I would like to add another comment about what Jones Beene wrote:
OK,here is one moresuspiciousdetail to check on, for anyone inclined-
the flow rate.This assumptionof 300g/minabove could beway off.
Beware of jumping to conclusions. Raising questions and wondering is
essential, but do not assume these people never thought to check the
flow rate. Seriously, don't you suppose that any scientist on earth
would check the flow rate?
The first thing you should be suspicious of is your own suspicion,
because it is highly unlikely they would botch such a key measurement.
It reminds me of Taubes and others who asserted the Robert Huggins
measured voltage but not amperage in an electrochemical cell. That not
something a top-notch electrochemist is likely to do, to say the least.
Ed Storms often gets upset with people who come up with facile reasons
why an experiment might be wrong, and just traipse off assuming the
scientist never thought to check. I am sure Jones Beene did not do that
. . . but it is bad form to look at a web site for "model LMI-AA-xxx",
read the the maximum pumping capacities and from that to assume that a
group of 60 and 70-year-old professionals forgot they should measure the
flow rate.
Lemme put it this way. If you suspect something like that, try saying it
in muffled academese:
ORIGINAL: "OK, here is one more suspicious detail to check on, for
anyone inclined - the flow rate. This assumption of 300g/min above could
be way off."
CUT LOADED WORDS: "suspicious," "assumption" and "way off"
TRANSLATE TO ACADEMESE: "I have some concerns or possibly confusion
about the flow rate. The authors report 300 g/min. There appears to be
discrepancy between this and the manufacturers website, assuming the
pump is a model LMI-AA-xxx . . ." etc., dither, dither, say nothing
directly, use cotton-wool passive voice . . .
That's the proper form even if you really mean: "this is a bunch of
garbage as anyone can see from the website."
- Jed
