EXCELLENT, and I don't mind a 'knowledgeable' devil's advocate. It's the ignorant I have no time for.
Agreed, and the first best way to improve reliability is to reduce the number of components, especially those doing redundant jobs.
Not always. Depends on how critical the components job is. For instance, going back to the nuclear power station, there's never one piece of equipment for a given function. Always at least two and in some cases three. Like the pumps that supply cooling water to the reactor. One can do the job but two are used to share the load (to increase reliability) and the third is on standby for a failure or if one is out of service for maintenance. This is an extreme example but the point is efficiency can take a backseat to reliability in some cases.
Right. My house is a bit small for redundant 5 Ton chillers, but any facility designed with these systems will be built around at least two or the units for the reasons you just described.
I hope you didn't actually read it and you are typing/speaking figuratively.
I scanned over it and lost braincells...I could hear em popping as the ******* rolled by.
I see a wall
he posted on his profile wall he was gunna do some acid
A logical explanation. Thank you very much for that, and timely too!
I couldn't stay with it... and then there was another one. It spilled together like opening all the paint cans at Sherwin Williams and tossing them around the parking lot.
It's a trip!
Guy wrote a crazy wall of text, I guess he's been running around the forum posting stuff;
You didn't miss much; it was long and rambling and no one could make batheads or chemtrails of it.
oh i read it thoroughly lol
