New system tripping on low pressure??

[DTLarca]

air, moisture, products (including SHR)
Think of air as a sponge, it is dry and sitting on the bench, 0% RH, dunk totally in water, 100% RH.
Squeeze the sponge a bit (which means either increased air pressure or cooling down, basically both are contracting the mass), what comes out , "water" what is the present RH 100%, now release it in the air, what is the RH (between 0 and 100%, depends upon how much you squeezed) no place on the bench, leave for a minute, lift up what will you see, water because the water had more pressure excerted than the bench pushed up (in this case gravity)

I love thermodynamics so I have developed what I believe to be a lecture with methods of explanations better than none other to impart to others an uderstanding of psychrometrics.

Dalton law of partial pressures is required first. But only after I have rid people minds of the catasrophy of the spunge analogy which actually detracts from peoples ability to develop an understanding of psychrometrics. I have attached an example slide randonly selected from about 10 slides I use to convery this first principle that is mean to dispense with the spunge analogy.

[nevgee]

I love thermodynamics so I have developed what I believe to be a lecture with methods of explanations better than none other to impart to others an uderstanding of psychrometrics.

Problem is matey ...... your over enthusiastic, overwhelming "love" for thermodynamics has tended to cause a lot of peeps to yawn and ask the question ....Why are we listening to this?

It's not required at the moment... You seem to have gotten lost in your own world of over egged responses to an in field problem with a total loss vent system that isn't working.

Go back to the begining of this thread and read what the poor OP was asking in the first place.

He needed some help, not a rant on the mysteries of thermodynamics.

I feel sorry for you in some respects because I can understand how you want to give up the knowledge you hold so dearly, to those who aren't so fortunate to have the ability that you quite clealy have. I can see you're something of a very talented chap. You can quote garrulously with technical and philosphically sounding arguements. You hold a magical esteem of yourself which comes over something a tad pompous, and I suspect because of this challenging nature that you exude there have been a few people willing to run with you for a while. However, I wouldn't be suprised if the original poster has gone off wondering why he ever bothered .... because he didn't get any help from reading your pontifications about the benefits of SHR's

It would, in all fairness to willsmithiraq, been better to have moved your lectures over to another thread where you could discuss the flavour of the cheese in the moon to your heart's content.

[DTLarca]

Problem is matey ...... your over enthusiastic, overwhelming "love" for thermodynamics has tended to cause a lot of peeps to yawn and ask the question ....Why are we listening to this?

It's not required at the moment... You seem to have gotten lost in your own world of over egged responses to an in field problem with a total loss vent system that isn't working.

Go back to the begining of this thread and read what the poor OP was asking in the first place.

He needed some help, not a rant on the mysteries of thermodynamics.

I feel sorry for you in some respects because I can understand how you want to give up the knowledge you hold so dearly, to those who aren't so fortunate to have the ability that you quite clealy have. I can see you're something of a very talented chap. You can quote garrulously with technical and philosphically sounding arguements. You hold a magical esteem of yourself which comes over something a tad pompous, and I suspect because of this challenging nature that you exude there have been a few people willing to run with you for a while. However, I wouldn't be suprised if the original poster has gone off wondering why he ever bothered .... because he didn't get any help from reading your pontifications about the benefits of SHR's

It would, in all fairness to willsmithiraq, been better to have moved your lectures over to another thread where you could discuss the flavour of the cheese in the moon to your heart's content.

I am standing in defence of the proposition that knowledge of SHR is useful. You may very right about everything you say about me - you may be wrong - I am not interested in which, if any, it is - and whatever it happens to be it would still be irrelevant to the question "Is there any need for a commissioning engineer to have a good understanding of SHR control?".

You have gone silent on that quest? Are you avoiding it?

[nevgee]

I am standing in defence of the proposition that knowledge of SHR is useful.

I don't disagree with you on this.

.......it would still be irrelevant to the question "Is there any need for a commissioning engineer to have a good understanding of SHR control?".

You have gone silent on that quest? Are you avoiding it?

No not avoiding it at all, but it was your question that you were ranting on about not the one from the OP. We should be staying on topic and helping the guy to solve a problem, not adding confusion to the issue.

I can just imagine Winston Churchill trying to get the bouncing bomb into a mission and some boffin (aka yourself) arguing that there were some fundimental issues covering the triple point of water in Norway on a winter's night, that needed to be adressed and may have some bearing on the way the bomb may or may not bounce.

[DTLarca]

Problem is matey ...... your over enthusiastic, overwhelming "love" for thermodynamics has tended to cause a lot of peeps to yawn and ask the question ....Why are we listening to this?

It's not required at the moment... You seem to have gotten lost in your own world of over egged responses to an in field problem with a total loss vent system that isn't working.

Go back to the begining of this thread and read what the poor OP was asking in the first place.

He needed some help, not a rant on the mysteries of thermodynamics.

I feel sorry for you in some respects because I can understand how you want to give up the knowledge you hold so dearly, to those who aren't so fortunate to have the ability that you quite clealy have. I can see you're something of a very talented chap. You can quote garrulously with technical and philosphically sounding arguements. You hold a magical esteem of yourself which comes over something a tad pompous, and I suspect because of this challenging nature that you exude there have been a few people willing to run with you for a while. However, I wouldn't be suprised if the original poster has gone off wondering why he ever bothered .... because he didn't get any help from reading your pontifications about the benefits of SHR's

It would, in all fairness to willsmithiraq, been better to have moved your lectures over to another thread where you could discuss the flavour of the cheese in the moon to your heart's content.

The ad hominem fallacy is committed when an antagonist brings into the discussion an irrelevancy.

If someone argued that we should not take seriously the findings of a medical scientist who had researched the beneficial effects of jogging on the cardiovascular system on the grounds that the scientist was overweight and probably could not even run 100 yards then a matter utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand would have been introduced to the discussion. The antagonist might just as well have stated that in Spain it rains mainly on the plains for all it adds to the topic at hand. Because the two claims can be true at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. The one does not contradict the other and nor is the one contrary to the other. In which case the antagonist has merely changed the subject to an irrelevance.

As I say, you might even be right about your claims of me but this is not actually the time nor place to discuss such matters so I'd rather we get back onto the the other very unrelated topic of the benefits of understanding SHR manipulation.

You see, I am not asking people to take my claims on faith or on testament but instead by analysis of the evidence and argument I present. And anyway even if you were right about me none of that necessarily detracts on its own from any value my testament might have if it was mere testament rather than argument and evidence I was offering.

If someone is introducing an irrelevancy then it is good enough simply to remind them that they have changed the subject and that you would like to finish the discussing the topic at hand before moving on the other topics.

I cannot see how the original poster would be dished a disservice by all of the ensued technical speculations. You are introducing greater irrelevancies than I might have done in the first place - fighting fire with fire doesn't always word - sometimes it merely amounts to two wrongs.