Quote:
"
<<<
You want to find a simple way to duplicate a very complex process. You have left out a time parameter - how long do we leave it in the gas to decide whether or not it will gel? >>>>> "
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Laughable.
Einstein, how about within 9mo? Does that work for ya? Same as the Lister's mishap. BTW I said the time frame before, How is this not obvious?
Quote:
" <<<<
>>>>
"
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
READ MY POST AGAIN. The complexity and possibilities are MOOT if WW straight up gells, because that is exactly what you are trying to refute. You claim that WW won't gel, based on your "knowledge". If indeed WW gels in gas with no other interaction, modification or provisions that would prove you wrong. The simpler experiment would be easier, and gets to the heart of it. However for more accuracy, the experiment would indeed include conditions that are EASILY duplicable and representative, such as agitation, and or heat, etc... I didn't feel I needed to spell that out for you, as it seemed OBVIOUS that all reasonable efforts would be made. Regardless, if it straight up gelled without much fuss, at any point, End of story. If it does not gel, then you may well be correct and by our simple experiment we may never know the full truth. It would be too complex for us to prove.
[QUOTE]
<<<<>>>>
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Once more you distract from the focus. I realize it may be hard for you, but try and focus on the issue at hand: CAN WW GEL IN GAS. REPEAT it if you must. Maybe three times or more for you. Occurance in #3 is pure subterfuge. Maybe #3 line bung presents flow charactristics that makes the heavier WW coelesce there? Who knows? Moreover, who cares. WW jelling in gas is the issue REMEMBER????
[QUOTE]
<<<<>>>>"
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
No voodoo here. I'm all about pure science, and methodology. The logic of sufficient conditons by using the lowest common denomintors is valid. How you can lead away from that is mentally deficient. It's amazing how much you miss at your convenience. In 3 posts you leave out any mention of the lab's analysis. So you can see why you appear dense or evasive. Not sure which one is worse, but I don't care about that as much as getting to the truth.
If you would like a formal Hypothesis then I can draw one out for you. In fact, I can prolly outline the whole experiment. I know 2 Chemistry PhD's. One from CAL Tech, the other MIT. They're married! That scientific enough for you? So if want to go that route, I can get their take on this. My bet is that they will find nothing inherently unsuitable with what I propose. Not sure if I want to bother them about it at this point.
The experiment is solid, you can qualify if you wish. I warn you that anything beyond requiring a reasonable effort will be taken as stonewalling. I was being gracious in my earlier posts. Since you've changed your tune and gotten nasty I'm pulling off the gloves 
SO Jim, I anticipate 3 options for you:
1) You claim witch hunt, run and hide with your tail between your legs. (I'll try co-ordinating the experiment anyways depending on the analysis of the lab being posted.)
2) You further avoid the rationally obvious, CAN WW GEL IN GAS, with more technical half speak in hopes you can throw the focus.
3) Detail and qualify the experiment like a man, and be party to the learning experience and knowledge base of this open forum.
Which will it be? Time to put up or shut up.