-4BC81D15; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:05:40 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <51D18C86.9000907@cfl.rr.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:04:54 -0400 From: Ted Noel Reply-To: tednoel@cfl.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Never Wet... References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010005010201070806040607" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010005010201070806040607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It strikes me that NeverWet might be a replacement for TKS fluid. It might require shorter usage times with longer persistence? Ted Noel On 7/1/2013 8:01 AM, Ronald Stevens wrote: > > I asked Matthew Collier and he thinks the stuff is not bad for the > skin, however I have an uncle testing it and he says it leaves a > blurry film, so not sure how it will look. Also it says that you > cannot use pressure washing, and a nice fat rain, is acting the same > way, right LOL > > But it would be great if we would have some test results, and to see > if it actually can stop (or even partially) having a de-ice factor in > it. Anybody like to be a test rabbit lol > > == Ronald > --------------010005010201070806040607 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It strikes me that NeverWet might be a replacement for TKS fluid. It might require shorter usage times with longer persistence?

Ted Noel


On 7/1/2013 8:01 AM, Ronald Stevens wrote:

I asked Matthew Collier and he thinks the stuff is not bad for the skin, however I have an uncle testing it and he says it leaves a blurry film, so not sure how it will look. Also it says that you cannot use pressure washing, and a nice fat rain, is acting the same way, right LOL

 

But it would be great if we would have some test results, and to see if it actually can stop (or even partially) having a de-ice factor in it. Anybody like to be a test rabbit lol

 

== Ronald


--------------010005010201070806040607--