> This data was discussed several months ago.

> I believe it was Nick who contacted West and they stated to him
> that they put little to no trust in the results.

> If you can do either test I outlined in my previous post and
> get good results, you are a much better man than I am.

I did indeed contact Gougeon Brothers about a year ago about similar data they had published in "On Boat Construction". Mr. Watson allowed as how the data was not the best. They previously test a few panels of quite different lay ups. The new data is better in that they have a larger data set with more closely related samples. It is not data which should use for detailed engineering. However, as a basis for gross comparison the data is a good start.

I know George uses mathematical models to predict material properties. I would submit that this method is even worse than bad data because it has not been correlated back to real data. And if the real data is bad the correlation of a model to that data will be even worse. Measurements are one step away from reality, models are two steps away. Just because models produce more consistent results does not mean they are better. Bad data is like a stopped watch, it is correct at least twice a day and you know that it is suspect, an un-verified mathematical model is like a slow watch, it is never right but it looks trustworthy.