Maybe I'd overlooked this, when did they measure and film the outpouring water? I thought that it was twice during the entire demo - once while it was running, and once during quenching, no?
Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >Robert Leguillon wrote: >> /snip/ >> Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it >> might be zero. That is preposterous. >> /snip/ >> Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) >> and it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), >> we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. > >THERE is where you are wrong. You go too far. "No idea" is an absurd >overstatement. We have some idea. We know that the the vessel would have >been empty if there had been no water flowing in. We can make a rough >estimate of the lowest flow rate it might have been. A "rough estimate" >is not the same as hand waving or guessing. > >I do not understand why modern people are so unwilling to make a rough >estimate, or a reality check. To go from the assertion that "the flow >rate was not at its max" (perhaps . . .) to saying "we have no idea" is >a ridiculous leap. It violates common sense, and natural science >observational techniques. You can always make a reasonable estimate >based on observable and irrefutable facts. There was definitely water >coming out. It was measured often enough and observed and filmed often >enough that we know approximately what the outgoing flow rate was. There >was definitely water left in the vessel after the test. That can only be >explained by additional tap water flowing in, unless you think water >spontaneously appears out of nowhere, or mass is not conserved. > >As I said in my parable, just because you do not know whether the >airplane is at 600 feet or 1000 feet, that does not mean you have proved >it is on the ground. > >Honestly, how do you think people managed to survive for hundreds of >thousands of years before numbers and instruments and modern science >were developed?!? Do you think they had no clue what was going on in the >world around them? No idea whether water was flowing in a stream, no >clue at all whether an object was too hot to touch or stone cold? Visual >observations of natural events and first principles are a valid way of >doing science, even with no instruments at all. > >- Jed > >
