Power cut for eleven hours: how I assessed it afterwards

Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.

I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.

Checked the power cut for eleven hours claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.

Post #22 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

The useful distinction on power cut for eleven hours is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.

Taking post #35 at face value and following it one step further.

The reason power cut for eleven hours keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.

Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.

Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.

On post #93 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

An observation about power cut for eleven hours that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.

Visible particulate is a strong signal in the other direction: it is a reason to stop and ask rather than to filter and proceed.

I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.

Clarity is a weak test. A solution can lose a significant fraction of its active content to degradation or adsorption while remaining perfectly clear.

The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.