I did a short metallurgy course at college many years ago and have forgotten most of it so Vixen probably knows as much as me.
Oh, we're just getting warmed up.
The half asking Vixen to admit she didn't know what she was talking about, I suppose. Because we all know that will never happen.
I shall stand amazed if the answer is an honest "yes".
Well, she more or less caved on the SwRI report. She might do so again here. We'll see how long she's willing to let herself be hoist on her own petard before I put her out of our misery.
Splendid! give me a moment to get a top-up then, and to adopt a listening position...
It all depends on whether Vixen is game to continue or whether she's going to head off to the sauna to clutch at her pearlites over what petty meanies we are.
From the article:
All you need to know.
And in fact it was I who pointed out to @Andy_Ross that Vixen had stumbled on the right spelling and definition, although likely by accident because she didn't crow about it until I said something.
If being married to a trial lawyer has taught me anything, it's how to cross-examine a hostile witness.
The field isn't yet clear of pitfalls for her. As with the perlite/pearlite fiasco, @Vixen doesn't seem to know that she's already made the mistakes.
I wonder if her "Chemistry PhD" friend is the same one who told her that prime symbols were "apostrophes." I can see how such a person would be a poor science proofreader.
Except that it's the same illogic as Evertsson's shell game with Prof. Amdahl. In order to produce the collision energy they say is needed, that's the size, speed, and impact geometry the vessel would need—if it were a collision with a vessel. So far they present no evidence of any such vessel. Kurm, of course, was entrenched in the submarine collision hypothesis. It seems little has changed.
I'm not convinced she actually wants to drop the subject; she wants the challenges to her claims to go away. Not quite the same thing.
As I said, pure conspiracism. They've apparently pulled out all the stops trying to make it seem like the conventional narrative is scientifically, physically impossible. But when it comes to applying the same standard of proof to their own claims—Hm, it "must" have been a collision.
The thing is, the search function works now, so it's simple to find examples of you posting the word "perlite", for example in the phrase, "changes respectively destruction of the cementite lamellas in the perlite".