On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the > measurement device could have actually shown that result? > What measurement device are you referring to? They measured the temperature. Without pressure, that does not indicate the phase. No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test > conditions. > It's not the measurement of the temperature that is at issue. It's taking the value of the temperature as evidence of dry steam that is not plausible. I personally would agree with you > that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we > need to find out what lead to the measurement. > They *didn't* measure the increase. They *inferred* it incorrectly from a temperature measurement. > > This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. > It's not an anomalous happening. It's a claim of dry steam without evidence. If they proved the steam was dry a few minutes after boiling, then you could call it an anomalous happening.
