Introduction

Standard Heater Tube, Inc. is the world’s leading producer of clean, chemically-inert, aluminum heater tubes for the JFTOT test, ASTM D-3241, for aviation fuel thermal stability.

Standard Heater Tubes are clean and chemically inert. We believe that anyone making or promoting the heater tube as being chemically active or as having some mystic or catalytic effect should, as a matter of responsibility, explain to industry users exactly what the effect is and what the known mechanism of action is, so that tube users can determine for themselves whether they prefer a clean, inert, heater tube or a “chemically active” one to evaluate fuels and interpret fuel-related deposits.

Our tubes are also easier to read. This is accomplished through application of our patented roller burnishing process which results in a superior final tube finish. The resulting tubes greatly reveal, rather than conceal, subtle color variations in the viewing environment. The interpretation of such subtle color variations is the essence of a meaningful heater tube deposit rating. Thus, our tubes are easier to read.

This was demonstrated in a presentation to ASTM Subcommittee J.03 on Combustion and Thermal Properties of aviation fuel during the December 2005 Meeting in Norfolk, Virginia. Previously, in June 2002, the Subcommittee was shown data demonstrating statistical equivalence in product testing by every possibly tube criteria, including visual deposit rating, peacock deposit formation, test pressure drop, and fuel breakpoint determination. Now, it is clear that our product is also easier to read and to use.

Of course, Standard Heater Tubes also meet or exceed every stated ASTM quality requirement. This includes a high unsurpassed surface finish. Our product also meets strict criteria for tube dimensions and metallurgy.  Tubes are serialized with large numbers which are easily seen and read by most people without magnification of any kind.

TOP OF PAGE

The Relevance of JFTOT Testing

JFTOT Testing is conducted to help identify and resolve the problem of a “bad” jet fuel batch. For nearly eight years, our company has produced and sold quality ASTM-grade Standard Heater Tubes which meet this goal.

JFTOT testing exists today because of the idea of “bad fuel.” Bad fuel should be universally avoided. But what is it? What is a “bad fuel,” really?

Logically, there isn’t a way to define a bad fuel except in terms of a good one. If a good fuel is one which works right, for instance, then a bad fuel is one which doesn’t. “Bad fuel” can thus be characterized in terms of gum, clogged engine nozzles, uneven fuel flow, poor combustion, or smoking when burned. Bad fuel leads to serious engine performance problems like burned valves or “missing” cylinders. All of these seem relevant to quality control. For jet fuel, for our purpose, we define a certain minimum fuel quality, or “good fuel,” in terms of thermal oxidation stability. Then, “bad fuel” is defined by exclusion; it “lacks” good thermal stability.

What does a high quality jet fuel with good thermal stability look like? One way to define a quality fuel is through the fuel specifications.

Jet fuel is supposed to meet all fuel specifications, including the specification for thermal stability.  If a batch of aviation fuel has poor thermal stability, that can be a serious or critical problem and disaster seemingly waits. But factually, or course, planes do not fall out of the sky due to one load of questionable or “bad fuel.” Such a result would be sensational. But what if results of bad fuel are cumulative? Maybe it takes several batches of bad fuel to effect airplane engines.

The JFTOT test, ASTM D-3241, purports to measure fuel thermal stability; the extent to which fuel is stable at higher temperatures. It does so by employing a test rig designed to rate a given fuel for stability in a pass or fail way. Good fuels pass. Bad fuels fail. Or do they really?

A sensible question is to ask the percentage of fuels which pass, and the percent which fail, the JFTOT stability test. In other words, what percentage of fuel is “screened out?” Unfortunately nobody knows. Of the 100 percent of aviation fuel produced and used in this world, nobody knows the true percentages. For one, the problem term “bad fuel” isn’t defined. For another, there isn’t a statistical standard, such as by saying that 98%, 99%, or 99.44% of all fuels should be on the “good fuel” side of JFTOT fuel testing. And without such a world standard, we are left, well, exactly where?

In a perfect world, all jet fuel would be “good fuel.” Any “bad fuel” encountered would be discarded, recycled, or dealt with in some way by the total supply chain (in a way other than by using it as airplane fuel). But alas, there is no perfection in the world, and so there is no perfect fuel. If there were, we could statistically rate the worlds’ fuels against it. But the worlds’ total fuels have never been rated. It is too awesome of a job to determine or specify “adequate stability” in these ways. The aviation industry must be doing alright, however, because planes aren’t falling from the sky due either to the number, the amount, the percentage, or the very nature of “unstable” fuels.

Another “bad fuel” problem is the worry that a “good” fuel can “go bad” during transit, storage, or via contamination with other (undefined) “bad” fuels encountered in pipeline, storage, and distribution systems. This kind of “bad fuel” belief can result in blameful discussion about “who caused the bad fuel.” This can result in serious chain-of-custody issues among fuel buyers, distributors, and sellers. Such discussions, however, do nothing to answer the question of what a “bad fuel” is in the first place. (That lack of definition, itself, is a serious fuel problem).

The test employed to measure fuel stability, for example, generates a result which apparently turns on the width of a single hair on your head. At a certain point in testing, as the test temperature is raised (a point called the fuel “breakpoint”), an otherwise good fuel will begin breaking down or decomposing rapidly. Raise the temperature as little as one degree Celsius from that point (if you can define the point at all), and the fuel fails badly. Lower the temperature a degree or two from breakpoint, and you have a quality fuel; Q. Documented test results clearly prove this. So, we have to pick a certain test temperature as well as a certain minimum fuel quality, Q, in order to get comparable results when using the subjective JFTOT test as a practical spec for quality fuel.

In the final analysis, the goal of defining a bad fuel is elusive. “Bad fuel” represents a fuel testing problem, itself comprised of other numerous and difficult problems. Quality Standard Heater Tubes, coupled with straight thinking, make possible practical solutions to common fuel stability problems at the refinery level. In this way, Standard Heater Tubes ensure continued production of “good fuel” at the refinery level. Such tested fuels are currently used with critical confidence throughout the aviation world.

TOP OF PAGE

The Problem of Performance Testing

For the nearly eight years, every Standard Heater Tube has met every ASTM tube specification. Despite this, there is concern for the problem of product performance testing. Make no mistake: our tubes have been exhaustively tested.

Users of ASTM-grade tubes fall into two broad categories: (1) those fully occupied with routine fuel performance testing, such as in refinery labs, and (2) those involved in jet fuel research. The issues these two groups face are very different, but each group has problems conducting performance tests.

Like all ASTM tests, the JFTOT Method is empirically based. That means it is “trial and error” and a bit unscientific. That fact tends to distress those needing a reliable pass-fail fuel stability test, where the “error” part of trial and error” is a concern or seems altogether unacceptable. The principal test result (determination of deposit color) is fundamentally subjective too. That fact tends to distress those engaged in scientific or statistically-based fuels research. Thus, almost all users look to performance testing, and to tube suppliers, to satisfy a hunger for statistics and for basic fuel testing information. However, that same test subjectivity and empirical nature of the JFTOT test create difficult test design problems for equipment suppliers. Distressed users of the JFTOT test continue to seek solutions.

One solution is to use Standard Heater Tubes. The unique, patented, application of a final tube finish guarantees that color bodies on or adjacent to the tube are readily visible for comparison and rating. In other words our tube is easier to read. (It is also easier to read the serial numbers on our tube).  In a Method where test subjectivity is known to be a serious problem, it makes sense to start with a tube which optimizes (rather than one which neglects or even conceals) the clean, honest, image of fuel-related deposit colors which may initially form during a test.

Another testing problem is the issue of jurisdiction. Simply, ASTM lacks jurisdiction to resolve fuel quality issues or to determine supplier fitness and authenticate equipment test results. And, ASTM has no apparent interest in obtaining or creating that jurisdiction. Moreover, ASTM itself is not engaged in, and has not conducted or completed, any product testing of heater tubes. That creates a potential validation vacuum for any new tube supplier, because potential customers want to know (and they keep asking) if a product has been “approved by ASTM.”

That ASTM lacks approval power, or any power to authorize testing, is a sometimes troubling fact. ASTM has no jurisdiction to authorize or approve equipment vendors whose product meets ASTM specification. So, because of these jurisdictional problems, the Standard Heater Tube cannot document ASTM “approval.” Ironically, neither can any other company or another heater tube.

The good news is that, by policy, ASTM doesn’t endorse or certify equipment. ASTM has merely provided a courtesy listing of available tube sources in its Method. Listing is not a testing issue. It is also not a problem; today’s enlightened users do know how and where to find us.

Since it remains ASTM policy to not endorse or certify equipment makers or their products (when conducting ASTM tests), testing jurisdiction ultimately falls to the user. Simply put, only the user has “jurisdiction” to determine or decide “fitness for service.”

Most JFTOT users already know that careful equivalence testing has already been completed successfully. Equivalence was firmly documented in a presentation delivered to the world and to ASTM back in June, 2002. So, wise users resolve the problem of performance testing via:

· Use of product fully meeting all ASTM specifications,
· Demonstrably easier to read and rate tube deposits,
· Solid positive test results delivered to ASTM,
· nearly eight years of successful commercial use, and
· No published negative findings of any kind, by anyone,
· Tube Users have unquestioned power/authority (jurisdiction) to determine fitness for service.

Contact us for a complete copy of performance test results.

TOP OF PAGE

More Technical Considerations

For the super-conservative, three technical topics (beyond performance testing) may be of interest:

1. The Appearance of Heater Tubes

2. Heater Tube Surface Technology

3. The Limitations of Reflection Technology

Since the JFTOT stability test calls for a visual examination and assessment of the color of any JFTOT deposit which is or which may be produced, conventional thinking has held that the backdrop against which the assessment is made (a heater tube) is important. Some think it is critical, and a few even believe it may be wise to stick to one tube supplier until “visual equivalence” is demonstrated. New research calls such beliefs into serious question.

Logically for one thing, the notion that tube appearance is important (or critical to test results) is, as a scientific premise, demonstrably false. If the premise were true, the JFTOT test would in fact be measuring something about the heater tube or its appearance or manufacturer, rather than evaluating or revealing an important feature (stability) about fuel itself. So for starters, that would not be much of a test.

But even if that conventional wisdom were correct, or rational or believable, the notion that test results somehow depend upon tube manufacturer is weak. A producer cannot influence fuel properties or the mechanism of deposit formation, which is what the JFTOT is all about. Fuel degradation simply cannot, and does not, depend on an inert aluminum substrate or the tube surface; let alone on who manufactures it. A test which depends in any meaningful way upon the company producing an inert reaction substrate, would logically yield a useless result.  Perhaps the effort to focus on heater tube manufacturer is meant to detract from known test repeatability and reproducibility issues; problems which a new, easily-read tube(with a finer finish) could begin to address and help to resolve.


Experimentation to bear out the above argument is easy:

1. Take a piece of colored foil paper and place it inside a visual tuberater (VTR), along with fresh new tubes of the two viable manufacturers. Observe the result.

Now if the foil paper chosen is, say, red, and one tube appears more “red” than another, do we conclude that both tube surfaces are “red?” Of course not. The color is not coming from the tubes. We conclude that one tube is easier to read colors with.
 

As an aside, it is perhaps natural for people to speculate that two such manufacturers’ tubes are somehow “different” when they initially see (pun intended) this colorful result. People wonder what makes such striking difference. It turns out that colors are easier to see when bounced off our tube because of our patented tube finishing process; not a bad result at all when seeing and rating deposit color is the overall goal to start with. So a correct conclusion from this experiment is that our tubes are easier to read. Something about the overall environment (perhaps the red paper) causes the color to be seen, and not something about the tube (the tubes themselves are known to not be red). It is the same with deposit color.

The experiment shows that the appearance of heater tubes depends in large part upon the viewing environment. Thus, you cannot simply trust to vision in order to conclude something about tube manufacturers or tube quality. The viewing environment is critical.

[Incidentally, if you had a “camera” rather than a person to make the color determinations, and the camera showed one tube as revealing more “red” than another, would you conclude that a camera is trustworthy to evaluate tube deposits, or would you perhaps still surmise that something about the environment, and not the tube itself, contributes to the production of “red” tubes? Finally, by making tubes appear “red,” to a camera, can you rightly conclude that one or another of two manufacturers’ tubes are “useful?” Moral: beware of anyone proposing use of a video camera to evaluate tubes, deposit colors, or fuels.

To the cautiously persistent, who inquire whether the two red tubes are the same or different, the answer is that yes, they are different, and yes, they are the same. They are different in perception or visual appearance under these chosen, carefully defined, conditions. They are the same vis-à-vis the surface, the metallurgy, and the JFTOT results produced using them, as has been previously shown.

Experiment 2: To prove out the equivalence of surfaces of two tube manufacturers, use the Surface Comparator already specified in D-3241. This device, calibrated to National Bureau of Standards requirements, is based on a presumed association between surface roughness and visual acuity. In short, you can “see” and you can “feel” different surface qualities (roughness) by comparing visually and tactually among surfaces. Using a set of such standards, it is easy to conclude that tubes of both viable manufacturers are below a “2 microinch” finish (The tube surface finish required of a new tube by D-3241). It should be no surprise that two modern suppliers easily meet this requirement.

The surprise is that, below a 2 microinch finish, the apparent correlation between surface roughness and visual appearance begins to break down. This makes it impossible to assess minute surface finish variations using this comparative method. Distinguishing between tube surfaces having high-quality finish requires special equipment.

For this purpose we constructed the Standard Tuberater. This was built specifically to show effects due to (a) lighting and (b) magnification, when viewing and evaluating tube surfaces.

Using a Standard Tuberater, a tube is oriented in a constant lighting environment while magnification is varied from 1X (visual) to 3X (VTR) to 10X.

Use of this Standard Tuberater and any new heater tube shows that what is seen depends critically on the magnification. At a low magnification such as the visual 1X or even the poor 3X power of the VTR, a tube surface isn’t actually seen at all; only the tube appearance or perception, consisting of light reflected off the tube surface, is observed. (And, using the high-glare conditions of a visual tuberater, or VTR, only glare is seen; not the tube surface). At higher magnifications and with proper lighting, the actual tube surface becomes visible and can be seen and appreciated. Of course, all manner of other extraneous features such as streaks, smudges, and surface film, can also be seen (none of which are logically critical to deposit formation mechanism or fuel chemistry).

Attempts to evaluate tube features by using surface profilometers have been made. British researchers compared tubes of the two equivalent manufacturers using surface profilometry. The researcher wrongly concluded that the surface of both suppliers’ tubes are marginal. (What they might have concluded, rightly, is that these two manufacturers’ tube surfaces are equivalent). A wrong conclusion was reached because the critical limitation of surface profilometry (applied to heater tube surfaces) is to only assess a surface in and along two-dimensions (length and height). The critical radial direction was ignored altogether.

A two-dimensional evaluation is very limited, if not meaningless altogether, when applied to cylindrical objects. That you cannot use a two-dimensional technology to evaluate what are essentially three-dimensional qualities or features (tube surface and the perception of same), is a limitation which applies whether a scribe is being used along two dimensions, or whether reflective lighting is employed along the same two dimensions.

Writing at about the time the JFTOT was being developed, Ted Busch (Applied Fundamentals of Dimensional Metrology, Wilkie Brothers Foundation, 3rd edition, 1966) stated: “A buffed or polished surface may have good reflective qualities. This is often mistaken for good surface finish…In fact, when the very best surface finishes are attained, the reflectivity is excellent for nearly all hard materials.” In other words, reflectance (as an indicator of either surface finish or of overall surface quality) is profoundly limited. The moral is: beware of anyone proposing use of reflective technology, such as a spinning tuberater or an ellipsometer, as an improved or “objective” method to rate deposits, heater tubes, or fuel stability. Such simplistic ideas cannot work as long as reflectance is taken only along two dimensions.

Reflective technologies are limited. Such technologies fail by virtue of being one-dimensional. They exclude and fail to account for other important phenomena such as light absorption, light refraction (or bending), and light diffusion (or scattering) which take place on surfaces simultaneously and continuously in all kinds of directions, along with reflection. These are simply not one-dimensional phenomena.

Writing in the August 2005 issue of Advanced Material Processes (Why are Metals Shiny), Richard Chinn explains that “The light that strikes a metal is absorbed… but it can penetrate only a few hundred atoms into the surface, less than a single wavelength. The absorbed electromagnetic wave transfers its energy to the bonding electrons, which can jump up to a broad band of energy levels that also correspond to the full range of visible frequencies.” This means that what we “see” in the surface of a heater tube (a shiny finish) is really only excited energy being released as electrons change orbital levels.

The appearance of a heater tube is no mystery, and there is nothing to be feared from a clean and inert tube surface.

In sum, what is seen in the appearance of a heater tube depends upon (1) lighting, (2) magnification, and (3) introduction of a color body into the viewing environment (the clear viewing and rating of which – as heater tube deposit color - is the whole point of a JFTOT test).

The Standard Heater Tube delivers an easy-to-see and more honest reflection of nearby color bodies, making it a superior observation background for the rating of tube deposit colors.

TOP OF PAGE

ASTM Impasse

As an American manufacturer, we support ASTM. That there are technical limits to our support is understandable:

1. Despite our efforts, there is still no ASTM-accepted definition of tube equivalence. Without that, an objective determination of tube equivalence is impossible. (In Europe, there is a similar absence of any definition).

2. ASTM has (so far) elected to make subjective visual criteria an undefined and unidentified part of equivalence testing, using conditions of harsh lighting and poor magnification. Such conditions make an objective viewing of the actual tube surface nearly impossible.

In addition to critical technical ingredients, there are other factors to the ASTM Impasse which are important.

1. The same guys who (inside of ASTM and without factual basis), oppose the free choice of tube consumers also (on the outside of ASTM) oppose the right of a producer to make or patent a superior product at a better price. That anti-choice stance, in and outside ASTM, seems unsupportable.

2. People in and out of ASTM are free to believe as they please (FN1). A healthy technical disagreement is not impasse, but health in a disagreement comes from open discussion of key points.

(FN1) People are free to believe in the mythology that tube surfaces (and tube manufacturers) can be evaluated just by their appearance, or by the mere perception or “how tubes look.” There are otherwise-intelligent folks active in ASTM who apparently believe that the appearance of a product can even influence the chemical mechanism of reaction taking place on the inert tube surface, or that an inert tube surface (depending on manufacturer, of course) inexplicably participates in the chemistry of fuel thermal oxidation.  Such views, being illogical, do contribute to impasse.

Beyond normal caution and outside of cautious persistence, and way past superconservatism and healthy scientific skepticism lies an unhealthy mental state where negativity is carried to an extreme. In this negativistic zone, the free use of imagination must be stifled, and scientific curiosity must be (and is) abandoned. New ideas may seem frightening in the resulting scary world where some things ---even heater tubes--- are not well understood.

Unfortunately, those who rather innocently fall victim to this extreme, unhealthy, highly negative and unscientific skepticism may come to believe that standardization is an escape route, or process to protect against unknowns; to them, standardization offers the virtual elimination of the unknown and the end to a certain paranoia which the unknown can produce. By offering the safety of sticking with the old, of never attempting anything new or novel, this extremely negative skepticism can mask as standardization, or as something appropriate. In this way it can do destructive work and lead to real impasse.

One way to eliminate impasse is through a working free market. ASTM can break the impasse by giving tube users supplemental reliable data (over and beyond that already available) upon which to base free decisions. Only ASTM can reduce its bureaucracy and eliminate red tape. Until that is done, users are left to their own independent decisions about heater tube manufacturers. In this environment, users are certainly free to consider every bit of all currently available data. But the negative skeptic in Europe or within ASTM, even while lacking any real data of any kind, may prefer that the impasse continue. To consider that much skepticism or that kind of personal preference and practice appropriate, normalized, or “standard” is simply bizarre.

3. ASTM, by virtue of denying our equivalence testing (but with no results of their own), extend and prolong impasse. Any announced “neutrality” regarding ASTM-listed and unlisted suppliers comes across as empty when ASTM fails to serve its members with hard data. ASTM written policy to not “endorse or certify” any equipment vendor should not be mistaken for passivity or inaction. We ask that a free market be allowed to work. A number of near-unanimous votes and continued inaction and delay are evidence of a rather obvious attitude of market obstructionism within ASTM. The result is to abandon the tube user to make, alone, a fair viewing of the valid scientific testing which has already been performed.

4. Recently we became aware that the British Ministry of Defense (MOD) has mandated, without factual basis, that only a competing tube can be used in fuel testing by contractors on their behalf, for testing their own fuels. Of course they also mandate that testing be done by ASTM methodology (methodology which is vendor-neutral; neither endorsing nor opposing equipment or suppliers). That what MOD says and does is confusing, suggests great ambivalence, and makes no sense within itself is evident. We offer no struggle to the British MOD. We merely point out that MOD is affected by the impasse, too. That the MOD is surrounded, daily, by planes flying to and fro on fuel tested exhaustively and successfully using our product, for nearly eight years now, is a fact they will either integrate or deny. It is theirs to work out. Either way they go in this, these questions about ASTM and MOD are asked repeatedly, because multiple suppliers do exist in a free world.

Some folks confuse standardization and the process of standardizing with “one size fits all.” In terms of heater tubes, the emphasis is or should be on agreement to use one size, shape, metallurgy, and so on (which is already the case). But some folks seem to extend this in a socialistic way to restrict and restrain everyone to the use of just one manufacturer or a “sole supplier” on into forever.

Of course the world stands for no such thing. For example, we make the finest ASTM-grade heater tubes. After nearly eight years, that fact presents a certain challenge to ASTM credibility. If the product works, and if it meets ASTM specs, then what is the problem? And the answer is, there is a credibility problem; not a technical problem. After nearly eight years, something seems really wrong at ASTM.

Currently, after passing a protocol into the Method guiding how Testing can be used to establish tube equivalence, ASTM failed to reply to our inquiry regarding the precise same protocol. They simply don’t respond. It is simply beyond the bounds of what is credible for the “ASTM door” to be both open and closed all at one and the same time. Clearly, ASTM needs more member help in helping its members.

ASTM written policy is: to favor use of generic equipment in ASTM Standard Test Methods. ASTM policy says equipment will be listed in a Method once it “becomes available” and is “shown to be equivalent.” And, in ASTM D-3241, Critical heater tube qualities are already listed.

Despite all these ASTM issues, our tubes are the finest. We offer statistical equivalence, a patented technology with easy-to-read tubes, and the best price. That is the simple answer we give when asked repeatedly about the ASTM impasse regarding testing.

Intractability and a refusal to discuss does promote impasse. Isolation and exclusion enhance impasse. Without discussion and debate, impasse remains.

The JFTOT is fundamentally a subjective, “go/no-go” test yielding pass or fail fuel ratings, rooted in empirical trial and error testing. Because of that fact, a good experimental test design considers not just the question of tube equivalence, but also another question; even if two tubes are factually equivalent, can the JFTOT test discern it? In other words, can we “prove” equivalence using the subjective, empirical JFTOT? That question is extraordinarily important.

Suppose a person knew absolutely (because of unrevealed outside factors) or through a resolute belief based on scientific knowledge, that tubes made by two manufacturers were not merely similar, but truthfully were/are equivalent (or to a point of being identical in their performance within the JFTOT). Such a person would have only two choices in designing JFTOT experiments: (1) assume tube equivalence and try to break that presumption, or (2) assume tubes not equivalent, and attempt to show otherwise. Which way would a person go if they knew absolutely, without question, what the ultimate result would be? Logically, wouldn’t they presume tube equivalence?

Now suppose that a person with every reason to believe in tube equivalence met someone (perhaps from ASTM Subcommittee J or from its European equivalent STB-2) who has lost their scientific curiosity and has been overcome with negativism and an extreme, unhealthy, unscientific form of skepticism. Would that second person be inclined to accept the premise of tube equivalence, or to take the opposite premise as their reality? We think the answer is rather obvious. (We also think that unhealthy skepticism explains the existence of an Impasse within ASTM).

The design employed by a blue-ribbon industry Study Group was one where the two manufacturers’ tubes were tested side by side using an array of fuels. Observers from all companies rated all the resulting tube and fuel combinations. If one lab or more failed to validate results of the others, that would be evidence of an “incorrect presumption of equivalence.” But results showed that yes, tube performance is equivalent and yes, JFTOT testing from all labs uniformly confirmed the overall result for all fuels tested. That result, which should reasonably remove all doubt about equivalence, is what began the current impasse. I say began it, because testing isn’t itself the impasse.

Obstructionists are so-called not by real technical disagreement, but by the reality that they won’t discuss anything but continued obstruction. There is no sin in being against anything and everything, either. People have a right to be even noxiously negative, and obstructionism is no crime. Obstruction is not impasse. It is mostly a cry for help.

I have found it helpful to consider that the opponents who seemingly favor obstruction within ASTM of a new supplier by and large do not own or operate a JFTOT. They cannot even do their own testing (testing which they, quite laughably, oppose anyhow). Opposition is not impasse.

Impasse is the unwillingness to have talk, to seriously discuss, to move forward through science and rational consensus. ASTM, which thrives on and proudly claims to operate through a voluntary consensus process, is not willing to discuss this impasse, or see impasse resolved. If we cannot agree on what equivalence is, that is one thing. If we refuse to discuss equivalence, that is, well, that is impasse.

We proposed a definition of equivalence based on tube properties and performance criteria. ASTM neither accepted or rebuked that definition, or provided one of their own. ASTM also isn’t satisfied to employ their own tube specifications as an equivalence test (and anyhow our tubes absolutely meet those requirements, with no dispute). So without agreed definition, there is impasse. We cannot talk. We cannot test. We cannot work together (or separately for that matter). There cannot be consensus as long as there is impasse. There can be no definitive work, and no progress.

Most recently I again proposed to the subcommittee chairman some discussion of this issue. For months, I got no answer.

ASTM has added to the JFTOT Method a protocol by which individuals or a group may establish equivalence. However, there is nobody in ASTM available to discuss particulars; specifics of what constitute equivalence and of how we will know when it is sufficiently demonstrated. There is also nobody to evaluate, confirm, or to supply appropriate fuels for testing. People who try to address the testing issue then, are really isolated and alone. Without an agreed definition of equivalence, without discussion of fuels and conditions, consensus answers to the questions are not possible. That complete impossibility for definitive testing, coupled with a refusal to discuss it, negate any possible consensus and define this impasse. The impasse is about stasis, mental death, the notion that newness can’t exist because it is different than we have always done.

It would seem that, with profound stasis, nobody wins. However, our customers have hope. That’s because with no ASTM definition for tube equivalence, it is left to them to determine and to define. People can use whatever facts and test results are available in making those determinations. They need not accept the unhappy option of having no choice, or only a blind choice.

Tube users and even tube manufacturers are understandably concerned when they see an ASTM impasse instead of testing progress through ASTM. As a manufacturer, we hear that user concern expressed and there is not much more we can do but to listen. When we expect cooperation and get obstruction, when we want scientific answers and get beauty contests, when we need dialogue and consensus and positive leadership and receive instead a most persistent silence and passivity, plus stonewalling, senseless inexcusable delay, and support for unmerited lawsuits, it is natural to feel concern and even frustration.

My request is for people to express their feelings about the ASTM impasse not just to me but also to ASTM. I hope that by hearing the truth about the impasse, tube users can continue and even expand their support for our ASTM-spec product so that the factors supporting and sustaining the ASTM impasse can be quickly and rightly redirected.

I know there is something healthier than impasse for ASTM and for my company.

TOP OF PAGE

Mr. Heater Tube Sez:

As today I am king of the world, I proclaim for everyone a Heater Tube Bill of Rights:

People have the right to get the best price when purchasing tubes. Or, they can pay more than is necessary and avoid economy altogether.

People everywhere have the right to assure themselves of tube equivalence by a method of their choice, and tube users are free to determine tube equivalence; either by equivalence testing of their own design, or by following test suggestions made by ASTM, or considering data of a blue ribbon test group already delivered to ASTM; whatever it takes.

Of course users are also free to stay biased; with no test results or information of any kind to base bias on. Mr. Heater Tube Sez that people, especially including ASTM, have every right to stonewall and procrastinate about testing, even if this costs them all credibility in the scientific community. Of course, they are also free to follow the ASTM written policy and not endorse or certify equipment or manufacturers. People are free to fiercely oppose the success of a new manufacturer and may even claim, as some unenlightened ones do claim, that “only Alcor tubes may be used.” But people are free to and they can always freely favor and use a tested tube meeting every ASTM tube specification.

Having assured themselves of tube equivalence through independent testing or by other means, it is the right of all users to believe that the overall surface finish or even the perception or appearance of an inert heater tube somehow magically influences fuel thermal decomposition chemistry or the mechanism of deposit formation. Users are also free to accept that inert aluminum tubing -- derived from a single mill -- really is chemically inert, and is inert regardless of manufacturer.

Despite all known test results and scientific evidence, tube users do have the complete right to support monopolies and litigious outfits. Folks can also believe one supplier is somehow better than two and it is their right to oppose capitalism, open competition, and fairness. Or, they can give some or all business to another supplier, Mr. Heater Tube Sez.

Fuel testers are free to be negative; to imagine themselves, their fuels, or even entire military systems threatened by an inert, aluminum heater tube one man produces; to believe that a program to “protect” fuel users from a particular supplier is somehow desirable or “good.” They can believe that inert tubes become chemically active or even catalytic, strictly by virtue of the supplier, if they want. People can wrongly infer there exists some “issue” of an “alternative tube.” People are also free to think on their own, to avoid the herd instinct, to insist on rational scientific thought from their peers, and to lead the frightened among us (instead of blindly following them). People have the right to dream, to be optimistic, hopeful, and positive about the opportunities (and heater tubes) surrounding them.

People are absolutely free to select a heater tube of their choice. This includes tubes which reveal or conceal adjacent coloration, and the choice of both numbered and plain tubes from any supplier making tubes to required specifications.

Mr. Heater Tube sez people are free to cling to the mythology that they are somehow enabled to discern something about tube surfaces by simply looking at tubes, or that they can make a meaningful distinction among tube manufacturers and products by relying upon appearance or their own perception of the appearance.

People are free to test new ideas and new products, or old products from new suppliers, and to positively discard old ideas which no longer work. All tube users are free to choose, and to choose wisely.

Tube users have the right to negativism and to carry healthy scientific skepticism to an unhealthy extreme. Folks can even argue endlessly. People are free to prefer smoke to facts, to speak with duplicity, and to bankrupt themselves of credibility by fighting against the imagined problem of “unauthorized” tubes. Folks may freely engage in a bizarre and localized smokescreen of irrationality backed by uneconomic, irrational, unreasoning, and senseless politically-based opposition to a supplier.

Of course it is evident to all that the ferocity of such arguments is merely derived from a fine product being offered at an even better price.

People have the right to an inexpensive, easy-to-read, clean, chemically-inert heater tube from a supplier of choice.

On October 20, 2005 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided to Standard Heater Tube, Inc. a Notice of Allowance for Ser. No. 10/986.706; Method For Roller Burnishing a Heater Tube.

TOP OF PAGE

Pricing

One fact about our tubes is indisputable: The price is sensible! If you’ve been paying up to $440 or more for a case of ten heater tubes, you’ll be pleased at our price of only $260 per case. Buy twenty cases and get them for $240. That’s a sizable discount from others’ pricing.

Mention this web page and receive 10% off the regular price on your first order (maximum 5 cases).

TOP OF PAGE

Contact  (We've moved.  Please take note of new contact information.)

TOP OF PAGE