<VV> Re: blow up about questions about electric fans

[BobHelt at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/10/05 9:22:05 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
kirbyasmith at gwi.net writes:

> I take it Dennis that you aren't a fan of peer reviewed test plans.
> 
> kirby
> 
Hi Kirby,
I'm going to take the liberty of answering for Dennis. So it's not Dennis's 
opinion that follows, but just mine.

I think that peer reviews are an excellent opportunity to optimize and 
structure a program. No problem there. But (again, my opinion) this can only be done 
within the specified boundaries and variables of a program. Otherwise we are 
just brainstorming.


In regard to Tom's cooling sustem test, we have several constraints, some 
mentioned and some not. One of these is the fact this is a volunteer program. 
Second, this program must be effective and quick. Also, it should be a form of 
stress test to the cooling system WITHOUT stressing the engine into failure. So 
we want to find the limits of the cooling system, but not the limits of the 
engine. That is a delicate balance and I for one am not sure just how to reach 
that balance. My approach is to devise a rigorous test and place the 
implementation of that test in extremely capable hands (no pun intended). 
Instrumentation of test conditions and variables becomes critical then. Finally we are 
limited by the physical topography. An upgrade WOT test might be quick and dirty, 
but in some locations flat land is all we have to work with. In other locations 
we have high ambients and in others, not so. Which conditions are necessary?: 
A knowledgeable tester, hills, high ambients, excellent instrumentation? test 
plan (speed, duration, conditions, etc.)???

One wonders whether the peers who might do a review are aware of all these 
variables and restrictions.

Regards,
Bob Helt