Good one, George. A bitter dose for some, an acquired taste for others, but temperance rules for all. "In Doggerel, Veritas" sung to the tune of "How Dry I Am". 'Three point two Near Beer' was the original light, not home brew with the heavy crud in the bottom of the bottle. I've often wondered why we never turn booze cask staves. Now I know...too dry! I await our laureate's next opus on turning slowly with a soft touch. :)
No, it was satirical list point he was making. Wasn't about turning, just about flaming.
You know, George- it was almost amusing. What I can't figure out is why the discussion of an aspiring amateur making a study of something is so threatening to you that you have to apply such single-minded devotion to panning his efforts.
You may or may not have raised valid points- I don't have the training to evaluate your assertions regarding acceptable sample sizes, statistical calculations or chemical bonding and dillution, and would merely expose my own ignorance in an attempt to do so.
But regardless of this, it is apparent to those "who can think" that comparing two samples, one as a control and one as a test subject is the most rudimentary frame of scientific inquiry. All the *truths* that you hold so tightly were derived by someone observing an effect first, and then applying a systematic approach to uncovering the cause. When something fits the bill well enough that one can no longer disprove the theory with the available instruments, it becomes accepted- but that does not make it true, it simply makes it valid and useful, at least for a time.
Many useful things have been discovered by talented and devoted amateurs who have ignored the impossible in favor of their gut feeling- men tried to fly for millenium, until a pair of bicycle repairmen turned the impossible on it's ear. And that is only one example- and unlikely to be even the best or most important.
Now, it sounds as though you've had some training, and possibly even work in the field you're so positive about- but there are cases without number of mechanics in lab settings who lack the inspiration to challenge the assertions handed them by their superiors. Sometimes that is required to make an organization function properly, but it is also a glass ceiling on innovation.
You may *know* that alcohol cannot dry wood. The OP doesn't *know* that, and is willing to put some effort towards finding out- for that, he is to be commended. To compose satirical doggerel for the sake of attempting to stifle not only a possible innovation, but (and I see this as the root of what you are about in this case) as an attempt to cow another into meekly accepting the idea that they are unable to innovate or create any object or idea which has not been handed them from the tressleboards of some unknown and distant experts as a weak and contemptable act of cowardice.
So what is it you fear from this man? If his attempts at scientific inquiry are so simple-minded that they deserve your scorn, then it should be easy enough for you to dismiss them out of hand- rather than resorting to character assasination from afar. He's using his wood and his alcohol on his own time- and he even had the character to publicly post and display his inconclusive results when they did not reinforce his theory without attempting to color the results to show them in a more favorable light. Nothing about that harms you, and his data seems even to help your argument.
Now the corporate statistics and techniques (which you would appear to advocate) on the other hand... Just how many designer drugs have been yanked off the shelves in the past few years because someone in the R&D department used skewed statistics to show how safe they were, and then paid the FDA to accelerate the process of approving them? How many products have been developed and installed into homes, only to be removed by men in respirators and sealed tents because they are later found to be toxic? Are these the sciences you hold in such high esteem?
There is a deep and abiding virtue that is inherant in simplicity. A simple test performed properly is transparent and can be evaluated by many- it is within the reach of most to attempt and reproduce or refute the results in their turnery or garage, and thus allows for the most important principle of scientific discovery- peer review. You could do innumerable tests with electron microscopes and climate-controled vacuum chambers to come up with a result which you could then hand to the rest of us in the form of a 500 page stack of charts and numbers, and the great majority of turners would have to simply accept or ignore your conclusions. But what would those conclusions tell us? How a piece of wood responds in lab conditions- I don't know about you, but my turnery in the basement isn't a lab. To me, information on how a hunk of something soaked in a 5-gallon bucket out in the shed turns out is a whole lot more useful.
So get off your high horse. I have read and enjoyed many of your posts- just enough of them are of a quality that keeps me from tossing you in the bit bucket, but then things like this keep coming out of you. Everyone has bad days, to be sure- and there are many posts I have made over the years that have made my ears burn with shame upon further review because they were composed in ignorance, irritation or drunkeness, but there is rarely an excuse for senseless antagonism or hatred of the kind you vomit up here on a regular basis.
I'm not saying you're a bad guy, I just wish you'd cool off a bit before you start pissing in the pool. Like I said, we all do it once in a while- but it shouldn't be the first resort.
I'm writing slowly so it can sink in. Read slowly.
IF we are to accept that the boys in the upper left have rewritten the laws of physical chemistry, we have more than just "drying" to thank them for.
IF alcohol in aqueous solution causes more rapid water loss, distillation becomes impossible. Some people might consider that odd, given the alcohol for the process has been produced by distillation, but it is a boon to society, because booze is a curse. Concentrated booze is an abomination.
IF alcohol is selectively taken up by wood to "displace" water, then all the vintners,brewers and distillers who continue to foolishly put their faith and product in wood for storage will weaken it, taking the punch out of the punch, and many a Saturday night fight. So let's not tell them the rules have been changed, OK? Though no longer in the business, I thank the new promulgators on behalf of everyone who's ever booked a drunk.
I thought I'd celebrate the end of intoxication in verse.
My couplets aren't as heroic as the man who said it, but you might want to apply a touch of knowledge to the problem and lighten up.
Not so. The point was clear. Statistics are the last resort of weak science. The point is that the drug industry, and indeed virtually all of bio-merdical research, has become suspect and is rife with outright fraud. Inconclusive and negative results are hidden and data points are shaved to exclude "outliers" in order to get the desired result. All this is statistical manipulation to produce a result rather than elucidate the truth. Take a look at the book "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff to get a good overview of how numbers and statistics are used in real life examples to obscure the truth or to support outright lies. Follow the scientific literature for a while and you will see author after author being caught in fraud. I've been doing that for over 30 years in my career and having trained long and hard as a scientist I find it extremely disgusting.
Thanks, that's what I was getting at- not trying to set myself up as an expert. I'd try not to be so verbose, but it takes a lot of words to say something in an unambigous fashion, and even then it can still be taken the wrong way.
I'd say I was thinking, but it's almost certain you'd disagree.
How's that work, exactly?- go on and write fast if you like.
Sure George. Give yourself that pat on the back you're looking for- you're going for absurdity, and you've achieved it admirably. Here's a gold star for sophistry.
I know- I got it. It was even sort of funny, in a mean spirited way.
Sometimes I'm light enough, generally not- but my level of gravitas is neither here nor there. The problem is not with the science- it's almost certainly flawed like any other magic bullet. The problem is your insistance that you are the authority to whom all others must bow. As stated previously, you may "know" something to be certain- but that means nothing to the rest of us, and it is not your place to jump up, wave your hands and call everyone in the room a pack of fools and liars because you claim a source of wisdom which we are not entitled to prove or disprove via personal observation. You seek to command -not convince- independant minds, and that is not within your rights.
The argument as I laid it was not related to the actual chemical reactions and scientific parameters of alcohol as a drying agent- nor was it a statement that I did not understand your *art*. It was an exposition of sophistry and bellicose contention used by one person to browbeat another who did not choose to pick a fight, but rather chose to work with the means at his disposal to determine the truth or falsehood of a phenomenon in which he was interested- and was kind enough to share the results of his investigations with the group.
One would have thought your crowing was complete when the set of results showing no signifigant difference between the control and test subjects, but instead you take the time not only to simply say "I told you so" (which would have been immature at best), but to compose a long poem indirectly ridiculing the very idea of amateur scientific inquiry. Even that was acceptable to my eye (though only by the slimmest of margins)- but then you followed it with the reply to Robert that the post was on-topic "Only to those who can think."
With that, you stepped out of the arena of simple contentiousness, and into broader insult directed to not only a person who chose to investigate an hypothesis and share his results in an honest fashion, but also to any who did not immediately applaud the revelation of your superior wit- and I find it revolting. It was that which moved me to speak my mind, not a lack of understanding of your poetry or a refusal to consider the scientific argument you advocate.
I had hoped that taking the time to make a case rather than simply saying "George, you're an ass." might appeal to your better nature, but it appears I was wrong.
Though I couldn't think up a rhyme for azeotrope, you might find it interesting to read up on it. It's the reason you can't distill past 95%.
Of course, if you knew this, you'd have realized that any other azeotrope would have stopped the enrichment there. Differential distillation (Raoult's Law) is a good thing to plug into your search, though I have given many other scientific references in hope that people would learn and avoid wasting their money. Look at them.
Excellent!!! Extremely well said. Though from now on I plan to take the advice of the wise person who said "Don't feed the trolls." I believe George is a special case of the set of all Trolls.
I'm reaching the conclusion based on observation here on RCW and yesterday's google review of George's profile that his prolific (2,444 in '05, 840 YTD) & often arrogant posts to a variety of newsgroups provides him the feeling of superiority not found in his life otherwise.
Simply, though your posts (and OP's in the past) are accurate and your efforts to communicate with him are admirable, it looks like you're barking at a dog with ear muffs.
Personally, I'm reaching the point that any value in his posts is more than offset by the crap that comes along with them. His compulsive behavior tones down briefly and then comes back as intensely as ever. And that's the end of my part in this pissing contest.
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.