|
|
Al Wick wrote:
< might have had an engine failure at 50'
I don't know what to say Rich. You're convinced a filter with 10 times
the surface area is more likely to fail? All of the evidence says the
complete opposite. Why don't you come up with a real world test to prove
your point?
You could put your two methods side by side, then start adding debris.
-al
----- Original Message -----
*From:* ARGOLDMAN@aol.com <mailto:ARGOLDMAN@aol.com>
The benefit of being able to look at a filter element is the ability
to take some recourse if problems pop up. Inability to inspect stops
one from not knowing (although, for some, there is solace in that).
"If I can't see it, it must not be there."
I think the thrust of Rich's argument is in the snippet, which I would summarize as "Don't test and trust. Instead,
inspect and verify often."
However, it can be argued that inspection is a form of test. In which case, the viewpoints meld together like the
colors in a 70's rock video and become the one true way of quality assurance zen...Test early and often.
|
|