From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
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. Why be so dramatic. Of course I referred to the temperature. There are other ways to check the quality besides pressure although that is the usual one. 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. Seems like I discussed this earlier. Close the lower steam path valve, collect any water that flows into the collection vessel, and then see how dry the steam is. Seems trivial to me (very little water). Do not forget to open the valve after you have finished collecting the water. 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. Are you stating that temperature can not under any circumstance show a rapid rise? I suggest you look into the experiment in details before you can be sure that the results are not possible. Even skeptics can jump to erroneous conclusions. 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. Does the data suggest it is dry? Is data considered evidence? I guess it is OK to cherry pick the data that suits our conclusions. Pretty hard to be held to the same standards that the believers are held to is it not?
