Investigating BioVALs BB Claims
 

I'm starting this as a new thread because I don't want to pollute a retailers' thread with this discussion.

I've taken it upon myself to look into BioVALs online representations of their BB product, in particular their resin based clear "BBBMAX" .27gr BB and the company "Levante Labs" in Switzerland. I'm interested in this product because of the unique claims being made by the manufacturer and the information about it that they've posted on their website. I've been unable to obtain any samples of this product as I've not found a retailer with it in stock, but I am looking forward to actually trying it.


======================================
Issues so far:


1. The Levante Labs Report.

There are absolutely no references or credentialed persons in this document and in fact, there is a signature on the document indicating that the document is authorized for release, but there are no names of persons, technicians, engineers, or scientists or their credentials that conducted the tests. Typically technical reports of this nature are heavily credentialed to support the findings of the report.

Additionally Levante Labs does not appear in any Swiss business directories and has no internet presence other than the report itself. I have inquiries through the Swiss Consulate in Ottawa for verification of the existence of such a firm at the address in the document to see if I can get more information about this firm.

The fact that you can obtain this report by mailing a self-addressed stamped envelope to the address on the report itself indicates nothing - for all you know, this is a post office box or someone's basement.

So, so far I've been unable to validate the authenticity of this report, More to come as I find more information.


2. BioVALs "Certificate" on Website

http://www.biovalbbb.eu/uploads/pdf/...tification.pdf

This is a BioVAL authored document that claims its subordinate supplier's material meets an EU specification for biodegradability. It goes on to state that it is an "unsigned official document". Hmmm... Seems a lot of BioVAL documents are unsigned but official. Its an officious looking document at first glance but in fact when you look at it in detail, its not a certificate, its not even issued by a governing body of any kind. At best I would call this a claim of compliance.

===============================================

I will be upfront about this, I am a BB retailer here in Canada, so I do have declared interests in this area. I am not attempting to create a discrediting campaign for BioVALor its MAXBBB, rather, I am trying to validate pubically made claims so I can better understand their product, its origins and its real endorsements, certifications and performance warranties. They claim this BB is better than anything else on the market. Perhaps they're right, but I intend to hold their feet to the fire on their scientific and testing claims.

I do invite Stefano Valentino, the CEO on BioVAL to address these issues directly or to contact me with further information that clarifies the above issues in order to validate the credentials and certificates they make claim to.

Please do not post in this thread unless you have information to contribute to the above mentioned issues or have direct knowledge of BioVAL and its testing and compliance processes and certificates, or information that can enable a third party to validate the Levante Labs document or the existence of the company itself. Any independent analysis with a name/author is also useful.

Please feel free to bookmark this thread and check it from time to time for updates.

An interesting article worth reading points out that the actual material in the BBBMax product is undisclosed, even in the MSDS sheets (how that is allowable I am not sure).

http://chairsoft-press.com/articles/...ical-analysis/

BioVAL previous biodegradable BBs have a disclosed recipe and that is confirmed by the MSDS sheet, however, the new BBBMax BB is an entirely different material and has its own sheet.

Old Formula: http://www.biovalbbb.eu/uploads/pdf/BBB%20MSDS%20AA.pdf

New MAXBBB Formula: http://www.biovalbbb.eu/uploads/pdf/...0MSDS%20AA.pdf

The article does some comparisions by reverse engineering the weight and size to get a specific gravity and therefore a short list of substances that the product could be made of. Basically in the absence of any other information from BioVAL, it looks like the closest chemical description for this substance is (drum roll please) GLASS.

Here is a clip from that article:

Conclusion

So if BBBMAX aren’t plastic or biodegradable, then what are they made of? What material

* Shatters on impact,
* Has a melting point of 500° to 1800° centigrade,
* Has a density of about 2.4 g/cm^3,
* Is not flammable,
* Can be dissolved by strong acids and bases,
* Is made of natural ingredients and is non-toxic,
* and finally, is transparent?

The only material that comes to mind that has all these properties yet is cheap enough to be a candidate for disposable BBs is glass. For comparison, here is a material safety data sheet for a type of optical glass (meaning transparent) with a density and melting point that closely match those of the BBBMAX. The BK-7 optical glass from that MSDS has a melting point of 532° C while the Bioval claims the BBBMAX has a melting point of 500° C or above and the BK-7 has a specific gravity of 2.39g/cm3 while the BBBMAX has a specific gravity of approximately 2.4g/cm3.

Remember where Bioval claimed on their FAQ that the BBBMAX is not glass? This is now a little hard to believe. If a material behaves like, melts like, dissolves like, weighs like, and looks like glass; one would tend to believe that it was glass. If they are in fact, some form of glass, does this not conflict with Bioval’s statement on their safety page that the BBBMAX meets the MILPOL requirement of biodegradability?

There are some really bad logic in that blog that your second post referred to there from my point of view, which I consider the meat and core of yoru argument.

1) BioVAL already said BBBMax is made out of resin.

Resin ain't glass.

Case in point, if you were to use www.matweb.com, and use "resin" with a minimal melting point of 500*C, you would have 21 hits.

To use temperature alone to figure out which material it is IN ABSENCE OF ANY SALIENT MATERIAL FEATURE is a bit like using weight to tell my age, my height, my gender and race etc.

2) The term biodegradable pretty vague too, especially in absence of any data on how it degrades. Remember, biodegrabeable is degradation of a material by natural means, it doesn't just have to be nom-nom-noms for bacteria (e.g. UV degradation, humidity degradation, etc.)

3) Too much room for error in that calculation. 2 things

a) the author ASSUMED that the BB is 6mm. Most BBs advertised as 6mm are in fact more often lower than that. See this as a good example. Even just by deviation of 0.1mm will compound the final error to 4% (1.6% ^ 3)- and this is without considering the other possible error. Are you willing to go out and call someone a fraud with a possible deviation in your data by a minimum of 4%, possibly more?

b) there is no way of telling how "pure" is the component used to make the 0.27g BBs. It's all fine and well if they are only using 1 material component, but if they are using 2 different componentns with different weight and material specs you start to have a headache. 3 or more and it's starting to become impossible. The way the author did his calculation, he only assumed that it is a 1 component system - when there are good reasons to suspect that the BBBMax is quite possibly a 2 component or more system. (A BB made purely out of pure resin and can be used in high-temperature application isn't likely to be cheap to start with)

What is the lesson learnt here? ASSUME makes ASS out of U and ME. The author in that blog used too much assumptions. Any university undergraduate project supervisor will happily kick you in the butt if you were to write a report using so much assumptions!

4) And lastly:there is this thing called the synergistic effect in material science - you add 2 materials together you can get a better property, i.e 1 + 1 to get 3. The manufacturer may have taken advantage of this to claim that their product is thermal-stable. However, when you mix something together though, you could lose volume etc, which wrecks havoc on specific gravity calculations. Again, without knowing whether the BB is made out of just 1 component or more, using specific gravity to determine a material is a bit fallacious.


The best way to investigate the manufactuere's claim? Get some samples (which should be easily done if you ask nicely and pay for postage), lay them out under the sun, and see what happens after 30 days ("The Composting Test"). This is far more reliable than any armchair calculation done by even the best mathematician armed with the latest version of Perry's Chem Engineering handbook next to him..

Beating the dead horse to death
 

I am new here so please forgive me if my post if it violates some rule I am not aware of.

The subject of BIOVAL BBBMAX has been beat to death over at Arnie's where the better part of 1000 posts and 10000 views have covered everything from biodegradability to Levante Lab's test.

The conclusion over there is that:

(1) Levante's credentials (or lack thereof) is really irrelevant. The point of lab tests is that they are presented in a way that anyone may repeat them in the same controlled lab environment and publish the test results. If they are different then a discussion may be initiated as to the merits of the tests themselves.

(2) The “G” word (glass) is so vague in scientific/physics that saying something is made of “some form of glass” is rather misleading. Glass is a process and most anything can be made into glass. It is simply a matter of cooling speed. Water and even polymers for example can be made into glass if the cooling process is done right. Furthermore a little investigating on Google Patents show a few patents for BIODEGRADABLE glass. I guess a more correct term would be AMORPHOUS SOLIDS. Most classes of solid materials can be found or prepared in an amorphous form. For instance, common window glass is an amorphous solid, many polymers (such as polystyrene) are amorphous, and even foods such as cotton candy are amorphous solids (Brittanica and Wikipedia).

(3) Biodegradability (the “B” word) is a term that can also be (mis)used in such a way as to create a lot of confusion. I can identify 3 different definitions: one is legal (with all its different national, regional connotations), another is based on international standards (ex. ISO 14855 etc etc) and lastly one that is set in the public mind. What does it mean to you? Your answer is not wrong in fact you will probably be able to find your own definition somewhere on the web or in a technical manual.

(4) Whether or not ANY bb is dangerous depends solely on the velocity and distance such a bb is fired period full stop. No bb has magical powers that suddenly come to life once such a bb leaves the barrel of an airsoft gun.

(5) Does the BIOVAL BBBMAX break glass (oops sorry, the amorphous solid used to make transparent panels in cars and houses)? Never tried. Not on our field. Point is who cares. It doesn’t break good quality ANSI/EN/MILSPEC ballistic eyewear and it doesn’t cause damage to gear or airsoft guns. Mesh goggles, God forbid! Those things are simply dangerous and completely banned here and should be banned everywhere. Why anyone would spend huge $ on gear and not spend good $ on protecting eyes and face is beyond me. I will leave that debate to another thread.

(6) There are plenty of pictures on the web and in the forums of normal plastic bbs breaking optics, celphones, teath and even skin. Vehicles on the field are illegal here because too many people have been hit or even run over by them. In fact, if you fire plastic bbs at the right speed and distance at a car window that window will eventually resonate and shatter.

We use BIOVAL BBB, BBBFLUO (tracer) and BBBMAX regularly and we are quite satisfied. In fact the BBBMAX is the best bb we have ever tried in any airsoft gun by far. Try it and if you don’t like it stop using it but don’t discount any transcendental powers simply because it is different! For sure it is better than any existing bbs by far! I guess that is what scares most bb producers.

I am also guessing that is why the motto for the BBBMAX in latin is, "Oderint Dum Metuant" (Let them Hate as Long as they Fear).

As I have stated on the retail thread, all of my own testing has confrimed the Levante lab tests. I have yet to have someone shoot these BB's into me for a tissue damage comparison but that is completely irrelevant.

As always Airsoft in North america is a year behind (or more) than in Europe.

Scarecrow PM me and we will arrange for some BB's to get to you as they are sold out across the planet.

Thanks, but I have found some at a US company. I ordered them online. Total for 2000 rounds with shipping came in at $38 USD.

Full stop right there. I can't believe you said something like that. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the scientific method or scientific evidence would crucify you in a debate if you made a statement like that.

The credentials and background of Levante Labs goes to the heart of supporting the credibility of the report. The merit of the tests themselves has EVERYTHING to do with the credibility of the document!!! I've be unable to validate the existence of this firm. If the firm can been shown that it is an independent entity contracted by BioVAL versus having been crafted by BioVAL itself, it means the difference between a real study or a marketing tool. If its a marketing tool, it should be known for what it is. And if it is a marketing tool and not a real study, thats a whole other problem that I won't go into here now, because I have not established an answer to that one way or another. Its like the tobbacco industry's own studies back in the 50's and 60's attempting to disspell the mounting evidence of the health risks of smoking cigarettes with commissioning their own studies! Peer review and critical deconstruction of medical data resulted in a complete refutation of their studies and showed them to be marketing ploys having little to do with looking after the welfare of their customers.

Thats called a claim, its not a fact. There is a difference. So far I don't have evidence one way or the other and I find the lack of information on the MSDS sheets combined with the reported behaviour of the round to be suspicious. Add to that the lack of credentials for this entity called Levante Labs and the lack of claim of authorship to individuals with credentials in the lab report, I am left with a lot of suspicions.

As I've said, I've not concluded anything but I find both your posts rather quick to defend conclusions I haven't made one way or the other yet.

Terrific, you're happy with the BB and you're willing to use it because it meets your needs and you're satified that its safe within your personal boundaries of 'safe'. You have an opinion and I respect that. Many here have used other BioVAL BB products here in the past and not been satisfied with the results and thats their opinion, so you in turn have to respect that experience and opinion. Also, most of what was posted at Arnies in that thread was 95% opinion with about 5% fact and opinion does not constitute fact.

I am still assembling facts from evidence and the available data to satisfy my own curiosity. Once I am satisfied with the facts, I'll render an opinion, but from what I read so far, being a critical thinker, amd having spent six years in the business myself, I am seeing things in that Levante Labs document and the lack of certain information to be very, very suspicious because they point to a potential of having obscuficating inconvenient facts or truths.

So this horse is far from dead yet, and I intend to beat it until I am satisfied one way or another.

Amoki, I am not qualified in any way in materials science to support or refute what you've posted, so its just going to stand there in the thread, but I ask you this: why doesn't the MSDS sheet disclose the actual chemical make up of the 'resin'? Why is the material not chemically identified on their website or in any of their materials? Why does the author of the blog have to go to the trouble of reverse engineering the material through math in the first place?? These questions are rhetorical. Draw your own conclusions all I ask is that you think about it.

FYI. I contacted DEDUSA the distributor in the US. The BBBMAX is sold in bags of 1kg or 3700 rounds for $38 MSRP. You are buying some old stock. That bag should not cost you more than $25 for 2000 rounds MSRP. I hope this helps reduce some of your research costs.

Fact and Fiction
 

:rolleyes:

Under normal circumstances i would agree with you. Unfortunately these are not normal circumstances.

Try downloading the MSDS for Gorilla Glue. You will see that the MSDS has "trade secret" written exactly where the ingredient everyone wants to know about should be. You will see this with many products.

It is perfectly legitimate, in my view, to doubt or question any lab report and its claims. In fact, it was made clear by players and game field owners that even if the report was prepared in a more conventional manner they would still question and be filled with scepticism. This is just part of human nature when something new and innovative hits the market.

The point is that these persons (includingmyself) have acquired the BBBMAX and tried them. These "field trials" have accumulated tons of empirical evidence from all over the world (including Taiwan, Japan, EU and USA). Players are crazy about them because the BBBMAX are:

(1) As close as you can possibly want a bb to be perfectly spherical;
(2) No bubbles;
(3) Even density;
(4) small, fast and accurate;

when compared to plastic or bioplastic bbs.

**Bottom line is that even though i agree with you, i must admit that in the face of hands-on positive experience questioning the "format" (and therefore the credibility) of the LEVANTE LABS report is simply an exercise in academic discussion. The real world results are all that matter to us on the playing field. In this sense, the LEVANTE LAB report and BIOVAL's claims are largely irrelevant.**

A lot of Europeans contacted BIOVAL and LEVANTE LABS. The Fiduciary representing LEVANTE stated on letterhead that items were omitted so that the competition would not have access to persons or materials. Also, that they do not want to be flooded with requests for information from the international airsoft community and above all do not want to be dragged into any issues.

Lastly, how you intend to investigate this "marketing conspiracy theory" (lol) is very interesting. Switzerland, is the most secretive society in the world where violations of privacy, company requests for confidentiality and banking secrecy carries a jail term and a fine. You will need to some heavy duty proof to substantiate your claims, tests and opinions.

Conclusion:

(1) To refute (or even accept) the Levante paper you must have an independent lab run the testing. That includes a CO2 cannon and all the bbs they tested. Repeatability is the only real question mark. If this is not possible then we will all want to see your report. No easy task and a lot of us have found it to be to expensive to do. It is much easier to spend $/€ to buy the BIOVAL BBBMAX and form our own opinions.

(2) In the final analysis, we as players don't give a hoot about the LEVANTE LABS test, BIOVAL's claims or any test for/againts either. We have formed our opinions based on tests in the field. Empirical evidence accumulated in many different parts of the world and in many different environments holds up better than any lab test.

The evidence from the field is that the BIOVAL BBBMAX is a great product.

This discussion is specifically about the BIOVAL BBBMAX and not BIOVAL's other BBB products. Stating that "other BIOVAL BBB" products have left players unsatisfied in Canada is a little hard to believe frankly. This sweeping statement is a little beyond simple opinion and hardly based on facts. The BIOVAL product line is innovative and IMO (and that of my fellow players) performs better than the rest. The fact that BIOVAL BBB are in stock in any shop for such a short time is testament to their quality.

Furthermore, attributing special ballistic qualities (exterior and impact) to the BBBMAX based on speculation about materials, hardness etc is somewhat simplistic. They are better for specific physical properties. They are polished to perfection (better than any plastic), they are of even density, and they lack air bubbles inside. These are facts not opinion that translate into better ballistic properties. Its as simple as that.

Now my question is since BIOVAL made a great bb (BBBMAX), isn't simply a natural knee-jerk reaction by some producers to attempt to discredit them for this achievement? BIOVAL is doing a great service for airsoft spending time and money on developing great products for us and we as players thank them for it. They are sticking thier neck out with claims and tests which is more than i can say for the rest ofd the pack.

Moreover, the Dept of Natural Resources Washington State have approved the BIOVAL BBB products for use on public land. This alone is an "A" for effort to BIOVAL.

Lastly, we are all waiting for the BIOVAL BBBDIMPLEX bb, aka the Golf Ball BBB. They claim this to be the cats a$$ of bbs. We shall see. We will all buy a bag and test it ourselves.

In this sense this dead horse continues to be clubbed to death.

In the absence of any credible references or footnotes, you're right, the Levante Labs document can be tossed as it can't have any relevance without credible references within the document. The only problem is the document is referenced to support their claims about the product, so it stays on the table as an item to be supported or refuted.

And you're using the phrase "marketing conspiracy theory". There is nothing conspiratorial about it. Marketing is by its design and nature used as a tool to sway opinion. If you're a critical thinker, when you see marketing materials you read it, understanding that its from the manufacturer and its an "ad" and its purpose is to promote the product for sale. Scientific analysis if it is to be considered as such should be independent of a manufacturers marketing claim and that independence should be open, credentialed and referenceable.

Easy, I notice you've got 2 posts so far here at ASC, so you're obviously here just to discuss this one thing. Thats fine, and I don't have a problem with that but in your big long post you haven't contributed any new information and all you've done is defended what is already there and castigated me for not accepting it at face value like a lot of other people have. I'll ask you to cease posting in this thread unless you have new information to offer in regards to the issues I've identified in Post #1, which are very specific questions that I have yet got answers for.

And yes, I have samples coming in and my testing won't be limited to shooting it out of my gun - I've not questioned their performance and really don't intend to until after I've satisfied myself as to their chemistry. And I can tell you when I do that, my document will come with credible, third party verifiable sources in a laboratory environment. I understand if I present a scientific document the burden of proof will be mine and I have zero problems with that.


I find it interesting that you're demanding "heavy duty proof" from me for asking questions from the manufacturer to which I have yet to get credible responses to, yet you're willing to suspend your demand for "heavy duty proof" in respect to the information presented by BioVAL in regards to BBBMax. I'd suggest that you demand "heavy duty proof" from BioVAL in regards these questions, not me, all I am doing is asking questions. I don't think thats unreasonable given the claims being made.

Thank you for your time on this Easy, but, as I said, restrict all future posts to providing evidentary information in respect to the questions in post #1.

Thanks, this is helpful information.

To clarify the costing, the shipping was $14 USD, so the product itself was $24, but that was 2000. I think the product is just beginning to get into the North American supply chain and I think at the beginning unless BioVAL has pricing restrictions, you might seem some profit taking on initial sales. Pretty normal for a premium product that is in high demand and low supply.

Converted to Canadian dollars my final landed cost is $49 CAD.

Scarecrow - I agree with you and i am hardly castigating your posts. I have no evidence nor do i have answers to your questions. Even if i did it would be regarded with suspicion. I think that the accepted convention is that "evidence" on the web is like muddy water, difficult to phathom. The only proof i have is from personal experience and that of those i play with. I am assuming that this is unacceptable to you. So be it. As for marketing, the first BBBMAX I used were given to me (about 50) and i tried them in a couple of sniper rifles and AEGs. Never looked back since. I guess players will decide for themselves. As for the number of posts ... well ... give me a chance i only just signed up ... lol.

Cheers friend, enjoy the site. Canadian airsoft has a lot of angles and a lot of active players and the sport is growing. I don't fear the introduction of these sorts of products, materials science guarantees advancements. My main concerns are spin jobs that may lead to a compromise in safety. Performance claims players can gauge on their own.

I've had an interesting call back from the Swiss Consular Mission in Toronto this morning. Spoke with a very nice lady (named "Kathy") with a Swiss accent who went through the business registries and found no registration for a "Levante Labs" at the address indicated in the report, or in their registry country wide.

She is sending me some additional information via email regarding the local business registry she used and is going to get me into contact with a trade representative to look into it further in case her registry is incomplete. I asked her if it was possible that a registered business would not be in her listing and she was doubtful but if it is not, it would be because it was registered very recently (ie: last 60 days) and that's why she wants to follow up with the trade representative who would have access to more detailed information. She was very helpful and very "open" despite Easy's earlier worries about the secretiveness of the Swiss (lol). I wasn't arrested or imprisoned, and am still happily sitting at home enjoying a cup of tea.

As usual this information is just that, information as I gather it, and in of itself, is not conclusive as of yet. I will keep you informed.

Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 12:02:12 -0400
From: "Utigard Kathy EDA UTK" <Kathy.Utigard@eda.admin.ch>
To: <jay@acsl.com>
Subject: Levante Labs


Hi Jay,

As discussed over the phone.

http://www.zefix.ch/info/eng/TI501.htm

Please let me know if you require more information.

With kind regards,

Kathy Utigard
Consulate General of Switzerland
154 University Avenue, Suite 601
Toronto, ON M5H 3Y9, Canada
Phone: +1 416 593 5371, ext 227
Fax: +1 416 593 5083
Kathy.Utigard@eda.admin.ch
www.eda.admin.ch/canada

This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.

The only thing you are going to find at the Levante Labs address ( beside a hairdresser ) is a Treuhand gesellschaft ( fiduciary company) called Ulrich Willi. I suspect that they handle all the traffic for Levante Labs.

Any suggestion as to how to validate Levante Lab's existence and credentials beyond that? I assume a "fiduciary company" is some sort of lawyer or banking concern?

Levante Labs should still come up as a company unless its a pseudonym. But no credible scientific study would that would be published under a pseudonym would be taken seriously as scientific.

I found a site that describes this issue and the process I am following:

http://www.fontysmediatheek.nl/wiki/...ibility_source

How to evaluate credibility source

We are constantly surrounded by information, and it isn't always easy to know which sources to trust. Being able to evaluate the credibility of information is an important skill used in school, work, and day-to-day life. With so much advertising, controversy, and blogging going on, how do you sift through the chaff and cut to the chase?

Steps

1. Think about how reliable you need the information to be. Everyone has different standards for credibility, and often this depends on how the information is going to be applied. If you're writing an academic paper in a university setting, for example, you need to be especially strict about sources. If you're looking for information on how to unclog your toilet, a comprehensive Internet search might suffice. If your project falls somewhere in the middle, such as if you're making a presentation at work or creating a website, it's important to evaluate sources and make a judgment call as to whether you should include the information and if so, how it should be presented.
2. Consider the medium with which you are working. Generally, the more that is invested into the creation and publishing of the material, the more likely you are to find reliable information. For example, printed material has a higher cost of production than an Internet blog, which anyone can publish for free. A peer-reviewed journal is considered the most reliable source because each article must undergo a rigorous review process, with many professional reviewers involved. This isn't to say that you should completely avoid Internet sources (a blog published by a distinguished scientist commenting on a study could be useful) nor should you immediately trust a well-researched publication (material sponsored by large corporations, for example, can be highly biased). Take everything with a grain of salt.
   • Research the author. A source is more credible if written by someone with a degree or other credentials in the subject of interest. If no author or organization is named, the source will not be viewed as very credible. Some questions that you should ask about the author are:
     • Where does the author work?
     • If the author is affiliated with a reputable institution or organization, what are its values and goals?
     • What is his or her educational background?
     • What other works has the author published?
     • What experience does the author have?
     • Has this author been cited as a source by other scholars or experts in the field?
   • Check the date. Find out when the source was published or revised. In some subject areas, such as the sciences, having current sources is essential; but in other fields, like the humanities, including older material is critical.[1] It's also possible that you're looking at an older version of the source, and an updated one has since been published. Check with a scholarly database for academic sources (or an online bookstore for popular sources) to see if a more recent version is available. If so, not only should you find it, but you can also feel more confident about the source--the more printings or editions, the more reliable the information.
   • Investigate the publisher. If the publisher is a university press, the source is likely to be scholarly.
   • Determine the intended audience. Scan the preface, table of contents, index, abstract, and the first few paragraphs of the article or of a few chapters. Is the tone, depth, and breadth appropriate for your project? Using a source that is too specialized for your needs may lead you to misinterpret the information given, which is just as hurtful to your own credibility as using an unreliable source.
   • Check the reviews. Find reviews for the source. In the US, you can check Book Review Index, Book Review Digest, Periodical Abstracts. If the book is aimed at a layperson, check reviews online and see how and why others criticized the source. If there is significant controversy surrounding the validity of the source, you may wish to avoid using it, or examine it further with a skeptical eye.
   • Evaluate the source's sources. Citing other reliable sources is a sign of credibility. It is, however, sometimes necessary to verify that the other sources also show a pattern of credibility and are used in context.
   • Identify bias. If the source's author is known to be emotionally or financially connected with the subject, be aware that the source may not fairly represent all views. Sometimes research is necessary to determine relationships that indicate the possibility of bias.
   • Be conscious of wording that indicates judgment. Conclusions that describe something as "bad or good" or "right or wrong" should be examined. It is more appropriate to compare something to an objective standard than to label it with words that represent abstract concepts. Take for example, "...these and other despicable acts..." vs. "...these and other illegal acts...". The latter describes the acts in terms of the law (an objective source, somewhat) whereas the first example judges the actions according to the author's own belief of what is a despicable act.
   • Evaluate Consistency. Sources that apply different standards to those who agree and disagree with them are suspect. If your source praises one politician for "changing to meet the needs of his constituency", but then criticizes an opposing politician for "changing his position with opinion polls", it is likely that the source is biased.
   • Investigate the financial or funding sources for sponsored research. Determine the sources of funding for the study conducted to get an idea of the potential influences on the study. Various sources of funding can sway the information presented or the way a study is conducted in order to align with their own agendas.
   Tips
   
   
   1. The more radical the ideas presented in the source (in comparison to other sources on the same subject) the more carefully you should scrutinize it. Don't dismiss it completely; Gregor Mendel's work was cited only three times, criticized, and ignored for 35 years before his discoveries in genetics were recognized in the field of science.[3]
   2. If a source doesn't pass the above guidelines, it doesn't mean that the information contained within is false. It just means that it doesn't carry as much weight in compelling someone to believe it.
   3. Beware of using Wikipedia as a source for academic or journalistic writing. While a scientific study showed that Wikipedia is as accurate as professionally generated enclyclopedias[4], it is generally considered not credible enough for use in articles where accuracy is of extreme importance, since anyone can edit nearly any of the entries.

I'm the author of the blog article posted earlier. My calculations in that report were very rough, I'll admit. However, the properties of these bbs so closely match that of glass, it's very hard for me to believe that they are not.

Glass or not, they still have the dangerous properties of it. When shattered, the shards are absolutely razor sharp. They will easily cut you if not handled with care. This is especially of concern where games occur in completely 'hard' environments like at my local CQB arena. If BBs were to shatter there, it is quite likely that players could be injured as many like to 'slide' along the linoleum floors. I have not yet conducted scientific impact tests to determine how hard an impact is required to shatter the BBBMAX.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r...e/IMG_1122.jpg

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r...e/IMG_1106.jpg

I know these BBs are very well liked for accuracy and consistency among the players that use them, which is why threads like these tend to become controversial. However my feeling is that in airsoft, player safety needs to always be put above competitiveness.

I tried the materials search at MatWeb mentioned earlier with the parameters of:
Melting Point: 500C to 1800C
Density: 2.35g/cc to 2.45g/cc
and the only result I came up with was this glass:
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataShe...eddd3bf252322b

It is still possible that the BBs could be made up of a composite of other materials that do not fit into the parameters I searched for, but the simplest explanation is still that they are made of some type of glass.

You requested that i only post if i have facts. Well here are the facts:

---------
FACT 1
----------
There are 5 types of companies that can be formed in Switzerland:
(1) Single Owner Business.
(2) General Partnership.
(3) Limited Liability Company.
(4) Limited Share Corporation.
(5) Branch.

HERE IS THE CLINCHER - Type (1) Single Ownership Business DOES NOT require entry into the Commercial Registry and DOES NOT require a VAT number to operate. So your Consular investigation may very well turn up nothing.

---------
FACT 2
---------
The address provided by Levante Labs is NOT THEIR OWN but that of their Fiduciary Representative. A Swiss Fiduciary can represent both Swiss and Foreign companies. This means Levante Labs may very well be incorporated outside of Switzerland.

----------
FACT 3
---------
A Fiduciary Representative is a legal entity and usually has a Federal License to operate.

-------
FACT 4
-------
Levante Labs may be the trade mark owned by another entity (Swiss or Foreign) and not the actual name of the company.

Write to the Fiduciary Representative of Levante Labs and ask if this company exists. Otherwise just a dead end

… enjoy your tea.

Since we're now talking about the trademarks, I did a couple of searches for "Levante" on the websites of both the US Patent & Trademark Office and Trademarks and Design Resigtration Office of the EU and turned up no relevant results.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?...004:964khs.1.1
http://www.oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/...en_SearchBasic

Mike a lot of material roughly fit those densities.
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~cf...bles/1-86B.pdf

We have also tried this route. Unfortunately trade marks need not be registered.

Of course, but do they also match the melting point and other parameters? If you can propose a specific material that does, I'd be interested to see it. So far I've found data on two types of glass that at least roughly match the parameters we're looking for.

Instead of using generic terms such as “glass” perhaps we should be investigating transparent ceramics and their derivatives.

I have found three, all are used in optics and all are transparent:

Aluminum oxynitride.
Magnesium aluminate spinel.
Single crystal aluminum oxide.

There are 100s of industrial ceramics and resins that with a little mixing to make them cheaper can fit the bill.

Finding a perfect fit may be impossible since any number of "ingredients" may be thrown into the mix to make them affordable.

Added to the fray are bioactive and biodegradable ceramics with high mechanical strength.

Just cause its transparent doesn't mean its window glass. I have never seen window glass resist in a vice. In fact it is very difficult to shatter the BBBMAX and when it does it is more powder than what we would refer to as common glass.

I think BIOVAL have adopted a novel material and processed it in such a way as to make it affordable.

Scarecrow since you are the owner of BB Bastard, should we apply these criteria when confronted with your research and/or results?

Let's not turn this into trolling or a flamewar. I believe Scarecrow is trying to decide whether he should sell this particular line of BBs.

Anyway, do we really care about the exact makeup of the BBBMAX? I think general safety is the issue - which will have to be proved out with physical tests.

Either way, the three ceramics you listed are nowhere near the same density of the BBBMAX (2.4 g/cc):

Aluminum oxynitride - 3.688 g/cm³ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride)
Magnesium aluminate spinel - 3.60 g/cc (http://www.matweb.com/search/DataShe...f3da602d4ad717)
Single crystal aluminum oxide - 3.98 g/cc (http://www.matweb.com/search/DataShe...e0155ee448d6f0)

,

I purchased 2 cases of this product (10 bags) count at a total cost of 250CDN shipped to my door per case.

I don't know which retailer you purchsed your BBBmax's from but the MSRP for 10 bags should be in the neighbouhood of 200-230 USD.

They have been in the US supply chain for a little over 1 yr now. if anything profit taking has been due to the explosion of demand

Yes i have seen the their densities. That's what i could find. Is it possible to mix an ingredient that would reduce their densities during the manufacturing process?

I have been wondering the same thing. Perhaps Scarecrow has not bought any BBBMAX. There are other similar products. Try at http://www.begadishop.com/catalog/in...p?cPath=21_208 he sells glass bbs.

in theory yes, but i think Scarecrow feels that his product is superior, and by obtaining factual evidence, he can prove it so. thus, it would be in his best interests to present the facts as is. besides, i dont think he is worried about a "superior product" taking over the market. His product IS PROVEN to be so far superior to others and as for BBs, they cant really get any better. for bioval products to enter canada, it shouldn't pose much of a threat as it has to compete with a local product that has so far been proven superior to any others that have entered our country. Besides, ill take the slightly heavier weight of BB Bastard .28s over bioval .27s

Scarecrow has never made the claim of being the best. Try not to brag him into a difficult position.

I've seen that site already in the arnies debate, their are a couple of retailers oversea's that sell glass BB's as well, hence the debate as to the materials made of the BBBmax

This debate is a dead horse oversea's, take your bag of BBBmax shoot some of them and take the remainder to a university for analysis in a mass spectroscope.

As for the powder left behind. I ground the powder between my fingers and it didnt break my skin, I also taste tested the 'shards', I found them to "less toxic tasting than regular BB's".

Based on my personal experience in crushing these BB's. I don't think a AEG or a sniper rifle could ever propel the BBBmax with sufficient force to cause it to shatter against commonly found items on a field, and that weapon still be within field limits.

I believe that fields should disallow or ban these bb's based on the materials found on the field. Yes, they break glass, so you should bring your truck onto the field, etc. again all stated much earlier in page 1 of this.


PS Easy where are you from?

I respect your product loyalty. I guess a lot of companies would love that kind of customer. Outside of Canada nobody i know has ever heard of the BB Bastard. In fact, i thought "the BB Bastard" was Scarecrow's Nom de Guerre.

:roll:

But that is beside the point. Differing opinions make a market and testing a new product can change those opinions.

I do not wish to degrade anyones products. I have never tried the BB Bastard and so i cannot formulate an opinion of any sort.

I can also fully understand the fact that Scarecrow's opinions are largely based on his attempts to defend his turf. This is absolutely normal IMO.

and I repeat here and now what I put in post #1

I've declared my interests already, you're not pointing out anything that I haven't identified. As I said before Easy, please stick to the discussion as outlined in post #1. This isn't a fanboy versus detractor thread, its a critical discussion about the items I posted. Consider this your second warning to stick to the thread topic. I won't have this thread degenerate into character assassinations (of me or BioVAL). I am asking REASONABLE questions, the burden of proof lays at the feet of those laying claims, not me. If I lay a claim I will accept a burden of proof and don't meet that standard posted, please feel free to come at me, but enough it enough.

I agree with you 100%.

I am from Switzerland. The land where all males between the age of 18 and 42 serve their country and get to keep their combat gear at home. Including our awesome SG550 full auto assault rifles. :D

No, here is where I bought it. Its the real deal.

http://www.airsoftnw.com/modules.php...5207.164.80.96

That is where I bought mine the unit price has gone up 5 dollars since my purchase in Jan.

My retail experience was a little different than yours, I had to initiate a paypal complaint due to exceptional bad communication.

I have spoken to trichrome (his ASC handle and on airsoftmechanics.com), you may want to ask him his opinion on the matter as he stated to me feels that the bbbmax are as good or better than the super high end sniper grade ammo. (TM superior grade 0.30, Maruzen SGM).

Actually I think my product is a reasonably high quality product at a competitive price, with an established distribution network, but I am not making comparisons to the BioVAL product here. Unless they decide to sell it for $10 a bag here in Canada, I don't feel threatened by it. I don't want to make this a fanboy thread for BB Bastard either because it would detract from the credibility of me trying to maintain a neutral position in the matter. And I will ask the moderators to delete posts that go fanboy on one side or the other. This is admittedly a hard thread for me to moderate but I think people who know me know I am level headed and those who witnessed me keep the peace between Wolfpack and the external world during those years KNOW this inherently about me. I don't expect guys like Easy or perhaps other lurkers who have no history here to appreciate this fact but I would expect that the more outrageous accusations from outsiders to be largely ignored by those who know me at ASC.

If I do appear to get partisan on the issue, feel free to give me a kick in the nuts, otherwise just stay on topic and we'll get some answers soon I am sure. I'm betting this thread will get a lot of attention on this end of the pond.

Give the man a cigar...

Okay, now I officially hate you ;) I plink with my semi-auto AR15 here at the federally approved range and they have everything short of a blood sample from me to do it.

Just to make sure people understand, this isn't an anti-Swiss thing on my part.

We are getting Off topic...

jealous as well, I heard their is talk about the gov't taking your weapons back after training is done or was that Sweden?

A sole proprietorship laboratory? Wow, thats a person with some deep pockets, that lab equipment is mighty expensive for one person to finance. That makes me question even more if its a real company now.

Once I figure out who the Fiduciary Representative is and how to contact him, that may be the only route to go as you point out. As to why they want to maintain so many layers between themselves and the people who may question their work, as a scientific testing body I find that a little suspicious.

CSA here in Canada can be contacted directly and as with the case of many public and private labs, they have direct public contact numbers published so that anyone can follow up on any questions someone may have in regards to their testing results. It would seem to me that Levante Labs is set up in such a way as to be able to avoid contact, not invite it, and if thats the case, then why? Its counterproductive to the peer review process that is so critical in scientific investigative practices that are accepted worldwide.

As it stands now, its impossible to peer review this document, so at this point I am considering the Levante Labs document a marketing tool and not a scientific treatise of any kind. The burden of proof lays with them the publishers, not me, the reader.

Holy shit!

I'm not shooting that at any of my friends... or enemies for that matter. How sharp is that shard? It looks sharp. It might be good for targets, but I wouldn't want the liability associated at a game with a ricochet from that.

This thread is killing my productivity... Oh well...

As an Accoutant, I am appalled by the differences between accounting rules in the EU, UK, Canada, and USA. The part that is important to take from that is the huge differences in government policy, public lobby etc. The Swiss, have done things "their way" for a very very long time. It aggravates me professionally that they still distinguish the difference between Tax Fraud, and Tax Evasion (both are the same in the EU, Canada it's all tax fraud).

Their country, their rules. I could operate a company out of the Cayman islands and do the same thing, would you buy my BBs?

EDIT:

Scarecrow, your posts seem like you havent read the whole thread without being interrupted. Read my above post about grinding the shards and eating them.

I have yet to see a BBBmax shatter under shooting conditions.

Azathoth,

Do you think you could post a picture of some BBBMAXs you have crushed? The shards in my pictures were more than sharp enough to cause cuts when rubbing between two fingers. Given the disparity between my description and yours, I'm wondering if perhaps the BBs I obtained were knockoffs.

Your correct. My multitasking today was insane, I'll go back and reread tonight. If I missed some clarification, I'll repost, forgive me.

Jay

I will crush some more, their is a major game that I need to prepare for and my job that i need to clear, before I can get to said game.

However in the mean time, 80-90% of the material remaining from being crushed in a table vice was smaller than table salt, If I recall correctly I had 4-5 pieces no larger than ~1x~1x~1.5mm volume, They were not particularly sharp, and it i rubbed both the remaining powder and the shards between my thumb and index finger.

The very first BBBmax I crushed, it literally turned to dust, however, i wasnt aware of that, and didnt capture any of the larger pieces, it's likely there were larger pieces but I never could find them.

Like other BBs I don't think the BBBmax will crush the same way between each individual BB. It's possible that the BBBmax can crush into nothing but large shards, but that has not been my experience.

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.

let me clarify:)

by that i meant through the numerous tests and results that Stalker has posted, it has been proven that BB Bastards are superior to most other brands is all. im not saying that it is THE BEST, but so far, few companies are at BB Bastard's level, save for perhaps Metal Tech. Madbull and KSC perfects i heard are also close competitors.

Got this this evening:

So, anyone making offers of BBBMax's please let me know who to order from.

I dont want this to become a debate about which brand is better. I respect your decision and opinion, however I absolutely disagree. I am not even going to get into a detailed discussion on this thread about which brand of BB is better.

I had a terrible experience with the 1 bag of Bastards that I purchased, and was so disgusted at the quality that I threw the bag into the trash. Keep in mind I have been playing since 93 oversea and had left the sport during my university schooling. In hindsight, I should have contacted the retailer or came to ASC to find Scarecrow but what is done is the past.

I can't find a retailer that has them in stock. But I can offer you samples from my own stocks. I don't expect a shipment of BBBmax to be available to distributors in the USA for another month or ever given the explosion in demand.



EDIT:

I got really lucky today. I managed after 30 mins to crush a Single BBBmax. With the hand vice and BB in the Grip, I put the Grip onto a concrete basement floor and squeezed down on the grip with my hands while simultaneously trying to shift as much of my body weight onto my hands/vice. It wasnt until after i pivoted my entire body off the ground that the BB finally broke. I weigh 155 lbs.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...x/IMG_0270.jpg
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...x/IMG_0273.jpg


What I found very interesting is that this time I got large debris. The remainder of the BB turned into dust some of the dust is barely visible in the bag and only by rubbing the ziploc bag against itself can you feel the bb fragments. All of the large pieces are pictured.

I rubbed the powder between my fingers with as much pressure as I could but it didnt scrach or cut my fingers, it was like rubbing sand like the last time.

This time I washed my hands and took one of the large fragments and repeated. If you apply enough pressure against the jagged portion of the bb you can break the skin, no more or less effort than if you were to do the same with a jagged rock or pebble.

The large 1/2 BB fragment is nearly completely smooth on the non curved portion and is not sharp on the outside edges. What is difficult or impossible to take a picture of is the inside edge of the BBBmax, I am not sure if it's an optical affect of a curved and clear BB but you can almost distinguish a seamline along the inside of the BB. But the probability of crushing the BB against a seamline is miniscule, what again is not pictureable is the pattern of wear on the inside of the BB caused by the vice.

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

I'll replace the bag free of charge because I know those couldn't be legit bastards. The labels come off my bags and I have had a couple of instances where players have sold other players what they thought were bastards and they were not. Only buy your BB Bastards off Ass Bastard reps at the field or retailers. If you're not satisfied with the product, return it for a full refund and I will compensate the Ass Bastard or retailer directly. I have not had a return yet where the product was really mine - it was an obvious forgery, it wasn't even my bag, which is very distinctive and heat sealed.

Back to the thread...

ADDRESS - I think you are overlooking all the evidence sitting right in front of you. The Fiduciary is the address provided to you by Levante.

CREDENTIALS - The fact that a Fiduciary with a Swiss Federal Fiduciary License is representing Levante, by definition gives top credentials to Levante Labs. A Swiss Federal Fiduciary cannot represent a ghost company without risking a jail term for fraud, falsification of information, misrepresentation etc etc.

SOLE PROPRIETARY COMPANIES - in Switzerland are very common, easy to set up, have lots of tax breaks and enjoy better financing from the banks since the liability is personal and limitless.

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.

Where did you get this information from Porkchop? Just following up...

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.

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.

I spent a good chunk of time last night going through more of that Arnie's thread and some of this issues discussed here are discussed there, but I think this discussion is still useful as its more detailed, we seem to be engaging people with less opinions and more solid contributions and the Arnie's thread after 28 pages was locked for a lack of progress in the topic. I don't think thats happening here so I would encourage the discussion continue here.

One conclusion several posters made before bowing out of the debate is they did identify the marketing spin of the document and questioned its independence and funding as a source of potential problem, and those posters did a full stop after that in dismissing the document. I am going to great lengths to try and validate the sources and credentials, so I think I am giving BioVAL much more benefit of the doubt than they did - I find the lack of cooperation in that process disturbing - you think they'd addressed it already given the debate over at Arnie's already.

Look back to my post on evaluating the credibility of a source (http://www.airsoftcanada.com/showpos...0&postcount=18) for more information about the problems of funding and independence of research.

Like Bioval, you mean?

Conjecture, but, a rather novel thought given the circumstances. It would explain putting a representative between the Lab and the public so that the link isn't discovered and questioned. Its one possible explanation and given the lack of information on it coming out of BioVAL I wouldn't discount it.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.


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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

I think its safe
 

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!

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? :)

Without the proper lab equipment it's next to impossible though. BioVAL's MSDS sheet says the thing is very thermostable, completely inert, etc - so you can rule out trying to find out the component of the BB by playing around with chemicals. Since you have to start "blank", the only logical way I can think of to start determining what this thing is is to put it through and electron microscope and pray for the best - not something your ordinary joe would have access to without paying good money.

And while I did study material science much more in detail than the introductory level, my engineering major isn't materials engineering :-|.





I would suspect however that the hardening agent is silica flour and the resin is some form of high-temperature biodegradable resin that bonds well to silicon. Purely because silica flour/silicon dioxide, in it's natural form, is Quartz. You know, those clear-looking crystal that is tough as nuts?

And silica-dioxide is - surprise, surprise, a component of glass. And has a high MP overall. And is completely inert to chemicals. And when broken apart, forms essentially sand and dirt.

DonP, I think you've summed it up with Brian better than I have so far. Thats pretty much it. Well done. Glad someone understands me.

EDIT:

5. Ouch Test

I am not concerned about 'ouch'. I am only concerned about penetration of safety equipment such as goggles or face shields.

Once someone gets it can't one just find a school or University that has mass spec and run it? Its alot easier that way.

I was just going to talk to MadMax, he's the resident Canadian engineering genius behind the Tornado grenade to see what he thinks. If anyone could crack this, it him. He was the guy who proved Green Gas and propane were the same thing back in the days when claims were made that Green Gas was some sort of magical special gas. He also invented the AI propane bottle adapter.

A little simplistic maybe ... Arnies forums are full of tests regarding materials and balistics. DIsprove/prove below experiment. Pictures attached.


Scientific Procedure for Mask Lens Penetration Test using the MAX Bio .27g
Vs TSD .28g & TSD .20g Plastic bb's


Problem:

Does the 0.27g MAX or 0.28g TSD bb inflict more damage to a JT Face Mask Lens; when shot 0.5" from muzzle by the same custom M4?

Hypotheses:

The MAX bb doesn't inflict enough damage to break/crack the JT lens and will not inflict more damage to the lens when compared to the damage inflicted by the TSD .28g when fired by the same gun.

Procedure:

The same Custom M4 was chroned with each weight/brand of bb. The (Zone 1) AEG was chroned at the Muzzle of its Inner Barrel w/0.27g MAX (Bio)@400FPS. The (Zone 2) AEG was Chroned at the Muzzle of its Inner Barrel w/0.28g TSD (plastic) @392FPS. The (Zone 3) AEG was Chroned at the Muzzle of its Inner Barrel w/0.20g TSD (plastic) @460FPS. A New JT Invader Mask (Features Elite™ 180° lens) was placed on a table & using white Tape the lens was divided into (3) zones. Five shots of each weight/brand bb's were fired into their respective zones at a distance of 0.5" from the muzzle.

Data:

Neither of the (5) shots fired into (Zone 1) using MAX bbs penetrated or cracked the JT Face Mask. Each shot of MAX left a small dent mark on the front of the lens.

Neither of the (5) shots fired into (Zone 2) using TSB .28g bbs penetrated or cracked the JT Face Mask. Each shot of TSD .28g left a small dent mark on the front of the lens almost identical to the dents on the (Zone 1) side of the lens.

Neither of the (5) shots fired into (Zone 3) using TSB .20g bbs penetrated or cracked the JT Face Mask. Each shot of TSD .20g left a small dent mark on the front of the lens when compared to the dents in (Zone 1 & 2) the marks in (Zone 3) are the smallest.

Conclusion:

The MAX bb doesn't inflict enough damage to break/crack the JT lens & doesn't inflict more damage to the JT lens when compared to the damage inflicted by the TSD .28g when fired by the same gun. The .20g as expected inflicted the smallest of all dents. Based on the above data I will continue to accept being shot by and shooting my friends with all of the above tested ammo including the Bioval MAX. Also if any of my friend were to shoot me with the above mentioned Custom M4 Test Gun with any weight bb at a distance close than 100'feet, I would be one ###### off dude!!!

But you are not thinking the right way. How it reacts when it hits your hard paintball mask is different than how it would when you yourself are struck with it, or breakable glass, etc. The paintball goggles are essentially ballistics rated. So obviously none of the BBs will be able to crack or penetrate it. The only way it is going to is if your gun is hot enough, not what BB you use.

But, different BB materials can behave differently in a collision with your flesh. That is what the safety concern is. Nobody said that BBBMax magically impart your AEG with higher muzzle energy capable of penetrating/cracking paintball or ballistics goggles.

Plastic bbs can kill you ... Beware !!!
 

Pics of PLASTIC BB's Damage.

All bbs Break Airsoft Gear My $$$$ Lesson of the Day

EOtech Sights $450
Black Berry $375

Plastic BB's $17


Airsoft players all over the world realizing all plastic bbs break airsoft gear…..PRICELESS.

It really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that all BBs can cause damage. I'm sure everyone has seen bleeding wounds, shot out teeth, destroyed equipement, etc, etc... if they've been playing this sport for very long.

Skin Damage Maruzen vs BBBMAX
 

The formula for body injuries is based on the AMOUNT OF TIME A PROJECTILE stays on target.

Soft bbs will deform on impact and this will add to the time on target.

Hard bbs will not deform and will simply rebound off the target.

Penetration depends on a lot of things and mostly VELOCITY. At equal velocities the MASS of the bb is what counts. As can be seen from the pictures.

The heavier DIGICOMs (0.42g) and the G&G (0.28g) penetrated more than the BBBMAX (0.27g).

Ooooooo and like we didn't know this from simple basic PHYSICS and not some BBBMAX super powers.

That doesn't make much sense. Considering the deformation of soft BBs is an energy-requiring process. Thus, a lot of the energy of the impact is transferred into deforming the BB. With hard BBs, the BB does not deform, and therefore a larger amount of the energy would be transferred into the flesh...

Also, please stop capitalizing things like that. Its a little annoying when reading it. You don't have to emphasize something every single sentence.

This makes sense in my book. Further, if object A 'rebounds' in a elastic collision with object B, it will impart more momentum than if it were a inelastic collision. Even more, impulse varies inversely with contact time, so regular BBs would have a lesser impulse than the BBBMAX.

This is all basic physics, however, and we don't have a definitive equation for 'injury' as a function of any of these parameters. Easy, where is the equation you referenced in your post?

Agreed, I thought of that as I was about to read your post :P. This is just all sounding like my physics course from last year..

How to calculate the size of your injury
 

Human skin (specific weight of 1.09) is considered very resistant to ballistic injury and has required a lot of research over many decades to establish a sound database of ballistic evidence. It must be noted that this study does not deal with penetration of the skin but only with surface injury. Generally, as the bb projectile begins to impact skin, the retarding force of the skin itself causes it to decelerate and lose kinetic energy. This rapid deceleration causes the bb to deform as it expands against the skin surface thus (a) increasing its cross-sectional area towards the impact axis and (b) transferring more of its kinetic energy into the HSST. Softer bbs will deform more readily and will therefore transfer more energy to the HSST and over a greater/deeper area than will harder bbs. An impacting bb causes crushing, laceration, stretching and contusion of the tissue in front and around it. There are many models used to represent the size of the wound, one of the simplest to understand is expressed as follows:

Ed = Cv*V

Where:
Ed - is dissipated energy
Cv – is a constant depending on the properties of the target material, in this case skin
V – wound size or total inflicted area

Therefore the size of the inflicted area is directly proportional to the dissipated energy Ed. The dissipated energy depends upon the time the bb remains in contact with the skin. We know from the laws of physics that (1) the result of any impact between two objects depends on the force and time during which the objects are in contact; (2) the time the two impacting objects remain in contact depends on the material properties of the two objects; (3) the softer the objects the more time they will remain in contact. Soft bbs impacting on HSST will remain on the impact zone for a longer period of time therefore dissipating more energy into the HSST and causing bigger and deeper wounds

Well, for one we have no idea where that image came from.
And I would not simply trust one guy who shot his arm with each type of BB. If you want to use proof like that, then its gotta be a study with different people being shot multiple times. One guy one time does not prove anything.

And I do not agree with your simplified equation there. Where are you getting all of this, may I ask?

Exit Hole
 

Impact deformed plastic G&G bb creates a larger hole than the BBBMAX.

Also it seems that the forces acting on the plastic G&G bb have caused it to lose some surface material.

BBBMAX is clean through. No deformation and small hole.

How deep was each hole.

Of course there's no deformation and a smaller hole, that's already been proven as a property of the BBMax BB's - no deformation.
Was there a point to that?

That's what I was going for. I want to know the depth of each. Obviously the BBBMax will yield a very significantly deeper hole.

LOL. You are an authority in terminal balistics?

The theory of Martel [Kneubuehl 1999]:

Ed = Cv*V

The size of the inflicted area is directly proportional to the dissipated energy Ed. Based on an analysis of a number of experiments a significant correlation between the amount of devitalised tissue and dissipated kinetic energy
(Ed) has been proved [Berlin et al. 1976 and 1979, Janzon and Seeman 1985, Janzon 1988, Tikka 1989, Janzon 2004]. Ed has also been called “down-track” energy [Coupland 2000].

Balistic Science is not an opinion it is fact. The kind of facts tha Scarecrow likes.

Obviously, you need to brush up on your physics.


At equal velocities the MASS of the bb is what counts and nothing else.

Heavier DIGICOMs (0.42g) and the G&G (0.28g) penetrate more than the BBBMAX (0.27g).

High school PHYSICS and not some BBBMAX super powers.

Ujiro, Easy's last posts are sourced in the controversial Levante Labs study that has been discussed in this thread.

Easy, as per this paper: https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

Ed = Cv * V is an equation for tissue PENETRATION and is therefore inapplicable to this situation.

I'd also like to note that unlike the paper I just linked to, the Levante Labs study has zero references. I'm just lucky that a google search was able to turn up more information about that equation or we would still be scratching our heads about where that equation came from.

I never proclaimed to be. Please source stuff when you post it though, it would be nice to know where you are getting things from. I can write long things like that, but it means nothing if you don't cite what the hell your taking it from. Thanks. Also, no need to be a douche bag about things. Realize you just posted like 6 longs posts with this random, unsourced information. Looks funny.



Okay... So they are all travelling at equal velocities? Then yes, congrats. High school physics was proven! 3 objects moving at equal velocities but different masses will have different impacts! The heaviest one will do the most damage! Thanks, I know Ek=0.5m*u^2. What does that prove, them all moving at equal velocities, when they are different mass. It proves the equation for kinetic energy. Nothing else. What would be useful is doing a test with all 3 BBs at the exact same muzzle energy. Not velocity. A 0.42g BB moving at 400fps is not the same as a 0.27g or 0.28g BB moving at 400fps.. It has significantly larger energy.

The formula shows a clear correlation between the Energy and Wounds.

Whether there is penetration or not this depends solely on the balistics of the event.

Easy, a non-penetrating impact (where the BB bounces off the skin) has entirely different physics than a penetrating impact (where the BB enters the body and tears flesh.)

If we consider a penetrating wound to be entirely inelastic (meaning that all of the kinetic energy of the BB is expended moving and tearing flesh), then the Ed = Cv * V makes perfect sense. If the BB is somewhat elastic and bounces off the skin, it still retains significant energy that was not transferred to wounding, which that formula has no terms for. Please don't misapply the equation as LL has in their study.

Also, Easy, what is your motivation in this discussion? Are you just a fan of Bioval? Are you an employee?

Sorry didn't mean to be offensive.

Most of this thread on BBBMAX is based on assumptions, speculation and attributing special powers to a bb and even a manufacturer (BB Bastard) who is using all his daily strength to try and defame the BBBMAX. LOL.

Bioval must be happy that this controversy created by is single handedly putting the brand name out there.

The funny thing is that the only "evidence" presented such as pictures, citations to Levante Labs or even balistic science papers are judged as unapplicable, controversial, unacceptable bla bla.

So what the h&ll would be acceptable?! I know:

... a little facetious now ...

A Jet Propulsion Laboratory Team of Scientists, escorted by 1 lawyer and public notary, actually travelling to Bioval to buy a bag of BBBMAX. Once the origin of the bbs is certified they will then execute the tests in their labs at NASA. The tests will be transmitted live on the web and on CCTV. Present will be a team of lawyers and public notaries to certify the proceedure.

THen again Bioval may be able to corrupt them all and intercept the transmissions and replacing them with something more acceptable.



:confused: