I apologize for any misunderstanding,
My question is most definitely not "ridiculous."
What has become completely obvious is that you cannot quantify your assertions. That is ok, I can't quantify anything here either since I don't have access to the data necessary to answer those questions.
In any endeavor you have "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns." We've been talking about the "known unknowns" for quite some time now, and with access to good data it wouldn't be too hard to weight the known risks for probabilities for events. As an engineer I'm sure you are familiar with modeling consequences/systems in some fashion.
You answered with some certainty that the chamber was the "most likely the probable cause." I want to understand why you can be so certain because you must clearly know something that I don't.
Because it all comes back to the same data points that I have available, that Patrick Sweeney mentioned, that it wasn't a chamber mismatch under normal circumstances popping primers as the observed pressure increases weren't dramatic.
So, how can you be so certain, and yet not be able to quantify that certainty? In the engineering world, anything that can be quantified can be optimized, so wouldn't it be nice to put some numbers down?
I'm not an engineer, but my background is in science. One of the things considered good science is to not listen to "expert testimony" without looking at the data from that expert. Science is littered with experts who were wrong. And getting back to Ocham's razor, lets counter that bit of wisdom with this: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Jimro
You misunderstood my last response.
I was willing to put in the time and effort to provide serious and thoughtful responses as long as there was some progress in a constructive direction. When a discussion devolves to the point that one participant responds to a 500 word post by asking a ridiculous question like "Can you quantify "most likely"?", it's abundantly obvious that the discussion has ceased to be productive and has become waste of time for all involved.
My question is most definitely not "ridiculous."
What has become completely obvious is that you cannot quantify your assertions. That is ok, I can't quantify anything here either since I don't have access to the data necessary to answer those questions.
In any endeavor you have "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns." We've been talking about the "known unknowns" for quite some time now, and with access to good data it wouldn't be too hard to weight the known risks for probabilities for events. As an engineer I'm sure you are familiar with modeling consequences/systems in some fashion.
You answered with some certainty that the chamber was the "most likely the probable cause." I want to understand why you can be so certain because you must clearly know something that I don't.
Because it all comes back to the same data points that I have available, that Patrick Sweeney mentioned, that it wasn't a chamber mismatch under normal circumstances popping primers as the observed pressure increases weren't dramatic.
So, how can you be so certain, and yet not be able to quantify that certainty? In the engineering world, anything that can be quantified can be optimized, so wouldn't it be nice to put some numbers down?
I'm not an engineer, but my background is in science. One of the things considered good science is to not listen to "expert testimony" without looking at the data from that expert. Science is littered with experts who were wrong. And getting back to Ocham's razor, lets counter that bit of wisdom with this: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Jimro