Thanks again. And thanks for the link to FoxValve.com.
As a technical writer, I'll agree that a lot of "information" is supplied by copywriters whose grasp of the technology behind the product is somewhere south of nothing and their promotion of the product is just greed dressed up in a cheap suit. Still, it's difficult for those among us who are not as knowledgeable as you to separate the from fiction since a lie often looks like (or better than) the truth. It always helps to hear what an experienced professional has to say so we can make a better decision
If I understand you correctly, the inherent problems with soda as a blasting medium can only be overcome with the proper design for the equipment. Anything based on "fire extinguisher" technology will be inferior. And I believe you. Based on the patents I referenced above, it would be interesting to see what designs are used by the top equipment companies.
The question then becomes if I want a device for light duty, small parts, very occasional use and don't want to invest a lot of money, is the Eastwood type equipment adequate? Not the best. Not the most efficient. Just adequate. And what can be done to get the best performance from it while spending the least amount of money? From what I've read, the driest air possible and the correct media are very important. How do we accomplish those goals on a budget?
BTW, I've contacted the fellow with the soda blaster plans, so we'll see what he has to offer.
Last edited by hduff; 04-02-2009 at 12:57 PM.