Initial Statement

After crafting our website, I’m forced to admit the story seems outrageous. That’s because the facts underlying the story are an outrage.


In our page here, I’ll outline completely how tube equivalence is no longer in dispute. Tube equivalence, in fact, has always been an experimental given rather than a technical question. So, it is absurd to defend something that was always real and true. Here, tube equivalence will be demonstrated via equivalence reports, tube finishing studies, and by considering other relevant technical information and available facts. Equivalence is a starting point for the overall discussion and there’s no technical question to explore.


I do consider it unfortunate that leaders of a voluntary industry group refuse to abide by the clear wisdom of their own ASTM policies, guidelines, and protocols. Perhaps they are just too proud to admit mistakes. It is not fun presenting the truth that users of our product face a senseless but mutually exclusive ASTM double bind. Users can either (1) attempt to make sense of the nonsense that somehow a question about tube equivalence exists, or (2) they can confess there never was a real question about equivalence and that consequently ASTM Subcommittee J on Aviation Fuels represents a cruel and phony charade. In any event, I do not enjoy being the one to illuminate the resulting cruel hoax. The cruel hoax is a natural part of our story, so it must be OK to write parts of it down. Still, in the final analysis, only test users can step up to correct those leadership errors within ASTM and proceed to openly declare the truth: Standard heater tubes are necessarily equivalent and they constitute a far better value. Read on, and see for yourself.


David Morris, President