I think the thread is an excellent example of the SMDB at work, successfully uncovering extensive detail about the product that wasn’t listed on the dogily-designed website. Perhaps you were confused and looking to post in the “worthless threadshitting” page?
Woof!
Agree completely that it’s nice to learn the product is real. And also agree the website screams “scam”. The poor English doesn’t help either.
I almost wonder if modern consumer product websites have to give off some of that too-magic-to-be-true nonsense to be recognized by our increasingly credulous public.
IOW they’re conditioned to expect breathless technobabble they can’t understand, and anything less wacky-pushy is too boring to believe or buy?
Yes, calling it “modified HCl” sets off polywater alarm bells for me. (I saw a site just a few months ago hawking polywater. I don’t remember their term for it, though.)
Moderator Note
Don’t junior mod. Next time, report the post.
Moderator Warning
This is an official warning for insults outside of the Pit and for threadshitting.
Also, since you have developed a pattern of personal insults that you do not seem interested in correcting, despite numerous warnings, you are hereby suspended while we review your posting privileges.
My local PBS station did one of those “independent business makes good” stories about this company a while back. I smelled BS, and IMNSHO, this website is full of it.
The product in the OP does, however, not. (And I hadn’t seen any reference to Lewis bases since I took general chemistry almost 35 years ago.)
Yes! Thank you, “structured water” is the new name for polywater that I couldn’t think of.
I don’t think we’re pushing any sort of conspiracy. We’re reacting to the way the product is advertised. It has characteristics that are common with scams, which are common online.
The blurb, as we said, has an odd “scammy” tone. Saying something performs comparably to HCl implies that it isn’t HCl, which is odd since it actually contains HCl. The stuff about it being a “concentrated solution of hydrogen” technically correct, but weird. People don’t usually refer to hydrogen ions as just hydrogen. And, really, you’re just describing acids in general.
What you said here about it would be a lot better. Saying it’s a solution with HCl with added buffers that make it safer seems like a much better way to describe it.
Similarly, before-and-after pics are often used in scams. It’s always very important to make sure that they cannot be mistaken for different items.
And then the demonstration on your website uses a product with different coloring, which also is a red flag.
These types of red flags are a big deal in online commerce. It’s just so easy to be scammed. I don’t think it’s wrong to be suspicious.
This board isn’t that abnormal. If we think this way, a lot of other people do, too. So it would probably be good to consider changes.
Honestly, the way you talk about the product here is a lot more convincing. You allayed all our suspicion. No one seems to doubt you.
Imagine if that’s what we’d seen in the first place.
Though maybe also throw in why it’s better than some other weak acid would be good, too.
I still say that even if the product is real, the way it’s marketed is sufficiently incorrect as to qualify as a scam. The claim is that it works just as well as concentrated HCl, while being safer. Now, it may be that for the specific purpose of cleaning seashells, it works well enough, but it won’t work just as well.
To add to the above thoughts.
For me, red flags included: lack of a MSDS on the web site, and a claim for a patented product with no evidence.
One of the first things I do when looking at a product like this is to look for the MSDS. I sure as heck am not interested in buying something without one. Moreover, the claim that the product is safe to ship would usually require some paperwork to convince carriers that something labelled HCl should not be refused on sight. Most companies provide PDFs of all the relevant paperwork on their web site.
It is usually actually illegal to claim patent protection where none exists. So seeing a bland claim without any provenance is often an indication of a less than honest product pitch. There is no actual requirement to provide the patent information, but making the claim with no apparent support looks scammy.
The labelling of the product don’t fill one with much confidence either. Again, something claiming to be both as effective as hydrochloric acid but safe as milk should have a lot more clear guidance on the label, and should include enough information to safely use and dispose of the product without need for accessing the website. Similarly I would expect that there would be some guidance when some kid drinks a glass of it. I’m going to bet it won’t be totally safe. What about aspirating it? That could be really grim. Guidance for emergency departments would be sensible. Even if it is remarkably safe, guidance and assurances backed up with science are going to help.
What a load of nonsense. The product isn’t being sold to chemical companies. It’s a safer form of hydrochloric acid to use in cleaning seashells and other items. This one does what it says it does. If it will clean a seashell or an old motorcycle muffler then it works as well as anything else that will clean seashell or old motorcycle muffler. Normal people understand that concept in advertising. There was no scam here, it sounded too good to be true, but this time it was true. If you thought it was impossible then you were wrong.
Well, despite the naming, it’s not HCl. Not if the patent is for a mixture of HCl and ethanolamine with a corrosion inhibitor. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that as a product. If it works, it works. Hell, I might consider buying some if I thought it fit a use case.
I have no issue with it as a product now that we know to a reasonable level (the vagueness in the patent doesn’t bother me, that sort of broadness in claims is common) what it actually is. An SDS and a patent number would have gone a long way in indicating it’s a legitimate product. The web site, unfortunately for the seller, makes it look like any number of scam “miracle” products that make fantastic claims. I have the same response to any chemical product I see advertised on TV. They’re almost never actually novel products and the results are manipulated by careful conditions to be the best use case possible.
I don’t know about you, but I would use this thread in my marketing collateral:
“Vetted by skeptics on the Straight-Dope Message Board!!”
A company rep posting here said “…the (study) results indicated that HCR-7000 is considered non-corrosive to dermal tissue by DOT criteria. This is one of the reasons why our product can be transported via ground in the US as non-hazardous material.”
Are DOT criteria for safe transport the same as what the EPA and OSHA use in regulating the safety of cleaning products?