On 02/10/2011 02:23 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Joshua, > > a) Have you calculated HOW wet must be the steam in order to invalidate > the experiment i.e. to make it underunity beyond any doubt? > > b) Let's take the good part of it, as engineers how has to be built such a > generator for VERY WET steam? It can have some uses e.g in the > textile industry. > > 3) How does dare Focardi to speak about "vapore secco" based on a > measuring instrument (not adequate?) when actually he had "vapore umido?"
Addressing just point (3), please leave out the term "dare" here. There's no need to escalate this to the realm of an ad hominem. If the steam turns out to have been wet, then the "dryness" measure was botched: A mistake was made, nothing more. Note that there was apparently just one parameter on whose measurement the "dryness" conclusion was based, so it's not /a priori/ inconceivable that the measurement was done incorrectly. If that measurement turns out to have been done wrong, it won't be the first botched measurement in the history of experimental science, and it also won't be the last. Mistakes happen. This is an example of why replication is so important. If three other researchers tried to replicate this, at least one of them would undoubtedly "improve" on the steam dryness measurement methodology, and either find a problem with the original measurements or provide additional support for the claim that the original measurements were correct.
