chlorox would do the same thing as the moonraker
Not sure it would do the same thing. I’ve had a couple of these and the challenge with them is they don’t actually create distribution across the puck. They create small circular channels, more than anything else. Its the random but comprehensive nature of the weber device that may make a difference.
A general comment, not directed at anyone specifically: Its popular, and tempting, to shoot innovations down. If for no other reason than it’s more convenient to believe that something that is so pricey is ineffective.
The jury is out on the fact that, beyond any reasonable doubt, it’s hellish expensive.
The jury is not out yet on whether it is effective. If it is, the cost will be worth it to some but not to most.
Personally, I’m of the view that if there if not at least one third of the people who get to know what I’m up to (with various ventures) who think I’m nuts, then I need to try harder. Nothing in my life has improved by accepting the status quo. Perhaps I’m simply in a fortunate position to try some of these ideas and I completely accept that it’s not for everyone.
But maybe don’t judge it just yet.
