Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> And we know the probe came out dry because Galantini said so. Right? > Yes, of course. It is very easy for a person to observe that a probe is wet or dry. A small child could do this. > Galantini, the man who claimed to have tested the steam and determined that > it was dry, for sure, believe it, Jack, it's *dry*. > Some people -- including you apparently -- believe he was mistaken. Others, including some experts, believe he was not. They say the documentation for his probe says it measures enthalpy and it works at high temperature. I tend to believe the manufacturer's specs myself. If it did not work I suppose the manual would say "does not work with steam." Since steam is one of the most common substances I suppose the instrument would be useless. In any case: 1. This does appear to be an open and shut case, despite your assurance. 2. It is much easier to observe that a probe is wet than it is to read enthalpy. > Galantini, the guy who got testy and less than clear when pressed for > details of exactly how he tested the steam, what he measured, and what the > measured value was. > I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit out on his ear before that interview was over, when he went on and on about how suspicious it is to tell a reporter about results that you do not consider worthy of a peer-reviewed journal paper. I would have said: "you heard me the first time; this interview is over." > Galantini, whose testimony is worth exactly as much as your /faith/ tells > you it's worth. > You seem to be suggesting that because he and the manufacturer disagree with you, their judgement is worthless. - Jed
